Dr. Simon Kistemaker, professor of Bible at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, was requested to supply information, as soon as possible about the decision of the Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands concerning the well-known Kuitert controversy. Before this issue went to press, TORCH AND TRUMPET received also another article on this matter from Marten H. Woudstra, professor of Old Testament theology at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Because of the importance of this matter and the interest in it, both articles are herewith made available for our readers.
Overture and Protests – The Synod of Sneek 1970 of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands had to consider some two hundred overtures and protests concerning the historicity of Adam and related doctrines reinterpreted by theologians within the Gereformeerde Kerken. Among others, Dr. Harry M. Kuilert, professor of ethics at Amsterdam’s Free University, has reinterpreted the teachings in a number of his hooks. For example, in his popular book Do You Understand What You Read? Kuitert explains how Paul used his knowledge of Genesis 1–3 when he wrote Romans 5:12ff: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned…Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses.” Says Kuitert: “Paul uses the figure of Adam in this chapter not as an anchor for Christ and His work, but as a way of illuminating the meaning and scope of Jesus Christ and His saving work. Adam serves Paul by helping the apostle preach Jesus. As a pedagogical example or, if you will, a teaching model, Adam does not have to be an historical figure” (p. 40).
In this new approach to interpreting Scripture a distinction is made between content and form of the message. As long as the content of the message is understood, the form (teaching model) is not important. The form is merely the vehicle which conveys the content. This approach teaches that it is not so important that the Christian believes in a historical Adam, as long as he understands the content of, the Scriptural account.
But who is going to determine the difference between content and form? Does this not lead to sl1bjectivism? If a distinction is made between the content of Genesis 2 and 3 and the form of these chapters, the door is then open to every wind of doctrine. If a distinction can he made between the form and content of the account concerning Adam, then this distinction can also be made concerning the second Adam. How long will it be before the historicity of Jesus Christ is subjected to the distinction between form and content? How long will it be before we hear concerning the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus that we are only interested in the content of the biblical account, not in the form?
Against the teaching of the new theology, many people protested by sending their objections to the synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken, in session during the first week of November 1970 to deal with this particular item on the agenda.
Dutch Synod Speaks – During the first week of November 1970 the Synod of Sneek spoke. Following is the text of the decision:
“1. The overtures were fragmentary in nature and as such provided little evidence.
“2. Synod nevertheless states that the denial of Dr. Kuitert is not in hannony with the decision of the Synod of Amsterdam 1967–1968. Dr. Kuitert denies the historicity of the fall into sin as the turning away of man from God at the dawn of human history.
“3. Meanwhile it has become evident also on the floor of Synod that Dr. Kuitert is not the only one who expresses these sentiments.
“4. Although this situation is unsatisfactory with respect to mutual unity, yet Synod gratefully takes note of the following confession to which all the members of Synod subscribe: ‘God has created man good in a relationship of love and communion with Him, but man in willful disobedience has refused and continues to refuse to live in this relationship; all humanity has become estranged from God and has lapsed into slavery; humanity can only be saved through God’s gracious intervention.’
“5. Synod is of the opinion that the unity of the church’s confession may not be considered such a controversy that at present further decisions must be made.
“6. Synod appoints a committee to continue the discussion in this situation and to strive earnestly for mutual unity also in those matters in which a difference of opinion was clearly manifest.”
Evaluation – The Synod of Amsterdam 1967–1968 had declared that “that which is articulated in the Confession of the church concerning the origin of sin and the effects of the fall into sin (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 3 and 4, and the Belgic Confession, Articles 14 and 15) clearly expressed the fundamental meaning which the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, that is, Romans 5 attribute to this history and therefore should be maintained by the church as being of essential importance for the proclamation of the gospel.”
The Synod of Amsterdam still referred to Scripture (Romans 5) and to the articles of our confessions. That Synod even incorporated the word history in its formulation to underline the truth that the origin of sin as described and recorded in Scripture is an event that happened.
And what docs the Synod of Sneek 1970 say? Synod looking back to the decision of 1967–1968 says that “the denial of Dr. Kuitert is not in harmony with the decision of the Synod of Amsterdam.” And looking at the present, Synod expresses happiness about the confession of the delegates: “God has created man good in a relationship of love and communion with Him, but man in willful disobedience has refused and continues to refuse to live in this relationship; all humanity has become estranged from God and has lapsed into slavery; humanity can be saved only through God’s gracious intervention.” But Synod no longer refers to Scripture and to the articles of om confessions. The confession is very general and leaves ample room for everyone. In fact, the door is open for every wind of doctrine.
Overture and Protests – The Synod of Sneek 1970 of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands had to consider some two hundred overtures and protests concerning the historicity of Adam and related doctrines reinterpreted by theologians within the Gereformeerde Kerken. Among others, Dr. Harry M. Kuilert, professor of ethics at Amsterdam’s Free University, has reinterpreted the teachings in a number of his hooks. For example, in his popular book Do You Understand What You Read? Kuitert explains how Paul used his knowledge of Genesis 1–3 when he wrote Romans 5:12ff: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned…Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses.” Says Kuitert: “Paul uses the figure of Adam in this chapter not as an anchor for Christ and His work, but as a way of illuminating the meaning and scope of Jesus Christ and His saving work. Adam serves Paul by helping the apostle preach Jesus. As a pedagogical example or, if you will, a teaching model, Adam does not have to be an historical figure” (p. 40).
In this new approach to interpreting Scripture a distinction is made between content and form of the message. As long as the content of the message is understood, the form (teaching model) is not important. The form is merely the vehicle which conveys the content. This approach teaches that it is not so important that the Christian believes in a historical Adam, as long as he understands the content of, the Scriptural account.
But who is going to determine the difference between content and form? Does this not lead to sl1bjectivism? If a distinction is made between the content of Genesis 2 and 3 and the form of these chapters, the door is then open to every wind of doctrine. If a distinction can he made between the form and content of the account concerning Adam, then this distinction can also be made concerning the second Adam. How long will it be before the historicity of Jesus Christ is subjected to the distinction between form and content? How long will it be before we hear concerning the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus that we are only interested in the content of the biblical account, not in the form?
Against the teaching of the new theology, many people protested by sending their objections to the synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken, in session during the first week of November 1970 to deal with this particular item on the agenda.
Dutch Synod Speaks – During the first week of November 1970 the Synod of Sneek spoke. Following is the text of the decision:
“1. The overtures were fragmentary in nature and as such provided little evidence.
“2. Synod nevertheless states that the denial of Dr. Kuitert is not in hannony with the decision of the Synod of Amsterdam 1967–1968. Dr. Kuitert denies the historicity of the fall into sin as the turning away of man from God at the dawn of human history.
“3. Meanwhile it has become evident also on the floor of Synod that Dr. Kuitert is not the only one who expresses these sentiments.
“4. Although this situation is unsatisfactory with respect to mutual unity, yet Synod gratefully takes note of the following confession to which all the members of Synod subscribe: ‘God has created man good in a relationship of love and communion with Him, but man in willful disobedience has refused and continues to refuse to live in this relationship; all humanity has become estranged from God and has lapsed into slavery; humanity can only be saved through God’s gracious intervention.’
“5. Synod is of the opinion that the unity of the church’s confession may not be considered such a controversy that at present further decisions must be made.
“6. Synod appoints a committee to continue the discussion in this situation and to strive earnestly for mutual unity also in those matters in which a difference of opinion was clearly manifest.”
Evaluation – The Synod of Amsterdam 1967–1968 had declared that “that which is articulated in the Confession of the church concerning the origin of sin and the effects of the fall into sin (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 3 and 4, and the Belgic Confession, Articles 14 and 15) clearly expressed the fundamental meaning which the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, that is, Romans 5 attribute to this history and therefore should be maintained by the church as being of essential importance for the proclamation of the gospel.”
The Synod of Amsterdam still referred to Scripture (Romans 5) and to the articles of our confessions. That Synod even incorporated the word history in its formulation to underline the truth that the origin of sin as described and recorded in Scripture is an event that happened.
And what docs the Synod of Sneek 1970 say? Synod looking back to the decision of 1967–1968 says that “the denial of Dr. Kuitert is not in harmony with the decision of the Synod of Amsterdam.” And looking at the present, Synod expresses happiness about the confession of the delegates: “God has created man good in a relationship of love and communion with Him, but man in willful disobedience has refused and continues to refuse to live in this relationship; all humanity has become estranged from God and has lapsed into slavery; humanity can be saved only through God’s gracious intervention.” But Synod no longer refers to Scripture and to the articles of om confessions. The confession is very general and leaves ample room for everyone. In fact, the door is open for every wind of doctrine.