Dear Brother A K,

No doubt most of the readers of The Banner have long since forgotten your Editorial in the October 21, 1985 issue, on the work of the committee to translate the Canons of Dort. So you may be asking me why I don’t just let that sleeping dog lie. The reason I am calling attention to it in this public fashion is that we as committee have learned that at least some people have taken you seriously when you accuse us of, “Instead of changing the confession to fit the Scriptures, the committee used an old and discredited Bible version to shore up the confession.” Although you cite only one instance where this may have been done, you give the impression that it is rather generally the case. This is a serious charge, not only against the committee, but also against the father of Dort who formulated the Canons. You generalize the accusation to an indefinite “we,” by whom you presumably mean all the members of the Christian Reformed Church when you conclude by saying: “We lack the courage to ask whether the content of the confession is in harmony with the Scriptures. But we have the audacity to make the Bible text fit the confession. We’d rather do that than be called Arminian.”

The evidence for these charges you find first of all in the statement of the committee that translation of Scripture texts quoted in the Canons constituted a special problem because the fathers of Dart do not always quote the Bible as found in modem versions. So the committee, rather than substitute a current version, e.g. the RSV or NIV, chose to translate the Latin as literally as possible. In this connection it must be remembered that in 1618 there was as yet no Dutch “Authorized Version,” the Staten Vertaling dates from 1637. The King James Version had just been completed in 1611. No doubt the learned members of the Synod often made their own translations from the Hebrew and the Greek. That there are a few instances where these can be called into question in the light of later textual and exegetical progress is not surprising, but in reality the instances where this is the case are much fewer than the statement of the committee might lead one to expect.

The example you zero in on is the quotation of Acts 15:18 in Article 6 of Chapter I. The Canons quote this text pretty much in language also found in the Authorized or King James Version, based on the so-called Textus Receptus. The KJV reads: “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Our translation of the Latin reads: “For all his works are known to God from eternity.” The RSV, following a text more acceptable to modern scholarship, reads: “Says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.” The NIV translates verse 18, “that have been known for ages,” “That” referring to “these things” that the Lord is said to do in verse 17. It is significant that the NIV considered the textual evidence for the older rendering strong enough to indicate in the footnote that some MSS read “things-known to the Lord for ages is his work.”

Before going into this example of the use of a “discredited text” to prove a doctrinal point I do want to call attention to the fact that this is the only instance where such a problem really looms large. In the positive part of the Canons, the Articles in distinction from the Rejection of Errors, there are only 18 instances of quoting texts or referring to them by location. Although naturally those who might disagree with the conclusions of the Synod will quarrel with the use of some of these citations, Acts 15:18 is the only one where the matter of manuscript authority enters into the picture. So giving the impression that the Canons and therefore also the committee are doing this repeatedly is grossly unfair.

You say two things about Acts 15:18. First, you call this an “old and discredited Bible version” leaving the impression that nothing can be said in favor of the KJV text. While it is true that most scholars are in favor of the RSV and NIV reading there have been and still are men who argue for the older text. The textual data involved have been known for a long time. I quote from the Pulpit Commentary: “As regards the reading of the R.V. in ver. 18 , it is a manifest corruption. It is not the reading of either the Hebrew or the Greek version of Amos, or of any other version; and it makes no sense. Whereas the T.R., which is the reading of Irenaeus (III, XII), as Meyer truly says, ‘presents a thought completely clear, pious, noble, and inoffensive as regards the connection,’ though he thinks that a reason for rejecting it. Nothing could be more germane to St. James’ argument than thus to show from the words of Amos that God’s present purpose of taking the Gentiles to be his people was, like all his other works, formed from the beginning of the world (camp. Eph. 1:9-10, 3:5-6, 2 Tim. 1:9, etc.).”

Your second objection goes beyond the matter of textual authority into the meaning of Acts 15:18 and you state: “But today nobody believes that Acts 15:18 says anything at all about an eternal decision of God that would determine which people would get saving faith. Nevertheless, we keep this wrong text in the Canons because the fathers had it there.”

The Report of the committee to study Dr. Harry Boer’s gravamen about reprobation correctly declares that Acts 15:18 does not prove the doctrine of reprobation which is taught in Article 6 as well as is the doctrine of election. But when taken in the context a good argument can be made for the fact that Acts 15:18, even in the revised version, says something about election. In his commentary on Acts Dr. F. F. Bruce says: “The conjunction ‘and’ before ‘all the Gentiles’ (v. 17) is epexegetic; a better translation would be ‘even’ or ‘that is to say.’ The ‘residue of men’ who are to ‘seek after the Lord’ are identical with ‘all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called’—i.e., the elect from every nation. According to v. 18 as translated in the ARV, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the ranks of God’s people was revealed in OT days (cf. Paul’s argument in Romans 15:8ff.).”

The Canadian Reformed Churches have recently approved a new translation of the Canons of Dort. In it they have come to a very interest ing solution of the problem of Acts 15:18. Dropping all reference to the location of Acts 15:18 they translate the first two sentences of Article 6 as follows: “That God in time confers the gift of faith on some, and not on others, proceeds from His eternal decree. For all His works He knows from eternity, and He accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will.” The margin indicates that the words in italics are from Ephesians 1:11. This, of course, is not a literal translation, but in fact a revision of the article. Significant it is that this revision accepts the words “All His works He (God) knows from eternity” as true, even though not Scripture. Although I personally do not approve of this solution to the problem of Acts 15: 18 I do believe that God does know all his works from eternity. Even the Arminians believed and still believe that; only in their view this foreknowledge does not determine election, but is contingent on human choices.

As a member of the committee my objection to your editorial is especially that you take the report of a committee mandated to translate the Canons as an opportunity for a diatribe against the Canons themselves and against the Christian Reformed Church for accepting the Canons as a confession! If we should revise the Canons the way for a gravamen is open, but the committee cannot be accused of audacity for simply doing its duty of giving the Church a faithful and accurate translation of an official doctrinal standard. As members of the committee we did not feel that we would rather make the Bible fit the confession rather than be called Arminians! That kind of language judges the motives not only of the committee members, but of many members of the Church who in good conscience are honestly committed to the Reformed faith as confessed in the Confession of Faith, Article 16, and the Canons of Dort, Chapter 1, Article 6.

Thanks especially to the conscientious work of two members of our committee, Dr. Don Sinnema and Dr. Al Wolters, I believe we have produced a very readable and accurate translation of the Canons of Dort. Contrary to your apparent feeling that this is a futile effort, it is my hope that this new translation will revive interest in the Canons and in the Reformed theology they defend and explain so well. I would expect The Banner to stimulate such interest and study.

Yours in the interest of being Reformed,

Elco H. Oostendorp

Hudsonville, Michigan