Vol. 80; No. 1; October 1, 2003
One-year's trial subscription1/2
price!!
EDITORIAL POLICY
Every editor is solely responsible for the contents
of his own articles. Contributions of general interest from our readers and questions for
"The Reader Asks" department are
welcome. Contributions will be limited to approximately 300 words and must be neatly
written or typewritten, and must be signed. Copy deadlines are the first and fifteenth of
the month. All communications relative to the contents should be sent to the editorial
office.
REPRINT POLICY
Permission
is hereby granted for the reprinting of articles in our magazine by other publications,
provided: a) that such reprinted articles are reproduced in full; b) that proper
acknowledgment is made; c) that a copy of the periodical in which such reprint appears is
sent to our editorial office.
SUBSCRIPTION POLICY
Subscription
price: $17.00 per year in the US., US $20.00 elsewhere. Unless a definite request for
discontinuance is received, it is assumed that the subscriber wishes the subscription to
continue, and he will be billed for renewal. If you have a change of address, please
notify the Business Office as early as possible in order to avoid the inconvenience of
interrupted delivery. Include your Zip or Postal Code.
BOUND VOLUMES
The
Business Office will accept standing orders for bound copies of the current volume. Such
orders are mailed as soon as possible after completion of a volume year.
l6mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm and 105mm
microfiche, and article copies are available through University Microfilms international.
For new subscribers in the United States to the Standard Bearer, there is a special offer: a ˝ price subscription for one year--$8.50. Those in other countries can write for special rates as well to: The Standard Bearer, P.O. Box 603, Grandville, MI 49468-0603 or e-mail Mr. Don Doezema.
Each issue of the Standard Bearer is available on cassette tape for those who are blind, or who for some other reason would like to be able to listen to a reading of the SB. This is an excellent ministry of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church. The reader is Ken Rietema of Southeast Church. Anyone desiring this service regularly should write:
Southeast PRC
1535 Cambridge Ave. S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506.
Table of Contents:
Meditation - Rev. Ronald VanOverloop
Editorials - Prof. David J. Engelsma
Letters
Marking the Bulwarks of Zion Prof. Herman C. Hanko
That They May Teach Them to Their Children Prof. Russell J. Dykstra
Ministering to the Saints Rev. Douglas J. Kuiper
All Around Us Rev. Gise J. Van Baren
Taking Heed to the Doctrine Rev. James Laning
Report of Classis West
Book Review
News of the Churches Mr. Benjamin Wigger
Rev. VanOverloop is pastor of Georgetown Protestant
Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan.
I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord,
beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all
lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Therefore.
Undeniable logic. Inevitable deduction. This word makes it obvious that there is a very
close relationship between the previous and what follows.
It is important to note this relationship here because with chapter four the
inspired apostle begins that portion of his epistle where he applies to the lives of the
Ephesians the doctrinal truths he taught in the first three chapters.
With the word
therefore, the inspired apostle is showing that there is a very close
relationship between doctrine and life, between the truths believed and the lives lived by
those who believe the truths. Our believing
the doctrinal truths presented in the first three chapters of this epistle requires
a certain walk in holiness. We are called
to live out the doctrines we believe.
We must be careful not to
separate doctrine and practice. The practical
implications of the doctrines must be taken to heart by the more intellectual believers;
and the doctrinal truths that are the basis for how one lives must not be minimized by the
more experiential believers.
There is in the first
verse another word that teaches us that there must be a close relationship between what
one believes and how one lives. It is the
word worthy. The walk of a
believer as presented in the previous chapters is to be worthy of those
truths. A worthy walk is one
that is becoming to, suitable to, or matches with the truth. The walk ought not clash with the truth believed. We are called to take care that our life be
consistent with the teachings and the calling. One
of the purposes of the believers life is that it is to make the doctrine attractive,
to cause people to admire it and to desire it. We
are to live the kind of life that adorns the doctrines of Scripture. That is the way our Father who is in heaven will
be glorified (Matt.
5:16).
The relationship between
what we believe and how we live should be very close.
Not always, however, is it so. The
flesh of every believer lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the
other: so that ye cannot do the things that
ye would (Gal. 5:17). The believer is not always consistent. He believes these wonderful truths, but he does
not always evidence them by the way in which he lives.
This inconsistency (sin) is a constant source of humility!
The knowledge of this
inconsistency is what occasions the inspired apostle Paul to beseech
Christians. He is urgently asking, imploring,
the Ephesian Christians of his day as well as all believers today. A consistent walk is a matter of great concern to
the apostle. Later he will command them and argue with them, but here he beseeches them
and us.
To strengthen his appeal,
the apostle makes it clear that he is writing to them as someone who experientially knows
of what he speaks. He appeals to them as
the prisoner of the Lord. It is
believed that at the time of this writing Paul was in prison. He was living the life of a prisoner because he
was a slave of Jesus Christ, loyal to Him and striving always to be obedient to Him. As a consequence of his faithful walk, he was
imprisoned. So when Paul beseeches the
Ephesian believers, he was at that moment experiencing the consequences of a walk worthy
of his calling. As a prisoner of the Lord, Paul beseeches the believers to live as he is
living a life that is consistent with what they believe (even if it means
imprisonment). They are not their own; they
belong to their Lord. They ought therefore to
live out of the desire only to please Him a life that is worthy of their
relationship to Him.
Those who are able to believe the truth have been called. This ability is theirs because they have a
vocation. We have been
called out of darkness into his marvellous light that we should shew
forth the praises of him who hath called us (I Pet. 2:9).
Those whom God predestinated unto the
adoption of children (Eph. 1:5),
them He also called (Rom. 8:30). Christianity is not something that a man decides
to take up and do. It is something into which we have been called. We received not only the external gospel call
heard in the preaching, but also the internal, effectual call made by the Spirit with our
spirit. This call separated the Ephesian
Christians from all other Gentiles (4:17), and this call separates us from all
who do not believe. This call moves us into a
new position, the position of being saved, for whom he called, them he also
justified.
What is the walk that is
worthy of the calling to which every believer is called?
In general, it is the walk of godliness it is constantly renewing the spirit
of our mind so that we put off the old man and put on the new man (4:22-24). Over the course of the next three chapters Paul
will apply the doctrines to the whole life of believers.
However, there is one specific area of the worthy walk of the believer that the
inspired apostle presents first, namely, preserving the unity of the church. This is of greatest importance. The truths the Spirit used him to explain and
acclaim in the first three chapters are pressing on him this specific aspect of the
believers walk, namely, a walk that preserves the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace. For the next sixteen verses Paul will
direct himself to this one aspect of the worthy life.
And after that he does not leave it and go on to something else. Rather, he uses the need to keep the unity of the
church as the basis for several other admonitions in the rest of this epistle.
The Ephesian believers
(and all believers with them) have been called out of spiritual darkness in order to live
in a manner that illustrates that they were blessed with all spiritual blessings in
heavenly places in Christ (1:3). A worthy
walk is necessary because God chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world,
that they should be holy and without blame before Him (1:4). Their walk should manifest the fact that they have
been predestinated unto the adoption of children and are now of the household of God (1:5;
2:19). Further, the truth that God is
gathering together in one all things in Christ is to be evident in the walk of those who
believe this truth a walk that is consistent with this truth. The converted Gentiles in Ephesus have heard the
preaching of peace (2:17), and the wall between them and the converted Jews has been
broken down and they are now one in Christ, who is their peace (2:14, 15). They are one body and one building (2:16, 21, 22).
Is it any wonder that the
chief characteristic of a walk worthy of our calling is the keeping of the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace? Election unites
all saints in Christ. The one blood of Christ
makes each elect to be a part of Gods one family.
Over against the disruptive, dividing power of sin, it is Gods purpose to
unite all things in Christ, and this is manifested already in the unity salvation makes of
the saved Gentiles with the saved Jews. This
is why, when it comes to the particulars of the Christian life, the first thing mentioned
is the preservation of this unity. The
preservation of the churchs unity powerfully reveals to the world that there is one
body and one Spirit, one hope and one faith, one Lord, and one God and Father. It is,
above all else, the preserving of this unity that gives God glory.
To speak of the unity of
the church as the unity of the Spirit instructs us concerning the character or
nature of this unity. It clearly implies that
while this unity may express itself visibly and externally, it is first spiritual and
internal. The Spirit works this unity in the
spirits of those chosen by God in Christ, testifying to their spirits that they are the
children of God children in the same family, all having the same Father.
Also, the unity of the
church is the unity of the Spirit because it is the Spirit who makes this unity. The church is not made one by the human spirit of
friendliness. The members of the body
dont produce this unity. The Holy
Spirit does! We cannot make this unity. That is why we are called to keep it, that is, not
to break the unity already made by the Spirit. This
unity is a living, organic unity, arising from within and working itself out. As the unity of the members of the human body is
not made by the members, so the members of Christs body do not make themselves to be
one in Him. The unity of the human body is
that there is one life flowing through them all. So
the members of Christs body have one life, the life of the Spirit, flowing through
each of them. Further, this unity is
experienced only by those in whom the Spirit dwells and enlightens. It was exactly when Peter saw the Spirit in
Cornelius that he was convinced of the unity (Acts 10:47).
Their nationality was quite different, but
that did not destroy their unity. It is the
presence of the Spirit in two people that enables them to have true fellowship.
The calling of every member of the body of Christ with respect to this unity is to
keep it. The word used by the
Spirit means to attend to carefully, to guard or preserve. While we are not to make the unity, we are called
to guard the unity that already exists by the work of the Spirit. We are to accept the responsibility of constantly
guarding this unity.
To what extent are we
called to keep it? We are to
endeavor. Today the word
endeavor means only that we are attempting to do something. However, the Greek word translated
endeavoring is more than attempting or trying.
It means to be diligent, and comes from a word that speaks of haste. Therefore, the effort called for by the inspired
apostle is great. We are to hurry to do
something. We are to show great concern. This is not something that we do infrequently, but
we are to have a great concern that this unity of the body of Christ is manifested. We are to preserve it at all costs. We are to be diligent to manifest it.
When the Holy Spirit calls
believers to endeavor to keep the unity of the church, He does so by having us focus, not
on the other members of the church, but on our attitudes toward others. Three things are to characterize the attitude of
one who is greatly concerned about guarding the churchs unity: longsuffering, forbearing, and love. Longsuffering means that we hold
ourselves in control for a long time. This is
over against giving way to our desires. As
God suffers long with us, so we must endure those in the body who irritate us. Forbearing means that we exercise
self-restraint and that we tolerantly bear with them. Instead of retaliating or
criticizing or demanding that they change, we are called to develop the attribute of
forbearance. We are not to dismiss them or be
contemptuous of them, but we are to bear with them because we are greatly concerned about
maintaining the unity of the Spirit. And
positively we are to forbear one another in love. Instead of just enduring our fellow-saints who
irritate us, we are called to love them because between us there is the bond of
perfectness (Col. 3:13,14).
We are to make the conscious decision to
enjoy the bond God has made between us, deciding to be interested in them and concerned
about them, praying for them.
The only way any Christian
can exercise himself in love, being longsuffering and forbearing, is by consciously
developing and maintaining an inner disposition of lowliness and meekness. Lowliness is humility of mind. It is in sharp contrast to pride and
self-assertion. Humility is described in
Scripture as one of the chief marks of the followers of Christ, who humbled Himself
supremely. Humility is having a clear and
correct understanding of our sins and sinfulness, so we recognize ourselves to be the chief
of sinners and less than the least of all saints (3:8).
Most often we cannot forbear and be longsuffering with fellow-members of the body
of Christ because we are looking down on them, seeing them as worse sinners than we are,
thinking that we would never do what they did. Humility
puts every other member of Christs body above us, as better than we are.
Meekness is
the virtue of inner mildness or gentleness. It
is the inner strength that accommodates anothers weakness. It is to be considerate of another. And it is the willingness to suffer wrong from
them. Instead of retaliating, the meek are
willing to commit the matter to God who will judge righteously (I Pet. 2:23).
It is our sinful conceits that often cause
division in the church. The flesh of every
Christian quickly takes pride in family, nationality, talents, status, job, and
accomplishments. It is this flesh that must
be crucified and put off. And what must be
put on is humility and meekness.
This beautiful inner
disposition of lowliness and meekness is something the Christian is called to exercise
all the time with all lowliness and meekness, the
text reads. In every situation and at all
times. This is to be the fundamental
disposition and character of every Christian. Then
we can be longsuffering and forbearing. And
this is the way we keep the unity of the church in the bond of peace.
The unity of the Spirit is
bound together in peace. To the degree that
we are peaceable and peacemakers, we will preserve the peace and unity of the church. This is the great end of all the doctrine taught
in the first three chapters of this letter to the Ephesians. If you have been called to believe those precious
doctrinal truths, then you are called to walk worthy of this calling. And the most important part of such a worthy walk
is to preserve the unity of the church.
Preserve this unity of the
Spirit! Make every effort to preserve it by
constantly working to develop the spiritual virtues of lowliness and meekness.
The
Testimony of Scripture
The testimony of Scripture is that
God has ordered, or structured, that basic sphere of human life known as labor in such a
way that the owner of the farm or business has authority from God to govern. He certainly has a calling from God toward the
workers, a calling to give the workers that which is just and equal, or
fair (Col. 4:1). But he has authority, Gods own authority,
and the duty of the worker is to submit and obey.
There are other reasons
why labor union membership is sinful, and these will be mentioned presently. But the central issue is this: in the realm of labor, the owner, or management,
has the right to rule, so that the Christian worker must submit.
Scripture addresses the
matter of the Christians behavior in the sphere, or ordinance, of labor. It addresses the matter repeatedly. Usually, it addresses this aspect of the
Christians earthly life in connection with the other spheres of life: marriage; family (parents and children); state, or
civil government; and church.
These passages, among
others, are the Word of God regulating the life of the Christian workingman in the sphere
of labor:
Ephesians
6:5-8: Servants, be obedient to
them that are your masters according to the flesh.
Colossians
3:22-25: Servants, obey in all
things your masters according to the flesh.
I
Timothy 6:1ff.: Let as many
servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor.
Titus 2:9ff.:
Exhort servants to be obedient unto
their own masters.
Philemon: the run-away
slave, Onesimus, is sent back to his master, to serve him again.
I Peter
2:18ff.: Servants, be subject to
your masters with all fear; the apostle adds: not
only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
James 5:1-11,
where the description of the godly conduct of the worker is, he doth not resist
you.
In view of the fact that
the Word of God orders our life in all other spheres, it would be exceedingly strange if
Scripture did not command us how to live in the sphere of labor. Indeed, it would be culpable failure on the part
of the Spirit of inspiration to leave us in the dark, how to live in this vitally
important sphere of earthly life. The Spirit
is guilty of no such failure. The passages
quoted above set forth the will of God for the Christian workingman clearly and fully.
Some attempt to evade the
will of God for the laborer, and thus evacuate Scripture of its instruction regarding the
sphere of labor, by arguing that the New Testament passages refer to the outdated system
of slave-master and slave. The argument
fails.
First, Scripture sometimes
refers to hired laborers, to workingmen who are not owned by the master, but rather
work for a wage. This is the case in I Peter
2:18ff., which speaks of servants, not slaves. This is also the case in James 5, which
speaks of the hire of the laborers (v. 4).
Second, although it is
true that slavery was the prevalent form labor took at that time, the principles laid down
by Scripture apply, not to that one specific form, but to all forms of labor in all ages.
Third, the fact that the
laborer was a slave does not detract from the calling of the free worker today, to
submit, but emphasizes this calling even more strongly. If slaves had to submit for Gods sake, how
much more, workingmen today, whose circumstances are in any case far better than those of
slaves.
Rebellion
The labor unions, and thus
all their members, are guilty of rebellion against lawful authority, just as is the case
with a rebellious child, or a revolutionary against the state. Labor unionism is transgression of the fifth
commandment of the law of God, Honor thy father and thy mother, as is evident
from the Heidelberg Catechisms explanation of the commandment in Lords Day 39:
That I
show all honor, love, and fidelity to my father and mother and all in authority over
me, and submit myself to their good instruction and correction with due obedience; and
also patiently bear with their weaknesses and infirmities, since it pleases God to govern
us by their hand (emphasis added).
The labor union is an
organization of laborers, not merely for the purpose of collective bargaining, but for the
purpose of regulating the business or industry according to the will of the laborers. The labor union enforces the will of the laborers
by the strike. This enforcement of the will
of the laborers against the will of the employer, which is of the very essence of
the union, is rebellion. It is rebellion by
force and violence, for the strike is the power to destroy the particular business and
ruin the owner.
Out of this fundamental
evil of the union flows all the violence characteristic of labor unions. The unions are committed to the class struggle
propounded by Marx, and many constitutions say so. Naturally,
the strike, which is as such an act of violence, breaks out in destruction of property,
threat and injury, hatred of scabs, and murder.
Corporate
Responsibility
Every member of the union,
whether he participates in the violence or not, whether he wholeheartedly approves or is
upset by the violence, is responsiblefully responsible before Godfor the
unions violence, so that in the day of judgment he will have to account for it. He willingly joined an organization committed to
rebellion against God-ordained authority. By
his membership and dues, if not by walking the picket line, he supported an organization
that forces the owner to submit to the will of the workers, that destroys property, and
that injures and kills those who oppose it.
When the enforcers of the
strike crushed the head of the truck driver on I-80/94 east of South Holland, Illinois
with chunks of concrete as part of the truckers strike, every member of the
Teamsters Union became a murderer before God. Every
member of the Union was guilty of crushing the head of that driver as much as if he had
hurled the chunks of concrete with his own hands.
This is the principle,
ordained of God, revealed in the Bible, and acknowledged widely in everyday life, of
corporate responsibility. Have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them (Eph. 5:11). Let the labor union member professing Christianity
try once to reprove the union and the other members sharply at a labor union
meeting! Come out of her, my people,
that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Rev. 18:4).
Other
Evils, Spiritual and Civil
There are other biblical
grounds for objecting to labor union membership. I
mention four.
Scripture teaches that the
human may swear unconditional allegiance only to God.
It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve (Matt.
4:10). Unions require the member to
pledge, or swear, unconditional allegiance and obedience to the union. Typical is the oath required for membership by the
International Typographical Union quoted by First Churchs Testimony,
referred to in the first installment of this series of editorials:
I hereby solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will not reveal any business or proceedings of any meeting of this or any subordinate union to which I may hereafter be attached, unless by order of the union, except to those whom I know to be in good standing thereof; that I will, without evasion or equivocation, and to the best of my ability abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and the adopted scale of prices of any union to which I may belong; that I will at all times support the laws, regulations and decisions of the International Typographical Union, and will carefully avoid giving aid or succor to its enemies, and use all honorable means within my power to procure employment for members of the International Typographical Union in preference to others; that my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, social, political, or religious, secret or otherwise that I will not wrong a member, or see him or her wronged, if in my power to prevent. To all of which I pledge my most sacred honor (emphasis added).
This is idolatry.
Scripture calls the
believer to brotherly communion only with fellow believers and forbids fellowship with the
ungodly. Be ye not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14).
The unions are brotherhoods. Constitutionally, they are brotherhoods. A Christian who is member of a union expresses
that he views unbelieving, ungodly men and women as spiritual brothers and sisters
(obviously the unions are not referring to physical brotherhood); that he shares their
principles and goals regarding labor; and that he cooperates with themis yoked
together with themin achieving their goals as member of their family. This is flagrant breach of the antithesis.
Scripture instructs the
Christian to seek the kingdom of God first, and not earthly things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and
his righteousness; and all these things [food, drink, clothing] shall be added unto
you (Matt.
6:33). The labor union puts wages and
benefits above all else. This is materialism,
naked materialism. In its appeal to
President Roosevelt in 1941, the synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches declared,
We refuse to become members of the Union because we condemn the principles of utter
materialism of the Union.
A fourth reason for
objecting to labor union membership is often overlooked.
The Word of God demands that we promote the kingdom of Christ with our money. This is an aspect of our stewardship regarding all
our life in the world, for which we shall also give account in the final judgment. A certain nobleman went into a far country
to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And
he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till
I come
. Wherefore then gavest not thou
my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
(Luke
19:11-27).
As World magazine
pointed out in the issue of November 30, 2002, the labor unions spend billions of dollars
of the members union dues every year to support the most liberal political
candidates and their anti-Christian agendas. Thus,
the unions aggressively, and effectively, promote abortion, the homosexual movement, the
outlawing of capital punishment, and the like. In
fact, the labor unions, through their political lackeys, are one of the most powerful
forces driving the liberal agenda in the United States.
Many [unions] have moved on to funding liberal causes such as abortion-on-demand and school-based sexual-health clinics, opposing conservative causes such as school choice and welfare reform, and strongly supporting liberal candidates (Dues & Donts, World, Nov. 30, 2002, pp. 17-19).
By his voluntary
membership, the member of a labor union contributes to and promotes the swelling tide of
corruption in our country. Knowingly and
willingly, he pays for the coming of Antichrist.
In addition to these
biblical condemnations of labor union membership, labor unionism is un-American. The demand that a worker join a union in order to
have a job and the exclusion of a citizen from the workforce because he refuses to join a
union are contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Certainly one of the most precious aspects of the
earthly freedom recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to work. All those politicians who support big labor by
working for the closed shop are enemies of freedom.
(to be concluded)
The editor of the Standard
Bearer presented the following letter to the staff of the magazine (writers and
managing editor) at their annual meeting this past June.
I accept
your appointment to be editor of the Standard Bearer for another year.
I will not
be available for reappointment next year.
In 2004, I
will have served as editor for sixteen years. I
desire to be relieved of the burden.
Also, next
year, if God gives me life, I will be sixty-five. I
think it good for the magazine and its witness that another, younger man assume the
responsibility of editor.
I advise
the staff to appoint a committee at this meeting, to find a man who will take over the
editorship of the Standard Bearer beginning October 1, 2004.
In accordance with the
advice of this letter, the staff is presently seeking a new editor. He will take over as editor with the October 1,
2004 issue of the magazine.
Following the proposals of
their editorial committee, the staff decided on two changes of the content of the magazine
in the next volume-year (beginning October 1, 2003).
The rubric Search
the Scripture will take the form of thorough exposition of entire books of the
Bible. Such exposition will help our readers
in their systematic study of Scripture, perhaps in preparing for the Bible study classes
in the congregations. Eventually, some of
these explanations of entire books may be published as commentaries in book form. We begin with an exposition of Haggai by Rev. Ron
Hanko. Our thanks to Rev. Martin VanderWal
for his past work with this rubric.
We are dropping the rubric
Contending for the Faith. We
thank Rev. Bernie Woudenberg for his contributions.
The editorial committee
has planned a special, Reformation issue on John Calvin.
It is high time that we feature the life and work of the Reformed Reformer. This will be the October 15, 2003 issue.
Although this has nothing
to do with the staff meeting, I take this opportunity to thank Judi Doezema for the
comprehensive index to volume 79 of the Standard Bearer that appeared in the
September 15 issue.
The issue of October 1,
2003 begins volume 80 of this magazine. Eighty
years of continuous publishing of the Standard Bearer! Eighty years during which the message of the
magazine has not changed! In October 2003, as
in October 1924, the message is the riches of the Reformed faith and life as set forth in
the Three Forms of Unity on the basis of inspired Scripture.
Long may this witness to
the glory of our sovereign God and to the comfort of His covenant people continue in the Standard
Bearer!
The Protestant Reformed Sunday
School Teachers Association has just published a complete explanation of the history of
the New Testament in three hardcover volumes. The
set is titled Upon This Rock. Volume one treats Jesus Christ: His Earthly Ministry; volume two,
Jesus Christ: His Death and
Resurrection; and volume three, Jesus Christ:
His Acts Through the Apostles.
The author is long-time
writer of the Our Guide Sunday School materials, Don Doezema. The three volumes publish in book form articles
Mr. Doezema wrote some years ago for parents to use in teaching their older children.
The books arrange the
history of the New Testament in chronological order.
They relate the history in simple, lively, engaging fashion. But they do more than tell the story. The books explain the history, bringing out the
doctrinal and practical meaning of the historical events.
In treating the history of Simon the Sorcerer, in Acts 8:9-24,
Mr. Doezema writes:
We do better, before we leave the story or Simon, to consider for a moment how the inclusion of that bit of history in the biblical record can be profitable for us. It is a warning, certainly, against the sin of simonya sin that might seem a bit far removed from us. We do well, however, to consider carefully the nature and purpose of spiritual gifts. Notice first of all that they are gifts of the Spirit, conferred by the grace of God. Note further that they are to be used, not for personal gain (other than spiritual, that is) but for the edification of the church. Simon wished to use the gifts of the Spirit for mercenary reasons. We do the same today if in our use of spiritual gifts we are motivated by a desire to put ourselves on the foreground or to win the esteem of men. Think on what Calvin says concerning the purpose of gifts of the Spirit: . . . that each one may unassumingly apply the gift, that he has received, for the common benefit of the Church; and that the superiority of no individual may prevent Christ alone standing out above them all (vol. 3, pp. 96, 97).
As the quotation shows,
one of the valuable features of the work throughout is Doezemas apt citation of
good, solid biblical scholars, including Calvin, Edersheim, Lenski, Herman Hoeksema,
Ophoff, and Herman Hanko. The quotations are
always brief, never tedious. In this way, the
reader benefits from the insights of worthy scholars without the trouble of looking up the
passages in their books or articles.
This treatment of New
Testament is succinct. Each chapter,
explaining a particular event or a number of related events, runs from six to eight pages.
Helpful, and interesting,
is the light shed on events from the history of the Old Testament and from extra-biblical
sources. The explanation of the appearance of
the angel to Zacharias in the temple informs the reader concerning the ceremony of burning
incense (vol. 1, pp. 2-5). The treatment of
Pauls work in Corinth indicates the notorious depravity of that citythe San
Francisco or Amsterdam of its day (vol. 3, pp. 266, 267).
Doezema does not avoid the
difficulties. Where there are legitimate
differences of opinion, he gives both possibilities and leaves the issue an open question
(although often stating his own judgment on the matter).
An instance is the question whether the Ethiopian eunuch was literally a eunuch. Lenski says he was; Calvin says he was not. Doezema leaves the question
undecided, but not before expressing his preference for the view of Lenski (vol. 3,
pp. 101, 102).
The account of Pauls
mission labors recorded in Acts, in volume 3 of the set, refers to corresponding teachings
in the epistles. The treatment of the
Jerusalem Council, for example, as recorded in Acts 15, calls
attention to Pauls epistle to the Galatians and the doctrinal issues in this
epistle.
Parents, Sunday School
teachers, Christian school teachers, and even ministers will find this work useful in
teaching children the history of the New Testament. All
will find it instructive and edifying for themselves.
Each volume contains a
complete textual index with passages on which chapters are based in bold print. There is also an index of subjects.
The covers show the
attractive design we are coming to expect from Jeff Steenholdt.
The price of the three
volumes is $30 ($10 per volume) plus shipping. Each
volume is more than four hundred pages. Orders
should be sent to the Protestant Reformed Seminary, 4949 Ivanrest Ave., SW, Grandville, MI 49418.
Members of the Protestant
Reformed Churches are advised that these books will be made available to them within their
own congregations through the local Sunday School association.
Your editorial on Jean Taffins little book [The Marks of Gods Children, Baker, 2003] in the
August 2003 Standard Bearer was a blessing. Especially
I was heartened to find another who so well described my feelings about excess
introspection combined with a deficit of trust, joy, assurance, and praise. I have put the editorial in my assurance file. It should also guide me away from some
Reformed preachers and groups.
Lewis
Price
Batesville,
AR
Please allow me to make a few remarks on the matter of lying, addressed in SB of April 15, 2003, p. 322, and SB of July 2003,
p. 415.
We should be weary of
applying our Western, static notion of truth and falsehood to Gods Word. We always expect the word truth to be
used as a predicative attribute or adjective as in this is the truth. However, the Bible uses expressions such as
to walk in the truth (I Kings 2:4;
3:6; Ps. 26:3;
II John 4;
III John
3, 4), to obey the truth (Gal. 3:1; 5:7;
I Peter
1:22), and to do (work, perform) the truth (II Chron. 31:20,
Micah 7:20,
John 3:21,
Rom. 2:8,
I John
1:6). This indicates that the truth is
not an abstract entity that can be easily judged externally but that it pertains to a
lifestyle that is desirous to have a good conscience toward God, accompanied with actual
deeds, yielding completely to Him, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
That some instances of
lying in the Bible seem to be condoned cannot be satisfactorily explained because personal
motives would have been pure or that there were compelling circumstances, but it can be
explained because there was a conflict between a lower command and a higher command,
between an earthly treasure and a spiritual treasure.
Jacobs priority was to have the covenantal blessing of Isaac, whereas Esau
despised his birthright. Marys priority
was to sit at Jesus feet, whereas Martha could not set the household needs aside ( Luke 10). Jesus deals with this priority theme in the
parable of the Unjust Steward ( Luke 16). For the midwives there was a conflict between the
command of lower pharaoh to kill and the command of almighty God not to kill. For Rahab there was a choice between perishing
with the Canaanites and finding protection with the people of God. The key to understand the condoning of the lying
is found in the fact that they feared God more than men.
Concerning the midwives it says emphatically in Exodus 1:17
and in 1:21 that they feared God. In Joshua
2:9-11, trembling Rahab expresses her fear because of the terror and the mighty acts
of God.
When there is a conflict
between obeying God and obeying men, Christians should have no problem making a choice (Acts 5:29). It is my conviction that those who lied against
the Nazis in WW II did so because they feared God, who commands not to kill, more
than Hitler, whose intent was to annihilate the Jews.
Let us, who live sixty years away from WW II, stand in awe of the heroic deeds
of faith whereby these liars risked, and many times paid with, their lives.
Nevertheless, the point of
your article is well made. We are prone to
lie because of selfish, earthly reasons. Then
our heart will condemn us (I John
3:20, 21). We must certainly be critical
of our own motives and see whether they are genuinely rooted in the fear of God. But I am sure that betrayal of a Jew would have
gnawed more at the conscience than speaking a lie to a Nazi.
May God continue to bless
your beautiful magazine!
J.
L. Reckman
Aylmer,
Ontario
Canada
Prof.
Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed
Seminary.
The
Synod of Dordt
It is not our purpose to give a
history of the Synod of Dordt in this article, but we do wish to sum up the work of the
synod, particularly its composition and adoption of the Canons, and the significance of
this synod for the history of the Reformed faith.
Over the years a debate
has been carried on between defenders of the Westminster Confessions and people loyal to
Dordt over the question of whether the Synod of Dordt or the Westminster Assembly is the
greatest assembly of divines in post-Reformation times.
I am not interested in entering the debate. Nor
is there any answer to the question that will satisfy.
The meetings were for different purposes. They
were brought about by different circumstances. They
produced different types of documents. And
they are of significance for different parts of the Calvinistic church world.
Nevertheless, the Synod of
Dordt was one of the great ecclesiastical assemblies of all time. To note a few reasons why this is true would be
worth our while.
First of all, the Arminian
controversy itself is instructive and enlightening, because it gives us an insight into
the way heretics usually operate in the church. Heretics
attempt to clothe their erroneous positions in ambiguous and outwardly orthodox language. Their motive is deception. They attempt to present aberrations from the faith
as genuine Reformed doctrine. They plead that
they are simply stating old truths in new and fresh ways, or that they are giving the
people of God fresh and innovative insights into long-cherished doctrines. But they lie.
A noted Presbyterian
theologian of the last century, Samuel Miller, writes thus of Arminius:
This is a painful narrative. It betrays a want of candour and integrity on the part of a man [Arminius] otherwise respectable, which it affords no gratification even to an adversary to record. It may be truly said, however, to be the stereotyped history of the commencement of every heresy which has arisen in the Christian church. When heresy arises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the old dead orthodoxy, and having left behind many of its antiquated errors, as they differ from it only in words. This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity.
As heretics spread their
views in the church and attempt to persuade others, they plead for toleration, but
toleration only so long as they are in the minority.
As soon as they detect that their views are ready to be received into the church,
they become, towards those who oppose them, the most intolerant of people. One author writes: The toleration which
these men [the Arminians] pleaded for, was precisely like that which Papists demand as
emancipation that is, power and full liberty to draw over others to their party by
every artful means, till they become strong enough to refuse toleration to all other
men.
The Canons arose out of
controversy in which the truth of God Himself was at stake.
Secondly, the significance
of the synod lies in the fact that it was international in character. Delegates from every Reformed country and province
in Europe were present, with the exception of delegates from France, who were refused
passage out of their country. The
intellectual and spiritual gifts of the delegates are astounding. The list of delegates reads like a
Whos Who of Europes outstanding theologians. They were all devoted to the Reformed faith
though some to a greater degree than others. The
only real sympathizers of the Arminian position were the delegates from Bremen and two of
the delegates from England. The Canons are an
expression of what Europe, one hundred years after the beginning of the Reformation,
considered to be the truth of Scripture, of the Reformed confessions, and of the Reformed
churches of Europe.
Thirdly, the Canons are a
sharp and unambiguous condemnation of all forms of Arminianism. It would be difficult to improve on the Canons in
any respect, for their negative refutation and positive statement of the truth are
unexcelled in the history of the church. One
will not find a clearer statement of the error of Arminianism than there is in the
declarations of the synod that met in Dordrecht.
This implies several other
truths concerning the Canons. In the first
place, the Canons connect unmistakably the error of Arminianism with the error of
Pelagianism, and, indeed, call Arminianism the old Pelagian heresy resurrected out of
hell.
In the second place, the
Canons repudiate all the implications of the Arminian error, even a conditional salvation. Dr. Fred Klooster, long-time professor of
theology in Calvin Theological Seminary, could say: the
Canons refute an Arminianism [which] is characterized by conditionalism. The very word
condition, when it appears at all, is found in the mouth of the
Arminian.
Thirdly, the Canons
repudiate every effort to smuggle into the church Arminianism under the guise of a grace
common to all men and a general desire on Gods part to save all men. But, while the Canons are devastating in their
repudiation of the Arminianism implied in these doctrines, the Canons do not become
hyper-Calvinist or radically one-sided. They
insist that the gospel must be preached to all to whom God is pleased to send it. They teach clearly that in the gospel is both the
promise of salvation to all who believe and the command of God that men turn from their
sins and believe in Christ. And when dealing
with predestination, the Canons are careful to point out that election and reprobation are
one decree, that that one decree is absolutely sovereign, but that the conclusion may not
be drawn that as election is the fountain and cause of faith, reprobation is in the
same manner the cause of unbelief.
Fourthly, the Canons are
solid in their discussion of the extent of the atonement.
In their statement concerning this doctrine, they specifically state that the
extent of the atonement, also in the purpose of God, is limited to the elect and to
them only. This is stronger than the
Westminster Confessions. While limiting the
extent of the atonement to the elect, Westminster, in full awareness of what Dordt had
decided, deliberately dropped the exclusionary phrase, and for them only. At least in part this was done because of serious
objections to it by the Amyraldians who were present on the Assembly.
All these characteristics
of the Canons make them an insurmountable barrier against Arminianism. The Canons served that purpose in the seventeenth
century; they continue to serve that purpose today. The
only way to introduce Arminianism into the church is to bypass the Canons. And so it happens.
The significance of the
Canons lies further in the fact that the Canons are explanations of some points of
doctrine found in the Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. The Arminians wanted the confessions to be revised
so as to make them more congenial to their heresies.
The Reformed churches at Dordt insisted that these confessions were the truth of
the Scriptures and that the Canons only made explicit what was implicit in them.
Yet, the Canons appeal as
proof of their statements to Scripture alone. The
synod was forced to do this. The Arminians
insisted on it and the government laid this down as the one restriction that the synod was
to observe. And so the Canons prove their
teachings from Scripture alone. But this does
not mean that they wanted to separate the Canons from the other two creeds. Nor did it mean that the fathers at Dordt conceded
the point that doctrine had to be proved from Scripture alone. They specifically, in the Formula of Subscription,
which Dordt drew up, stated that all officebearers must agree with the Confession of Faith
and the Heidelberg Catechism together with the explanation of some points of the
aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-19.
Finally, the Canons are
eminently pastoral. Much has been written
about this, and we need not develop this idea beyond stating it. But in this respect too the Canons are more
appealing than the Westminster Confession of Faith. The
latter is objective in its doctrinal statements; the Canons are intended for pastoral use
in the churches and for demonstrating to the faithful the remarkable comfort that is to be
derived from a firm commitment to the truths of Gods sovereign grace as they apply
to all areas of our life. So pastoral are
they that I have frequently used them myself in pastoral work, and I am sure other pastors
have done the same. Although all the Canons
speak to the heart of the believer as well as to his mind, the last chapter on the
perseverance of the saints is so alive with the warmth of Gods great faithfulness to
us in all our unworthiness that I find it strengthening and encouraging to read for
personal devotions at times of great temptation. They
have brought solace to the hearts of many troubled, doubting, anxious souls.
God used the great errors
of Arminius to give to the church this remarkable document.
I began these articles by saying that though Dordt was a mighty victory in the battle for the truths of Gods sovereign and particular grace, Arminius won the war. So it would seem. Nevertheless, there is now and there always will be, until the Lord returns, faithful people of God who love and cherish the Canons.
Prof.
Dykstra is professor of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed
Seminary.
The Christian school teacher is
engaged in an unceasing battle with humanism. The
battles are fierce and the foe relentless because the stakes are high. All of secular education has been won over to the
philosophy that man is the measure of all things. The
one true God has been banned from the classroom, and many false gods have been set up in
His place. Even in the realm of Christian
education, humanism has made powerful inroads into the curriculum and instruction. Only in the faithful Christian school is God
honored in all the Christ-centered instruction. The
Christian school teacher is duty bound to reject humanism in all its forms and set forth
God and His law, not man, as the standard. Hence,
Satan uses every means to wear down these teachers in order to influence their thinking
and their instruction.
In the face of the
unrelenting attacks that come from every side and the powerful tools used to promote
humanism, teachers might well wonder what weapons are available for the battle. They are not to wonder God has provided a
powerful arsenal for both the Christian school teacher and the students.
First, God gives the
subjective weapon of faith. Faith in Christ
is the subjective principle that distinguished the Reformation from the Renaissance. The Renaissance placed its hope in Man. The Reformation, on the other hand, hoped in God
alone.
Faith is not a blind
belief in that which cannot be proved. It is
rather a firm belief in the God who has clearly revealed Himself in Christ. And Jehovah God is so obviously real as to be
beyond proof. Must Christians prove to the
ungodly humanist that God exists? The
believer replies Look about you, man. The
creation testifies in innumerable ways that God is, and must be served. It is His handiwork. He governs the creation and history.
The point is that
Gods existence is so obvious that it is beyond proof.
One might just as well ask a man to prove to his companion that it is raining, as
they run into a building dripping wet from a torrential downpour. The evidence is all there. What could be added to prove it?
Faith is also the victory
that overcomes the world. That, because faith
is in Christ. In and through the cross, He
has overcome Satan, the world of the ungodly, death, and hell. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the
church. The victory is Christs, and
therefore it is ours. Christian school
teachers, know this: You fight not for
the victory, but in victory. So,
likewise, do your students.
Faith is the subjective
weapon or armor of the believer. And because
it is Gods work in us, it cannot be destroyed.
God gives more for the
battle. The primary objective weapon is
Scripture. The Bible is the believers
source material and standard of truth. Humanism
draws from a different fountain. Humanism
looks to the Greeks, to Darwin, to science falsely so called as perverted by unbelief, and
to various philosophers.
Believers go back to the
source, the infallibly inspired Word of God. With
Jesus we confess: Thy word is truth. And with Him we add: Sanctify us, and our students, by thy truth.
A significant goal of all
covenant instruction is to teach the students to think biblically! Every trend, every attitude, every advertisement,
every outstanding man or woman set up by the world as admirable, must be evaluated in the
light of the Bible. You as teachers must not
in any way neglect your study of the Bible for your own personal spiritual growth. You must think biblically!
We do well to remember
that the Bible is a spiritual weapon. It is
not a mere book of rules. Scripture is the
revelation of God and His will. And
God uses the Bible to impress upon teachers and students alike His will and way.
Of course, teachers must
use logic to show how the Word of God applies, that is, how Scripture exposes and condemns
all humanism! However, good logic is not
ultimately what will equip the students to condemn the evil and forsake it. Rather, the Holy Spirit applies the Word to the
hearts of believing students, opens their understanding, and gives them a love for God and
His truth and a corresponding loathing of humanism. That
fact gives teachers every reason to hope!
Teachers do not face the
battle defenseless, nor in the hope of their own strength.
They are equipped.
And yet, they must know
more. God has given to Christian school
teachers the perfect gift to enable them to be proactive, not merely defensive in the
battle. It is what might be called the
biblical alternative, or even, the antidote to humanism. That
antidote is the covenant of grace that God establishes with His people in Christ.
That the covenant can play
this role is easily apparent. Humanism is a
way of life. So also is the covenant. Humanism and the covenant are at antipodes in
every area of life.
The covenant is religion,
that is, it is the living out of our beliefs. Consider
that the covenant determines our lives as friend/servants of God. It defines our relationship to God, as well as
our relationship to Christ. The covenant
teaches us what is our relationship to our fellow saints.
And the covenant demands that our relationship to the world of unbelief be
antithetical.
Our
Relationship to God
The right understanding of
the covenant puts man in proper perspective. In
this relationship, the covenant God is all. God
is infinitely glorious. He is omnipotent. He has all wisdom and knowledge. He sovereignly establishes His covenant of grace
for His own glory, and that one goal must be realized in the covenant.
Man, on the other hand, is
creature. Far from being the independent
master of his fate, man is dependent upon God for his life, health, strength, and
well-being. Life and joy are not possible
apart from God.
Contrary to the humanists,
the covenant indicates that man is not free. Fallen
in Adam, and apart from grace, man is bound fast in chains of sin and death. Although God delivers His covenant people from
that dreadful bondage, yet the old man of sin is powerful, and can be overcome only by the
power of sovereign grace.
Man is not free to
determine his own world and place. God is
sovereign over all of life, over history, and over the destiny of every living thing. No, God does not treat man as a block of wood,
nor does He force mans will. The
choices made by every man are his own choices. And
yet, each choice has been determined eternally in Gods counsel, and nothing thwarts
the plan of God.
The covenant changes the
minds and attitudes of believers. Believers
are drawn out of the darkness of death. They
no longer serve self. They are turned from
their selfish desires, goals, and interests. Not
death, but life they have life with God. Seeking
God means seeking the highest good that can be sought.
The covenant creature lives unto God, not self.
Such a covenant believer
rejects his former paths and the standards of men he previously esteemed, and adopts
instead the standards of God. He recognizes
that the law of God is the revelation of the righteous will of God, and he sings of his
love for that law.
Students must come to see
that the glitter of our culture is a false gold that soon loses its vaunted value. They must come to know that the worlds
laughter is vile and pretended, and that its pleasures are fleeting and deadly. But God is in every way the highest good,
and His eternal treasures are greatly to be desired.
They will do that as they consciously live in the covenant, for they live with God.
Our
Relationship to Christ
Within the glorious
covenant of grace, Christ is our head, and we are members of His body. United to Him by faith, we live out of Him
His life is ours; His Spirit is in us.
The covenant members
confess that Christ is everything. He is the
Mediator of the covenant. He is the center of
the counsel of God. He is the Elect, in whom
we are chosen. In Christ we know God and
experience His love for us. The bride of the
King in the Song of Solomon expressed perfectly the feeling of believers for Jesus Christ
He is altogether lovely (5:16).
Teachers who live
consciously as covenant members will be Christ-centered in their work, because Christ is
the center of their lives.
Students must detect that
God is everything to teachers. There is, of
course, a false piety, a mysticism that is ever talking about God The Lord
led me to do this or that. Not that.
Rather, as preaching is
the Word of God brought through a particular preacher with all his gifts, background, and
experiences, so teaching is Christ-centered instruction through a particular, individual
teacher. Each teacher has his own gifts,
background, and experiences. Yet, the
teachers religious life, his life with God, will drastically affect his teaching
either for good or for evil.
The people of God must see
Christ in the minister (His love, compassion, detesting of sin, love for truth, wisdom,
goodness, etc.). Likewise, students must see
Christ in their teachers. They must witness
that their teachers are excited about Christ. They
must see the Christ-like qualities shining forth. Both
by example and instruction, teachers must set forth Christ, the altogether-lovely One, so
that students by Gods grace seek Christ and desire to imitate Him. When they delight in the true beauty of Christ,
they will not be swept away to pursue the ugliness of humanism.
The
Covenant Determines
We ought to notice that
life in the covenant is the exact opposite of the dream of the humanists. It is never self-serving. Nor is it isolating. Nor does it cause the individual to be lost in the
mass of the elect.
That covenant life does
not result in self-absorbed isolation is evident from the fact that the members are knit
together into one spiritual body of Christ. An
inseparable bond forms a living union with Christ, and thus also to all other members of
the church and covenant of God.
At the same time, he is
not lost in the mass of the elect. Each child
is unique, yet he is far from following the ideals of humanism, which teaches: Do your own thing; develop yourself and your
world. Rather, I
Corinthians 12 instructs: You are unique
because God has given you natural abilities, and the Spirit has bestowed spiritual gifts
for the purpose that you serve the other members of the body. This is antithetical to humanism. A conscious member of the covenant serves the good
of the body, not himself.
Teachers, therefore, seek
the development of all their students. But it
is that they may serve each other, and the church, and thus Christ Himself. Once again, Christ must be set up as the model
the One who came not to be served, but to minister to others, and to give Himself a
ransom for others (Matt. 20:28).
The
Covenant Defines
Covenant people are
friends of God, and consequently friends of Gods people. They are not friends of the world. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. The believer does not find his companions or his
goals in the world.
This is the doctrine of
the antithesis, always concomitant with the covenant, rightly understood. The covenant thus demands that instruction given
in the Christian school be antithetical. Teachers
set forth the truth of God in Christ over against the lie of man and the devil. Obviously, each lesson must be developed in
harmony with the age and ability of the students high school students will be
provided more detailed treatment of the rejection of the errors than grade school
students. Nevertheless, all instruction in
the Christian school must be antithetical.
The covenant is an
essential element in the battle against humanism. The
covenant sets man in the proper perspective. It
lifts up mans eyes to God and His glory. It
causes the believer to live, not to self, but to God.
It requires man to imitate Christ rather than the world about him. Living in the covenant, students are not isolated,
nor self-seeking, nor lost in the crowd. This
is the covenantal manner in which Christian teachers deal with their students and by which
they seek to develop their talents.
Humanisms influence
is great, and it can only grow, for the kingdom of Antichrist is the kingdom of man. That kingdom is developing. And the Beast means to press his man-centered
message upon the souls of teacher and student alike.
His means are powerful, his work highly effective.
But your weapons,
teachers, are mighty. Subjectively, you and
your covenant students have an indestructible faith in Christ. You cannot be moved. You have the objective testimony of the infallible
Scriptures for your source material and standard of truth.
And you have the God-given antidote to the poison of humanism the covenant! Live the covenant.
Teach the covenant.
May God bless your work
and give you strength for the battles that lie ahead.
Rev.
Kuiper is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Randolph, Wisconsin.
Resignation and Removal From Office
Under what circumstances might a deacon resign from office, or be removed from office,
before his term is finished?
The difference between
resignation from office and removal from office should be clear to us all. In the instance of resignation, the deacon himself
takes the initiative to be released from the honor and work of the office, and seeks the
approval of the council. In the instance of
removal from office, on the other hand, the consistory takes this initiative, having
judged the deacon to be unworthy of the office.
No deacon may lightly consider resigning from office. At his installation, the deacon testified that he believed God had called him to
this work. Also at that time the minister, on
behalf of God and the church, charged the deacons to be diligent and faithful in their
offices. To resign is to put down that work
to which one was called. Therefore, to resign
without proper reasons is really a refusal to do the work, and is disobedience to
Gods command, which is implied in His call to office.
A deacon who considers resigning must have weighty reasons for doing so.
What reasons might be so
weighty that in using them the deacon would not be refusing to do the work to which God
called him?
In an earlier article we
gave three reasons why a person might decline nomination to the office of deacon. One was that he be able to demonstrate that in
some way his election would violate biblical principles.
Another was that he was already too busy in other kingdom work, and the work to
which he was committed would be jeopardized by the work of the diaconate. A third was that the prospective nominee was
contemplating leaving that congregation.
The first two reasons for
declining nomination are not proper reasons for resigning from office once elected
and installed. If before his installation he
could not or would not demonstrate that his election was contrary to biblical principles,
he must not attempt to do so after his election. Furthermore,
if before his election he did not successfully argue to the council that his election
would put other legitimate kingdom work and callings in jeopardy, then he must not use
this argument as a reason to resign. In other
words, the deacon who finds that he is too busy to do justice to all his work must do his
best to fulfill all the obligations which God has placed on him. He will need to pray all the more; he will need
wisdom and patience all the more; he will need an understanding and caring wife all the
more; but he may not resign for that reason.
Now one might argue: but
does not ones family come first? It is,
after all, not possible to resign being a father and husband. If the officebearer is so busy that he neglects
his family, he should resign his office, for God considers the right regulation of
ones family so important that He made it a qualification for the office (I Tim. 3: 12).
The answer to this
argument is simple: the work of the office of deacon is also a calling from God! You may not neglect that calling either, for that
would be disobedience to God.
For what reasons, then,
might a man resign his office? Fundamentally,
the answer is when, after his election, God in His providence made it clear that the man
was no longer able physically to do the work.
This would mean that if a
person becomes unable for health reasons to continue serving in office, he may seek
approval to resign from office. If for some
reason a man in office must immediately move, and therefore must immediately transfer his
membership to another congregation, he may seek approval to resign from office. If the church in which an officebearer serves
forms a new daughter congregation, and the officebearer has compelling reasons to join
that congregation soon, he may seek approval to resign from office.
In using these reasons,
however, no officebearer may have as his motive a desire to escape the duties of
the office. That is, resignation must be a
necessity because God, in His providence, made clear that the officebearer cannot continue
doing his work. But if the officebearer is
unhappy in his work, and is looking for a way out, and thinks to use these reasons, then
before God he must still answer for refusing to do the work to which God called him.
When seeking to resign, what procedure should one follow?
The deacon who has weighty
reasons to resign from office may not simply stop doing the work of his office at some
point, and then inform the council that he has resigned.
Rather, he must inform the council in person or in writing of his intent to resign
and his reasons for desiring to resign, and then wait for the council to give its
approval. This procedure is proper because
the church has called him to office, and the church must release him from
office. The church releases the officebearer
from office through the councils approving of his resignation, and through the
silent approval on the part of the whole congregation.
The council should not
approve a resignation request lightly. It
ought to consider the request carefully, judge the reasons given, and be ready to
disapprove the request if it judges the reasons to be insufficient. In such instances the officebearer has the right
of appeal to the classis and synod. He should
remember that it is still his duty before God to continue doing the work of his office
until the broader assembly hears and supports his appeal, and until the council is
properly notified and releases him from office. Furthermore,
if the broader assemblies do not support his appeal but side with his council, the
officebearer must realize that God in His providence, using the agency of the church, has
not released him from office, and the officebearer must submit to that decision.
Is this procedure spelled
out clearly in the Church Order? Although no
article of the Church Order specifically addresses the issue of an elder or deacon
resigning, at least three articles contain principles on which this procedure is
based. Among the sins that make an
officebearer worthy of suspension or deposition is, according to Article 80,
faithless desertion of office. That
one who faithlessly deserts his office should still be deposed indicates that his
desertion, or his thinking that he has resigned without seeking proper approval, is not
adequate. He holds the office until the
church releases him from it. Then Article 11
deals with the release of a minister from office in a particular congregation, and Article
12 with his release from office completely. Both
articles forbid such a release apart from the approval of classis and the synodical
delegates (technically, Article 12 omits this latter point, but it is implied and
necessary). Now if release from office in the
case of a minister requires the churchs approval, then the same approval must be
required in the case of a deacon or elder for the offices are on a par with each
other. The only difference is that in the
case of the minister, the classis and synod must express its approval of resignation, for
the minister serves the denomination as a whole. In
the case of an elder or a deacon, not the classis, but only the congregation that he
serves, must approve of the resignation.
While our Church Order does not specifically address the matter of resignation from
office, it does specifically address the matter of removal (suspension or deposition) from
office in Articles 79 and 80.
The ground for removing an
officebearer from office is fundamentally that the officebearer has shown by his conduct
or speech that he is no longer qualified for office.
Article 79 requires a minister, elder, or deacon to be suspended or deposed from
office when he has committed any public, gross sin which is a disgrace to the church
or worthy of punishment by the authorities. Article
80 lists those sins that make one worthy of suspension or deposition: false doctrine or heresy, public schism,
public blasphemy, simony, faithless desertion of office or intrusion upon that of another,
perjury, adultery, fornication, theft, acts of violence, habitual drunkenness, brawling,
filthy lucre; in short, all sins and gross offenses as render the perpetrators infamous
before the world, and which in any private member of the church would be considered worthy
of excommunication.
A few remarks about this
list are in order.
First, notice that it
includes not only sins that are public and gross transgressions of Gods law, but
also sins of violating ones vows of office (it mentions false doctrine or
heresy and public schism). At
his installation, the officebearer signed the Formula of Subscription, by which he
promised to teach and defend the truth of Gods Word as embodied in the Reformed
creeds; to bring any ideas contrary to these documents to the consistory, classis, and
synod for their judgment; and to be ready to give answer to any church body that requires
a more complete explanation of ones views or teachings. The penalty for violating this vow, to which
penalty the officebearer agrees when signing the Formula, is that of suspension from
office. The ground for such suspension would
be either that of believing false doctrine, which surely disqualifies a man for holding
office in the church of Christ, or that of teaching false doctrine, which is public
schism.
Second, it refers to
faithless desertion of office. We
have already applied these words in the instance of a man who refuses to do the work of
his office, before his resignation is approved. Now
consider the instance of a man whose request for resignation was not approved, but he
refuses to do the work of his office. His
argument is, I have resigned. But,
because that resignation was not accepted, he still holds office, and is guilty of
deserting office. Such a man must be
suspended, and perhaps deposed. In the
secular business world it is conceivable that a man claim he has resigned his position,
while his employer claims he was fired. But
that officebearer in the church who claims to have resigned, but has not received approval
to resign, cannot claim that he no longer holds office.
Thirdly, the article does
not mean to say that one is suspended or deposed from office only when one is impenitent
regarding these sins. Some might argue this,
because the article makes reference to excommunication.
Excommunication, we know, is a last remedy applied to the impenitent. However, removal from office does not imply
impenitence; rather, it indicates that ones sinful actions have made one unfit to
continue in office. God requires those who
hold office to be blameless. For one who has
committed public, gross sin to continue in office would not promote unity and edification
in the church, and would give occasion for the enemies of the church to blaspheme.
To this point we have been
using the term removal from office, while the Church Order speaks of
suspension and deposition. Strictly speaking,
removal from office is deposition. Suspension
is a temporary measure, whereby one continues to hold office and receive any honor and
benefits of that office (such as salary, in the case of a minister), but is not permitted
to do the work of the office. It is temporary
in that it must lead either to deposition, or to a lifting of the suspension, permitting
the person to do the work of the office again. Deposition,
however, is removal from office. One who is
deposed may not claim any longer to hold the office, nor continue to do the work of the
office, nor receive any of the benefits or honor of the office. Deposition does not necessarily preclude a person
from serving in office again in the future, but for the time one is removed from office.
The procedure for suspension and deposition is set forth in Church Order Article
79. Very briefly, the procedure with regard
to elders and deacons is as follows: the consistory (body of elders) decides either to
suspend or to depose the officebearer, and asks the approval of the consistory of the
nearest church. This approval of the nearest
consistory may not be given as a mere formality; it is necessary as a check and balance
against any unjust suspension or deposition. Therefore,
the consistory of the nearest church may give its approval only after hearing the facts of
the case. Whether one would be suspended or
deposed is left to the judgment of the consistory, which arrives at its decision by
considering the nature of the sin, the effect that the sin has had or could have on the
congregation and community, and other issues pertaining to the individual case.
While most issues relating
to the officebearers are decided by the council (elders and deacons), matters of
suspension and deposition are decided by the consistory (elders) alone. Article 79 is clear on this, for it speaks of
the consistory thereof (i.e., of the congregation in which the officebearer is a
member, DJK) and of the nearest church. Suspension
or deposition from office is a matter of church discipline, and therefore is the
prerogative of the consistory alone.
Because suspension and
deposition are matters of discipline, no man may resign office to avoid deposition. It may happen that a man knows that he has
committed sin worthy of deposition, and considers resigning to avoid deposition. He might even argue that his resignation is
preferable to his being deposed, not only to save himself and the church the anguish of
deposition, but also as a way of acknowledging his sin and its consequences.
However, resignation may
not replace or preempt deposition. The
council should never accept the resignation of one about to be deposed; and the
officebearer facing deposition should never consider resigning.
The reason for this is
that deposition is a form of church censure. By
deposition the church expresses its judgment regarding both the seriousness of the sin
committed and the unfitness of the officebearer who sinned to continue serving in office. The church must express this judgment for the sake
of her members, who ought to consider this judgment a warning against sin to which we all
are prone, and ought to seek Gods sanctifying grace more often and with more
earnestness. The church must express this
judgment also for the sake of the world, who will see that the church at least, the
true church of Jesus Christ, in distinction from the false does not in any
way condone or cover up the sins of her officebearers.
May God so impress upon us
the weight of the responsibility of His call to office, and the seriousness of sin, that
all officebearers deacons, elders, and pastors give themselves with
diligence to the work, seeking His grace and help to do the work well, and avoiding sin,
that His name be glorified.
Rev.
VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the Protestant Reformed Churches.
Last time I quoted from articles from the
secular press which, I thought, spoke eloquently of the dangers of smoking, of its
addictive nature, and of its great cost. None, I dare say, can
refute what the articles stated. Some might
point out, however, Thats not the Bible you quoted!
Others might claim,
perhaps even correctly, that there are other and more serious problems in our life
style. There are the evils of
drunkenness and of worldly amusements and of materialism.
Why pick on smoking?
The claim could even be
made that the Christian need not follow after every trend within the liberal society of
our day. Society today continues to expand
the no smoking areas. Why should
we simply imitate them? We ought rather to
follow the requirements of Scripturenot necessarily the practices of a secular
society. We have rebuked others who refuse to
follow clear mandates of Scripture. We ought
diligently to follow the testimony of Gods Wordnot just the latest trends of
society.
Well, lets consider
some of the spiritual and biblical implications of this habit.
(1) There is the matter of the waste of the resources
that God has provided for us. While it is
true that we waste money in our affluent age on many other things than cigarettes, smoking
has somehow assumed an importance to many above all other usages of our wealth. A pack and a half a day smoker spends a minimum of
$2,750 a year on cigarettes. If two in the
family smoke, that figure doubles. Thats considerably more than the church budget,
which, we sometimes complain, is too high. One
must also consider the many other related costs involved.
Some have had to seek diaconal aid for their living expenses, but could not quit
smoking. One man was questioned about his
inability to pay the church budget. He and
his wife were chain smokers. His response? Im entitled to one sin, arent
I? Some cannot pay all of their school
tuitionbut cant quit smoking. Childrens
health and nourishment have been sacrificed on that altar of Christian
liberty. Does this sort of activity
harmonize with Matthew 6:33?
(2) There is the matter of harm to ones own self
and to ones family. If the bread-winner
of the family contracts lung-cancer or other smoking related disease, and dieswhat a
devastating effect this has on the family! But,
some might respond, there is the matter of Christian liberty. Parents who would doubtless give their lives to
protect their children forget the effects of this habit upon those same children. The unborn child is affected in the womb. Smokers children are affected often with
asthma or other health problemsthough they themselves do not smoke. And smokers children are most likely to
continue this practice when they come of age (or before).
Ought these be proud of the example they set for their children?
We would die for
our childrenbut to quit smoking for their sakes (and ours), well, thats just
too much to ask.
There is the question of
the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill.
Among other things, the Heidelberg Catechism (L.D. 40) states,
also
that I hurt not myself, nor willfully expose myself to any danger
. Never mind the conclusions of unbelievers. Lets ask ourselves, Does the
instruction of the Heidelberg Catechism on the sixth command apply to smoking too?
(3) There is the matter of the habit of
smoking. We freely speak of it as such. Now, a habit may be good, or bad, or
adiaphora. But that sort of language is a
cover-up. Smoking is far, far more than a
habit. Its an addiction. An addiction is today considered to be a
habit that is inherently bad and almost unbreakable. There is the addiction to gambling. There is the addiction to illicit drugs such as
heroin. So there is the addiction of smoking. The addiction, we are told, is to the nicotine in
the cigarette. The cigarette is simply the
delivery system. This addiction is stronger,
it is claimed, than the addiction of the heroin addict.
Most smokers, it is claimed, want to quitbut cant. Consider the woman mentioned in the article quoted
last time. She saw her husband suffer the
consequences of his smokinglung cancer that led to his death within seven months. The horror of it caused her to resolve to quit
smokingbut she couldnt. She
could notthough her two little girls begged her to do so.
An addiction? Or, Christian liberty? Romans
9:26, 27 states, I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one
that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest
that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. An addict has not brought his body under
subjection in regard to smoking. He
seldom admits that he cannot bring his body under subjection, but he
knows that it is true nevertheless.
(4) There is also the question of creating offence to
others within the church and to those who come to visit a congregation. Those within the church who have at one point quit
smoking themselves can easily take somewhat of a sanctimonious attitude toward the smoker. If I can quit, why cant he? But every former smoker knows what a difficult
thing it was for him to quit. Still, is there
not good reason for offence? It is obvious,
so very obvious, for all to see, that the smoker usually takes his last puff on a
cigarette just before he enters the church, and then, after the service, he quickly heads
for the area immediately outside the entrance of the church for his smoke. One
wonders with how much difficulty these sit through a lengthy service until they can exit
and take that next puff.
Those who would look
askance at one who tossed a banana peel to the ground in front of the church think nothing
of tossing cigarette butts to the ground. Its
litter that offends many also. But that is a
relatively minor thing. After all, we hire
janitors to clean up such litter.
There are those who have
attended our churches, who seem attracted by the doctrines taught within the church, who
are nevertheless offended by the Christians smoking.
Perhaps thats their problem.
Yet to compel such visitors to walk past smokers in order to enter the sanctuary or
to exit it is to show no concern about the sensibilities of others. If others love the doctrine, ought they not to
love us as we are? But is this
what Christian liberty is all about?
(5) Within the church there are those who have real
allergies that are aggravated by the smell that smokers exude. It is not just the breath. That smell can be covered up quite nicely by mints
or sprays. The effects of smoking stay in
ones clothing. Within the church there
are those who must make sure they sit far enough away from known smokers so that they can
breathe more easily. But: thats their problem, is it not?
Or will the time come when
church also has its smoking and non-smoking sections?
(6) Excuses, excuses, excuses. You have doubtless heard many of them. The individual does indeed have will
power, which he uses in deciding to continue to smoke. One claimed that if he died the sooner (humanly
speaking) because of his habit, he would the sooner be with his Lord! Perhaps that one could rather walk the center lane
of some busy Interstate. Such
pious declarations refuse to take into account the suffering that might have
to be endured before he is taken to be with his Lord. There is no consideration either of the suffering
and pain his agony and death brings upon the
family. He does not reckon the financial
drain involved in all of this. One might (I
say, tongue-in-cheek) better play Russian roulette.
(7) Possibly the saddest thing is that one will not
acknowledge the harm of smoking though he sees dear ones slowly die at least in part
because of this addiction. He cannot stop
smokinguntil the doctors say, You have lung cancer. Treatment may possibly help, provided you quit
smoking. Sometimes that will convince
one to quitbut often it is too late.
Christian liberty? A liberty to harm ones body? A liberty to affect the health of
those dear to him? A liberty to
influence ones children to do what the parents have been doing for many years? A liberty to continue doing what
offends others?
This
habitno, addictionis so great that many admit that they cannot
quit. It matters not that others suffer. It matters not that sometimes other bills are
neglected. One cannot quit. Many are ashamed of the addiction that keeps them
so bound. Many would be ready to admit, if
they are honest, I have to quitbut I dont know how.
Perhaps some suggestions
are in order. Obviously, first of all, there
is the matter of earnest and sincere prayer to God for His guidance and grace to do what
is so necessary. But prayer without faithful
effort by ones own labor would be vain. Pray
first; pray often. Then, get off your knees
and face the problem head-on.
One can make use of
available medical assistance. Many have done
this successfully. Others try thisbut
fail. There is also another waysimilar
to that followed by A.A. A number of addicts
can decide to meet together once a week (or month) and discuss their problem. After devotions, these can discuss if, and how
often, they have failed in their attempt to quit. They
can discuss when and why they are most likely to smoke.
They might point out to each other ways in which they substituted something else
for smoking. They can encourage each other
in the almost-impossible task of breaking the addiction.
I fear that we take the
approach of (former) Vice-president Al Gore (quoted last time):
Al Gore, for instance, inspired by the death of his own sister from lung cancer, insisted not long ago that he will do everything he can to keep cigarettes out of the hands of children. But he says he would never outlaw cigarettes because millions of people smoke.
We can perhaps agree that
addiction is involved. We can perhaps agree
that it can be harmful as well as offensive. But
we could never outlaw cigarettes for church membersjust too many of our people, men
and women, do this.
So why bother writing
these articles? If but one young person
reads these articles and refrains from beginning this habit, or if it causes
one addict to quit, it would have been worth the effort taken to write about
this unpopular subject.
Rev.
Laning is pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Walker, Michigan.
There is an inseparable connection between desiring to be with
Christ in heaven after death and desiring to be more like Christ in this life. Scripture tells us that all those who truly have
the hope of becoming perfectly like Christ in body and soul when Christ appears show that
they have this hope by striving, already in this life, to begin to purify themselves even
as Christ is pure (I John 3:3).
This means that all those who have the
Christian hope long to experience more and more Gods gracious work of
sanctification.
Sanctification is the
saving work of God in which He delivers His people from the corruption and dominion of
sin, and conforms them to the image of Christ. It
is the process by which God causes us to become more like Christ, so that we think, speak,
and act like Him.
How
It Differs from Justification
Sanctification is to be
distinguished from justification. When God
justifies us He delivers us from the guilt of our sin, and declares us to be perfectly
righteous in Christ and to have a right to all the blessings that Christ has earned for us
by His suffering and death. When God
sanctifies us, He delivers us from the corrupting power of our sin, causing us to receive
and experience Christs heavenly life, so that we more and more turn from our sin and
willingly walk in obedience to God, while enjoying intimate communion with Him.
The difference between
justification and sanctification can be illustrated by a man who goes from being locked in
a debtors prison to living with the king in his house, daily eating at his table and
communing with him. The first thing that
happens to this man is that he hears the joyful news that his debt has been forgiven, that
he no longer has any debt, and that he actually has been granted the right to dwell with
the king in his glorious palace. The second
thing that happens to him is that someone comes to his cell, unlocks the door, and brings
him out of the cell and into the presence of the king, where he continues to dwell.
As impossible as it would
seem that such a thing could happen to a human being, something far more amazing actually
happens to us who are in Christ Jesus. That
we are justified means that we are declared to be free from debt, and that we consciously
hear this declaration. We hear that Christ
has paid the debt we owed, and that we now have the right to be set free from the prison
house of sin, and to enter into the house of our heavenly Father. This is justification. But then we also experience that Christ, by His
Spirit, sets us free from the dominion of sin, so that we are no longer in bondage to our
sinful thoughts and desires, but are able to break from these sins and to submit to God,
so that we walk and commune with Him in His heavenly house.
This is sanctification.
Gods
Work
Although this is a
glorious work of God in which we consciously become active, it is still Gods work
from beginning to end. It is true that when
God is sanctifying us we are actively and willingly turning away from sin and towards God. But God is the one who gives to us not only the
gift of faith, but also the gift of repentance (Acts 11:18).
He produces in us both the will to believe
and the act of believing also (Canons III & IV, 14), and He causes us willingly to
walk in His statutes by means of the faith that He Himself has given to us (Ezek. 36:27).
This is not the way
sanctification is often presented. It is
often presented as though God has a wonderful plan for the life of every believer, but
that that plan is often not realized because the believer does not do his part. God gives the believer sufficient grace to grow
into a mature believer, who bears much fruit in all areas of his life. But often this plan of God is not realized, and
the believer experiences very little if any spiritual growth, because he fails to
cooperate with God. Such a view teaches that
sanctification is partly the work of God and partly the work of man.
The truth is that
sanctification, just like justification, is Gods work from beginning to end. God has before ordained every good work that we
will perform (Eph.
2:10), and causes us by His grace to perform precisely those works that He has before
determined that we would do. He gives to us
not only the desire to do these works, but also produces within in us the activity itself. For it is God which worketh in you both to
will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).
Such is the way Scripture sets forth Gods sanctifying work in the life of a
believer.
It is true that we will
experience this work only in the way of our submitting to it. We confess this in Lords Day 38, where our
fathers taught that the fourth commandment requires of me that all the days of my
life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by His Holy Spirit
in me. If the believer refuses to
repent of any sin, God will withdraw His Holy Spirit from him, although not entirely, so
that He will not consciously experience this sanctifying work. But when we do submit to this work, and experience
the blessings thereof, we do so because God has graciously caused us to do this.
If we have failed to yield
ourselves to the Lord for a time, and if during that time we did not experience making
progress in our battle with sin, but rather found that we were more and more being given
over to it, this also must have taken place according to Gods decree. Gods counsel stands, He always does all His
pleasure (Is. 46:10). God uses even such
times as this for our profit. But it is our
calling, and our desire, willingly to yield ourselves to this gracious work of God. And, insofar as we do this, it is Christ
performing this work in and through us.
An
Act of Glorification
When God graciously
sanctifies His people, He is beginning in them the work of glorification. Some may have the tendency to think of
glorification as something that does not begin until after a believer dies and goes to
heaven. But, actually, we already now begin
to experience the act of glorification, when we are delivered from the corruption of sin
and conformed to the glorious image of Jesus Christ.
That sanctification is an
act of glorification is taught in a number of places in Holy Scripture. First of all, we take a look at Romans 8:30,
which speaks of the order of salvation.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
When
reading this verse, one may be inclined to ask, Why did the inspired apostle leave
out sanctification? The answer is that
the work of sanctification that we experience in this life belongs to Gods saving
work of glorification. This same truth is
taught in II
Corinthians 3:18,
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
As we
begin in this life to behold in Gods Word the glory of the Lord, we begin to be
changed into this glorious image. The more
God causes us to think, speak, and act like Christ, the more we radiate the glorious image
of our Savior. This is the work of
sanctification performed by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, who dwells in our
heart.
The obedient believer
experiences this deliverance from sin gradually throughout his life upon this earth. Although it is true that our sinful nature does
not improve as we get older, it is also true that God causes us more to experience the
victory over our sin.
Let us take, for example,
the sin of complaining and of not being content in the Lords way. This is a sin that we all see within ourselves. As we see this sin, we ask God to forgive us. But we also ask Him to deliver us more from this
sin, so that we make progress in being content. Then,
when we have truly requested this from the heart by faith, we experience that God grants
our request, so that over time we can see the spiritual progress we are making in our
battle against this sin.
The more we experience the
victory over this sin, and over all sin, the more we reflect the glorious perfections of
God, and show to those around us that we really are children of our Father which is in
heaven. In this way we glorify our Father,
and show forth the praises of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous
light.
September 4, 2003
The September meeting of Classis West was held in South Holland Protestant Reformed Church in South Holland, IL on
Wednesday, September 3. Rev. Douglas Kuiper
chaired the meeting.
An officebearers
conference was held on Tuesday, the day before classis.
In addition to the delegates to classis, many visitors also came to hear the
speeches and to participate in the discussion. Also
attending part of the conference were the 8th
grade children of the Protestant Reformed Christian School and all the students and staff
of Heritage Christian High School.
The theme of the
conference was Remembering the Schism of 1953.
Prof. R. Dykstra gave the keynote address on The History and Significance of
1953. Sectionals followed on related
subjects, led by Rev. C. Terpstra, Rev. M. VanderWal, Prof. H. Hanko, Rev. W. Bruinsma,
Rev. R. Van Overloop, and Mr. H. Ophoff.
Many comments were made on
how enjoyable and profitable the conference was. The
theme provided opportunity, on the 50th
anniversary of this event, humbly and thankfully to reflect upon the goodness of God in
preserving us in the truth through the split of 1953.
The speeches were recorded and are available from South Holland PRC.
In business on Wednesday,
classis dealt first of all with a letter from our denominations Committee for
Contact with Other Churches. The committee
requested that Classis West help in providing pulpit supply for the congregation in
Wingham, Ontario, if such help should be needed. The
committee informed classis that this congregation in Canada is seeking affiliation with
the Protestant Reformed Churches. Classis
approved the request and authorized its classical committee to arrange this pulpit supply,
if the Contact Committee should ask for it.
Classis also dealt with
one appeal. This appeal concerned some
members discipline and was treated in closed session.
Much time was taken up with this appeal. In
the end classis decided to deny the appeal. Classis
also gave advice to both the appellants and the consistory concerning this matter.
The expenses for classis
totaled $6,028.76.
The Lord willing, classis
will hold its next meeting on March 3, 2004 in Redlands, CA.
May the Lord be pleased to
bless our churches and His people through the actions and decisions of classis.
Rev. Daniel Kleyn
Stated Clerk, Classis West
Gods Renaissance Man: The Life and Work of Abraham Kuyper, by James
Edward McGoldrick. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000. Pp. 320. $18.99
(paper). [Reviewed by the editor.]
Professor
McGoldricks recent biography of Abraham Kuyper is a welcome addition to the body of
such works in English. There are only two
other major studies of Kuypers life and work in English, Frank Vanden Bergs Abraham Kuyper and Louis Praamsmas Let Christ be
King: Reflections on the Life and Times of
Abraham Kuyper. McGoldricks book
builds on these two works, although it is a fresh study of Kuyper from the sources. Both of the other works on Kuyper are
out-of-print.
McGoldrick is thorough. He traces Kuypers interesting life. He follows the Dutchmans career, in the
ministry, as a journalist, and in government. He
surveys the whole of Kuypers theological and political thought.
The author has read widely
both in Kuypers own works and in the secondary literature. I was delighted to find several quotations of
Frederick Nymeyer, an intriguing acquaintance during my South Holland, Illinois days. The numerous references to Kuypers writings
and to other sources appear as notes at the end of the book. This is helpful to the scholar.
The book, however, is a
popular work. It is directed to the layman. The writing is clear. The critique particularly of Kuypers
theology is not deep. The chapters are short.
There are fascinating
details, for example, that Kuyper kept a picture of Pietje Baltus on his desk. Baltus was the peasant woman in Kuypers
first congregation who was instrumental in his conversion.
Baltus had told the learned Dr. Kuyper, You do not give us the true bread of
life.
There are also good,
helpful quotations of Kuyper accompanied by solid analysis on the part of McGoldrick. McGoldrick calls attention to Kuypers
criticism of ceremonial worship with its stress on symbolism.
[Kuyper] complained that people
who want symbolism for their religion desire short sermons and elaborate sensual
ceremonies and music. They want to
enjoy fully the mystical titillations of a delightful religious feeling, but
they do not aspire to know God as he has revealed himself in Scripture
. In Kuypers view, the Protestant Reformation
was a powerful protest against symbolic, ceremonial religion. The Reformed churches stressed understanding
of the revelation and its personal application to the soul.
They denied absolutely the necessity of connecting the Infinite with the finite by
symbols. Protestant churches published
the Bible in vernacular languages and distributed it widely, and they proclaimed their
dogmas in clear statements of faith. Standing
before the dilemma of feeling or faith, they chose for faith, and for
revelation over symbolism (pp. 98, 99; the citations of Kuyper are from his The
Antithesis between Symbolism and Revelation).
Anyone who has read the
magazine Reformed Worship knows how necessary Kuypers warning is today in
Reformed churches. Obsession with human
symbolism is driving divine revelation out of public worship.
McGoldrick is right in his
judgment that Kuyper rejected that defense of the faith known as evidentialism. Kuypers criticism of every effort to prove
divine truth by human reason is conclusive: If
human reason were ever able to demonstrate the divine [truth], then reason would stand
superior to the divine [revelation], and thus, eo ipso, the divine character of the
divine Word would be destroyed (p. 102; the citation of Kuyper is from his Principles
of Sacred Theology). One of the best
parts, indeed one of the few good parts, in Kuypers Stone Lectures at
Princeton Seminary was his criticism of evidentialist apologetics. It is humorous that Kuyper delivered himself of
this criticism in the face of B. B. Warfield, the outstanding advocate of evidentialist
apologetics in his day or any other.
On the issue of
supralap-sarianism and infralapsarianism, however, McGoldrick is seriously confused. He supposes that infralapsarianism, in contrast to
supralapsarianism, teaches a universal love and grace of God: John Calvin taught infralapsarianism. He held that God loves the entire human race, and
common grace is an expression of his love, even to the non-elect (p. 231).
Infralapsarianism has as
little to do with a universal grace of God as does supralapsarianism. Infra-lapsarianism is a view of the place of
predestination in the divine decrees. As much
as does supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism teaches Gods eternal election of some
in love and Gods eternal reprobation of others in hatred. As a sound doctrine of predestination,
infralapsarianism, like supralapsarianism, exactly denies a love of God for all and
affirms divine hatred for some. What
infralapsarianism is can easily be learned by every Reformed Christian from a reading of
the Canons of Dordt. One will scour the
Canons in vain for the least hint of universal love and grace.
Critical of Kuyper in
other respects, McGoldrick displays the same uncritical acceptance of Kuypers
doctrine of common grace that characterizes most Reformed theologians. The corruption that common grace has worked
wherever it has been promoted, including Kuypers own Free University of Amsterdam
and the churches Kuyper founded, is conveniently attributed to the abuse of the doctrine.
McGoldricks
criticism of Kuypers theory of presupposed regeneration is unfair and unconvincing. He does not do justice to Kuypers own
presentation of his views on infant baptism and presupposed regeneration. In the sections in which McGoldrick treats
Kuypers doctrine, there is no reference to Kuypers careful, lengthy
explanation of Question and Answer 74 of the Heidelberg Catechism in his commentary on the
Catechism, E Voto. McGoldrick relies
heavily on critics of Kuypers doctrine of the Reformed view of covenant children who
themselves espouse the miserable doctrine of presupposed unregeneration, a doctrine
far worse than Kuypers teaching of presupposed regeneration.
And is it really praise of a Reformed thinker, indeed a theologian, to call him, in the title of his biography no less, a Renaissance man?
Mr.
Wigger is a member of the Protestant Reformed Church of Hudsonville,
Michigan.
Young Peoples Activities
No sooner has one convention come and gone than another one is being planned. The young people of the Southwest PRC in
Grandville, MI will be sponsoring the 2004 PRYP Convention, the Lord willing. Next years convention will be held July
12-16, at Covenant Hills Camp in Otisville, MI, just north of Flint. Attached to the camp is also a campground and RV
park that can be used by parents and friends who would like to camp during the week of the
convention and be able to attend the speeches. If
you are interested in knowing more about Covenant Hills Camp, you can check it out on the
web at www.Covenant
Hills.org.
With Young Peoples Society starting up again this fall, it is always
interesting to note the different special activities and unusual outings some of our young
people go to. We would challenge any group to
do better than the young people of the Georgetown PRC in Hudsonville, MI, who back last
May enjoyed a group outing to Yntema Funeral Home in Zeeland, MI. Certainly not your typical outing destination.
Congregation Activities
Sunday evening, August 24, the congregation of the Hudson-ville, MI PRC
gathered together after their second service to bid farewell to their pastor for the past
nine years, Rev. B. Gritters, his wife, Lori, and their children. As many of you know, earlier this past summer
Rev. Gritters accepted the call from our churches to serve as professor of New Testament
and Practical Theology in our seminary, eventually replacing the retiring Prof. R. Decker. This farewell-appreciation program featured
numbers from Hudsonville Sunday School and Choir, the audience singing various Psalter
numbers, and a piano solo. In addition to a monetary gift given to help with the purchase of
major appliances in their new home, the Gritters also received a plaque with the words of III John 4
inscribed on it: I have no greater joy
than to hear that my children walk in truth the same text Rev. Gritters used
as the theme for his farewell sermon on August 3.
This past Sunday School season the children of the Byron Center, MI PRC took
collections for equipment for a Christian doctor in Myanmar and needy children in an
orphanage in Myanmar. In response to those
gifts Mrs. Judie Feenstra visited their Sunday School the last week of their season to
tell them about her missionary assistance work in Myanmar and about the people that the
children have been giving money for. Anyone
else interested was also welcome.
This fall Rev. R. Cammenga, pastor of the Southwest PRC in Grandville, MI,
anticipated beginning to preach through the Lords Days of the Heidelberg Catechism
again. In light of this, he put together a
twenty-eight page packet of Material Relating to the Background and History of the
Heidelberg Catechism. Included in this
material was the history of the H.C. and various items of interest.
To bring their season to a close, the Sunday School children of the Hope PRC in
Redlands, CA invited their congregation to a short program after their evening service on
Sunday, August 24.
The evening of August 17 there was a presentation at Georgetown PRC in Hudsonville,
MI given by members of a group that traveled to Romania this summer. They spoke about their experience and showed
photos as well.
Evangelism Activities
The Reformed Witness Committee of the Doon, Edgerton, and Hull PR Churches
will again be sponsoring a Bible discussion on the campus of Dordt College. This year meetings will take place on a new night,
Wednesday evenings at 7:00 p.m. Their first
meeting was held already on September 3. They
have begun a study of the book of Daniel. The
RWC invites all who attend Dordt to consider this worthwhile study of Gods Word.
Denomination Activities
Sunday evening, September 7, members of our congregations in west Michigan
were invited to join the Hope Heralds as they concluded their summer season with a concert
of sacred music at Grandville, MI PRC.
On September 4, Rev. B. Gritters was installed into the position of Professor of
New Testament and Practical Theology in our seminary.
This year the annual Seminary Convocation was combined with Rev. Gritters
installation and was held at the Hudsonville, MI PRC.
Prof. R. Decker conducted the worship service and preached on II
Timothy 2:1, 2 under the theme, Committing the Truth to Faithful Men. This proved to be a very appropriate text for
faculty and students alike since it pointed them all to the awesome responsibility they
have as undershepherds and potential undershepherds of Gods church. Rev. Dale Kuiper, president of the Theological
School Committee, read the form for the installation of Rev. Gritters into the office of
professor, and also introduced the five men presently studying in our seminary. They are Nathan Langerak, first-year student;
Andrew Lanning and Clayton Spronk, second-year students; Dennis Lee and John Marcus,
third-year students. There are no fourth-year
students. We would also use this occasion to
remind our readers to remember our seminary in your prayers.
Minister Activities
Rev. R. Cammenga declined the call he was considering to serve as missionary
to Ghana. Rev. R. Cammenga has received the
call from Faith PRC to serve as their next pastor. Rev.
C. Haak declined the call he received from the Hudsonville, MI PRC to serve as their next
pastor. From a trio of the Revs. G. Eriks, D.
Kleyn, and J. Slopsema, the Byron Center, MI PRC extended a call to Rev. Slopsema.
And one final thought taken from a recent Grace PRC bulletin. All the calls and now one
minister to begin teaching at the Seminary means we have three vacancies in our PR
congregations. Ministers are busy filling
classical appointments. Churches must find
pulpit supply. Elders may lead the worship
services. And the congregations without
pastors must wait on the Lord. Let us pray
for one another as churches. Together let us
thank Him for abundantly providing His truth and the ministry of it.
NOTICE!!
With gratitude to God for
preserving us for the past fifty years, a number of our area churches are planning
lectures for October 30 and 31: the first, by
Prof. Russell Dykstra on Tried by Fire: Why
the Protestant Reformed Churches Had to Endure the Split of 1953; the second, by
Prof. Herman Hanko, on Conditional Theology and the Road Back to Rome. These lectures will be at Faith Protestant
Reformed Church at 7:30 p.m. Come, and bring a friend.
Reformation Lecture
Friday, October 24, 2003
7:30 p.m.
Rev. David Overway
will speak on
What Churches Need
Today
liturgical renewal? theological
pluralism?
or knowledge of the truth
taught by
faithful preaching of the Word
of God?
Join us at Covenant PRC
283 Squawbrook Road
Wyckoff, NJ
All are invited to attend.
For directions call: (201)
847-1754
On September 28, 2003, our
parents and grandparents,
KENNETH & MARILYN
celebrated
their 30th wedding anniversary. We are
thankful for the many years that God has blessed them in their marriage, and for the love,
care, and covenant instruction they have provided. We pray that God will continue to bless
them in the coming years and continue to keep their marriage grounded in Gods Word. But the mercy of the Lord is from
everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto
childrens children. (Psalm 103:17).
v
Ed &
Leah De Jong
v
Jack Jr. & Sharon Bretall
Jack III,
Luke
v
Stephan & Jennifer De Jong
v
Michael De Jong
v
Steve & Elisa Melendez
Devon
v
Kristin, Diana, Emily, Melissa,
v
Ruth De Jong (in glory)
Lansing, Illinois
Reformed Witness Hour
Topics for October
Date
Topic
Text
October 5
Spiritual Lethargy
Song
of Solomon 5:1-8
October 12
Not Weary in Well Doing
Galatians
6:9
October 19
Need for the Recovery of the Biblical Gospel Romans
1:16, 17
October 26
Need for the Recovery of the Biblical Gospel Romans
1:16, 17