Dear Mr. Editor,
Allow me a few paragraphs in response to the recent article, “God’s Book is our Light” (April ’73, pp. 12–13) by my dear friend, colleague and namesake [Rev. Peter De Jong].
With much of the thrust of brother De Jong’s article I find myself in hearty agreement. Always there is danger that in preaching, teaching, and setting forth Scriptural truth both “theologically” and otherwise we fail to root this dearly in Scripture itself. This leaves the living Word for our lives.
However, I believe that some statements made in the article, together with what was left unsaid, may seriously mislead some readers.
I refer to the writer’s reference to the criticism offered of Dr. A. Kuyper by the Rev. L. J. Hulst and Prof. C. K. Hemkes on his use of the term “kern.” From what was written it would seem that Kuyper allowed professional theologians to lord it over the faith-life of the believing church because of their academic competence and thus opened the door to a freedom for speculative thought which destroys the authority of the Bible. I will weary neither you nor the readers with the heated debates of those years, reflecting a difference in mentality and approach between leaders of “Afscheiding” and “Doleantie” (the two great Reformed revival movements in 19th century Netherlands), while both professed to follow in Calvin’s footsteps and wanted above all to be true to Scripture. These discussions, by no means free from acrimony and even personal attack at times, played a significant role around the tum of the century also in the Christian Reformed Church.
What I am concerned about is that Kuyper’s use of the term “kern” shall not be misunderstood and misjudged. The impression given by the article, perhaps unintentionally, is that Kuyper because of this use can hardly be called a Biblically-loyal theologian. Brother De Jong, so it seems to me, too glibly accepts the criticism of Hulst and Hemkes and so does Kuyper an injustice and by implication ranges him against Vos, Warfield, Berkhof and especially Calvin. Such a conclusion is entirely unwarranted.
Anyone turning to Kuyper’s Dictaten Dogmatiek (5 vol.) must recognize that this method is that of thetically building up each article of the Christian faith from Biblical givens. This he does even more clearly at the first’ than Bavinck (who indeed was also in all his emphases thoroughly true to Scripture but often began by spending much time on defining the “issues” and “problems” against the background of theological and philosophical thought). One would really expect that at lea5t here brother De Jong would feel a greater kinship with Kuyperl His insistence that all theology be done in obedience to Scripture is evident from all his other works, for example, De Englen Gods, De Gemeene Gratie (3 vol.), Van de Voleinding (4 vol.) etc., not to mention the many, many devotional works which Bowed from his prolific pen. This same loyalty, despite the attack of Hulst and Hemkes with others against Kuyper’s understanding and analysis of the theological task of the believing community, is demonstrated also in his masterful Encyclopedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid (3 vol.). Here, as perhaps in other places, the term “kern” plays a role in his thought.
In a few paragraphs it is impossible to restate and evaluate this. I would refer, however, to his statement in vol. II , p. 297 (1894 edition). This must be seen against what he stated earlier about the distinction between “fons” and “principium” of theology. This, I am convinced, the critics failed to remember. Kuyper developed this clearly and consistently, summarizing his view on p. 520 of the same volume, which I quote in the Dutch (original) language:
“Wij wijken dus geen voetbreed van het door ons gevonden begrip van theologie af, d.i. die wetenschap die tot object heeft de theologia ectypa, die in de Heilige Schrift, als principium theologiae, gegenven is; alleen maar we weigeren de actie (it. of K.) van dit Woord buiten rekening te laten. Neit alleen de statica, maar ook de dynamica moet heir tot haar recht komen, en de Kerk, als product van de energie van het Woord, mag derhalve neit afgesneden, maar vindt in het geheel der theologische wetenschap haar eigen plaats . . . ”
Similar emphases on the centrality, authority, sufficiency, etc. of the Scriptures for theology fill Kuyper’s pages.
Here I plead not that we agree with every interpretation or application of Biblical truth made by Kuyper; far from it! But, then, few would subscribe to everything Calvin wrote either. Yet to make a sharp contrast between Kuyper on the one hand and Vos, Warfield, Berkhof and Calvin on the other is, to my mind, illegitimate. I would not like to see brother De Jong’s article interpreted by anyone in that fashion.
We do well to remember two things at this point:
first—that Kuyper, even when writing as a “professional theologian” always sought a hearing among the common folk who loved God and His Word. Therefore lie frequently used examples and figures of speech to clarify his point. This won for him such a wide and appreciative following among thousands. But since figures of speech often arc inadequate and open to misunderstanding, they were seized upon by the opposition, both within and outside of the Reformed camp. This, I believe, explains to some extent the opposition of Hulst and Hemkes;
and second—that Kuyper’s use of the term “kern” must be interpreted in the light of his own understanding and application thereof. Also Scripture was “kern” (kernel) in the sense of life-giving and life-sustaining seed of truth for all of life, but then only because it was product of the living Spirit of God. The Bible, and I would expect all to agree here, simply doesn’t say everything. Also the Westminster Confession, that jewel among the Reformed symbols of faith, testifies in this connection: “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, etc . . . .” (Ch. I. vi). No theologian worth his salt simply strings together a series of texts and supposes he has really “taught” God’s Word. Nor will preachers, teachers, parents, merchants, philosophers, farmers, etc.—if theirs are Christ-informed and Christ-controlled minds—do that. Here we wrestle with the whole issue of the relation between the creational and the redemptive work of our God, and thus between “general” and “special” revelation (to use these terms). And this Kuyper did in perhaps the most thorough, profound and sensitive way ever done by any theologian, while throughout magnifying the written Word. Even brother De Jong senses that the shoe begins to pinch, for he does speak of “pattern” found by Calvin in Scripture. Well, Kuyper—whether we agree with his “pattern” or not—attempted the same, as did Bavinek and Warfield and Berkhof. No one less than Warfield wrote an excellent monograph on The Right of Systematic Theology.
Without belaboring what perhaps I have already belabored too long, I would ask but one thing of our readers: Let’s not misunderstand Kuyper and his use of the term “kern,” in order to drive wedges where really there arc none!
Today I hear strange things among Reformed believers on this side of the ocean. Because of opposition to some positions and practices seemingly defended by our AACS brethren, ammunition against these is being gleaned in strange armories. Some now say they don’t believe in “sphere sovereignty” any longer, and that Kuyper by setting this forth (he wasn’t its originator, you know) has led. Reformed believers in an unbiblical direction. Unless the basic issues are clearly set forth -and that requires discussion which will fill many pages a sideswipe at a pbrase or an infelicitous expression or an inappropriate application will produce false polarizations among brothers and sisters who really stand together on the Scriptures. This breeds a party-spirit which destroys our unity in Christ according to His Word.
To be sure, the article itself does not intend this. Conclusions drawn from it by some readers, however, well may. And this, I am sure, we all want to avert.
Yours in the Lord, PETER Y. DE JONG Sioux Center, Iowa
REPLY
It was not and is not my intention to do less than justice to Dr. Abraham Kuyper’s respel1; for the Bible as God’s Word or to his aim to be obedient to it. If Dr. P. Y. De Jong’s reaction to my article eliminates a possible misunderstanding of Kuyper in this respect, it will serve a good purpose.
That Kuyper wanted to be guided by the Word of God is too plain in his voluminous writings to be open to question. That, amid the fantastic variety of his interests and labors he always succeeded in living up to this ideal, however, Kuyper himself would never have dared to claim. Was Kuyper in his view of the relationship between the Bible and Theology faithfully following his principle or was there a serious inconsistency at this point? That is the difficult question which we face. Dr. De Jong suggests that Hulst and Hemkes in their criticism of Kuyper during the controversies of two generations ago did him less than justice because they misunderstood his use of the word “kern” or “kernel” to describe biblical revelation. De Jong defends Kuyper against this criticism especially by some references to the second volume of his Encyclopedie,1 in which his concern to be biblical is clearly stated, and he cautions us against misunderstanding Kuyper by making “a sharp contrast between Kuyper on the one hand and Vos, Warfield, Berkhof and Calvin on the other,” driving “wedges where really there are none.”
Kuyper and Vos
While we must not misjudge Kuyper, we may not just brush aside the real nnd important difference which Dr. Richard Gaffin2 has pointed out between the views of Kuyper and Vos. Dr. Gaffin shows from a number of references to the third volume of Kuyper’s Encyclopedie how Kuyper made a sharp distinction between the Bible and the theology of the church. For him, the Bible contained no theology but the material out of which the church constructed its theology. Holding to an exactly opposite emphasis, Dr. Vos insisted on the continuity between Paul and his interpreters. For him Paul was a theologian, and “biblical and systematic theology must not be arbitrarily and artificially separated.” “Scripture must determine not only the content hut also the method of theology.”3 It seems that at this point Dr. Kuyper, despite his often expressed desire to be faithful to the Scriptures, was putting some distance between the Bible and the churches’ doctrine which in Vos’ view ought not to exist. Dr. Gaffin has pointed out how Kuyper’s assumptions have consciously and unconsciously influenced later Reformed thinkers.4
Relationship to AACS Writings
Dr. De Jong expresses his concern that differences between these Reformed leaders not be imagined or exaggerated in order to provide bases for critici7jng the AACS movement. I want to misrepresent’ no one, not any more than he does. It seems to me that in the pressing problems that we face with respect to this controversial movement we must observe that, regardless of whether the difference between Kuyper’s and Vos’ view of the relation between the Bible and the theology be considered large or small, both views are sharply opposed to that promoted by men of the AACS. Among them the Bible is being radical!y downgraded as only one among a number of “forms” of the Word of God. This neither Kuyper nor Vos would ever have dreamed. of doing. Consider, to take just one example of Kuyper’s writing, the following: “The confession is still almost universal that this self-revelation (of God) lies at our disposal in the Holy Scriptures, but while one group affirms; In the Holy Scripture and nothing else, another group asserts that the apocryphal books as well, and tradition, yea, the papal inspiration also, claim our attention; those who are mystically inclined tend to supersede the Scriptures by personal inspiration; and minds that wander off yet further point you to a Word of God in nature, in history, in the conscience, or in the ideal disposition of your heart” (last italics, mine).5 Doesn’t this error which Kuyper describes as farther from the truth than that of the Roman Catholics or the mystics look conspicuously like the AACS definitions of this broader “Word of God”?
We are not left to conjectures of our own regarding the cxistence of this difference between the AACS men and Kuyper and other Reformed theologians. It is emphatically stated. in AACS writings. Dr. Arnold De Graaff in the conclusion of his The Educational Ministry of the Church (pp. 157, 158) writes regarding Kuyper’s massive Encyclopedie that “Dr. Kuyper’s attempt to derive theology solely from Scriptural revelation” was a mistake.
“Without reference to the structural norms revealed in creation, theology cannot account for man’s faith, nor for the church as the fellowship of believers, nor for the nature of the church’s ministries. The basic concepts of which theology avails itself cannot be derived from Scripture, since the Bible does not contain scientific theological concepts. The Word of God is not a textbook for theology . If the theologian limits himself exclusively to Scripture, he is continually in danger of confusing the direction, the content, and the structure of faith, which invariably leads to a docetic conception of faith.” “. . . Since the meaning of Scripture cannot be grasped without considering the creational ordinances, we have felt free to make use of the ‘ground plan’ of these structural norms that has been provided by the Philosophy of Law. As a systematic discipline theology cannot do without such a theoretical account of the order of creation.” Neither Kuyper nor Vos, nor Calvin nor any other standard Reformed theologian would have wanted. anything to do. With such a radical downgrading of the Bible in which we are warned that it will “invariably” mislead us unless it is corrected and viewed in the light of a philosophy derived from other sources. We shall gain nothing but confusion and frustration for ourselves, and our faith for our churches and schools, or for our testimony to the world by pretending that such difference do not exist or are unimportant and ought to be ignored in the interest of pulling us together in a common front. We shall help neither ourselves nor those who are confused by or misled into such fundamental errors by just ignoring them. We only hope for a real Reformation of Christian life and revival of Christian faith if we return without compromise to the “Thus saith the Lord!” of the Scriptures. When God’s Word enjoins us to speak “the truth in love” it permits us to neglect neither love nor truth.
1. This Second volume of Kuyper’s Encyclopedie was translated into English and reprinted by Eerdmans in 1968 under the title, Principles of Sacred Theology. Dr. De Jong’s references to the Dutch edition are found in it on pages 341ff. and 573.
2. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin’s essay entitled, “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul” is found in the book Jerusalem and Athens, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House 1971, on pp. 266 ff. I referred. to it at some length in an article entitled, “The Bible and Church Doctrine” in the February 1972 issue of THE OUTLOOK, pp. 8, 9, and more briefly in the April 1973 issue, p. 12.
3. Pp. 233, 234.
4. In a footnote on p. 472 Gaffin even cites Dr. P. Y. De Jong’s is critical review of Ridderbos’ book on Paul as revealing this pervasive influence of Kuyper’s objectionable view!
5. Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, pp. 348, 349.
(An interesting and informative but rather inconclusive article on “The Development of Doctrine – an Evangelical Perspective” by Peter Toon in the March 1973 Reformed Journal directs attention to this same important subject. I am convinced that it should have more extensive study and frank discussion among us.)
Allow me a few paragraphs in response to the recent article, “God’s Book is our Light” (April ’73, pp. 12–13) by my dear friend, colleague and namesake [Rev. Peter De Jong].
With much of the thrust of brother De Jong’s article I find myself in hearty agreement. Always there is danger that in preaching, teaching, and setting forth Scriptural truth both “theologically” and otherwise we fail to root this dearly in Scripture itself. This leaves the living Word for our lives.
However, I believe that some statements made in the article, together with what was left unsaid, may seriously mislead some readers.
I refer to the writer’s reference to the criticism offered of Dr. A. Kuyper by the Rev. L. J. Hulst and Prof. C. K. Hemkes on his use of the term “kern.” From what was written it would seem that Kuyper allowed professional theologians to lord it over the faith-life of the believing church because of their academic competence and thus opened the door to a freedom for speculative thought which destroys the authority of the Bible. I will weary neither you nor the readers with the heated debates of those years, reflecting a difference in mentality and approach between leaders of “Afscheiding” and “Doleantie” (the two great Reformed revival movements in 19th century Netherlands), while both professed to follow in Calvin’s footsteps and wanted above all to be true to Scripture. These discussions, by no means free from acrimony and even personal attack at times, played a significant role around the tum of the century also in the Christian Reformed Church.
What I am concerned about is that Kuyper’s use of the term “kern” shall not be misunderstood and misjudged. The impression given by the article, perhaps unintentionally, is that Kuyper because of this use can hardly be called a Biblically-loyal theologian. Brother De Jong, so it seems to me, too glibly accepts the criticism of Hulst and Hemkes and so does Kuyper an injustice and by implication ranges him against Vos, Warfield, Berkhof and especially Calvin. Such a conclusion is entirely unwarranted.
Anyone turning to Kuyper’s Dictaten Dogmatiek (5 vol.) must recognize that this method is that of thetically building up each article of the Christian faith from Biblical givens. This he does even more clearly at the first’ than Bavinck (who indeed was also in all his emphases thoroughly true to Scripture but often began by spending much time on defining the “issues” and “problems” against the background of theological and philosophical thought). One would really expect that at lea5t here brother De Jong would feel a greater kinship with Kuyperl His insistence that all theology be done in obedience to Scripture is evident from all his other works, for example, De Englen Gods, De Gemeene Gratie (3 vol.), Van de Voleinding (4 vol.) etc., not to mention the many, many devotional works which Bowed from his prolific pen. This same loyalty, despite the attack of Hulst and Hemkes with others against Kuyper’s understanding and analysis of the theological task of the believing community, is demonstrated also in his masterful Encyclopedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid (3 vol.). Here, as perhaps in other places, the term “kern” plays a role in his thought.
In a few paragraphs it is impossible to restate and evaluate this. I would refer, however, to his statement in vol. II , p. 297 (1894 edition). This must be seen against what he stated earlier about the distinction between “fons” and “principium” of theology. This, I am convinced, the critics failed to remember. Kuyper developed this clearly and consistently, summarizing his view on p. 520 of the same volume, which I quote in the Dutch (original) language:
“Wij wijken dus geen voetbreed van het door ons gevonden begrip van theologie af, d.i. die wetenschap die tot object heeft de theologia ectypa, die in de Heilige Schrift, als principium theologiae, gegenven is; alleen maar we weigeren de actie (it. of K.) van dit Woord buiten rekening te laten. Neit alleen de statica, maar ook de dynamica moet heir tot haar recht komen, en de Kerk, als product van de energie van het Woord, mag derhalve neit afgesneden, maar vindt in het geheel der theologische wetenschap haar eigen plaats . . . ”
Similar emphases on the centrality, authority, sufficiency, etc. of the Scriptures for theology fill Kuyper’s pages.
Here I plead not that we agree with every interpretation or application of Biblical truth made by Kuyper; far from it! But, then, few would subscribe to everything Calvin wrote either. Yet to make a sharp contrast between Kuyper on the one hand and Vos, Warfield, Berkhof and Calvin on the other is, to my mind, illegitimate. I would not like to see brother De Jong’s article interpreted by anyone in that fashion.
We do well to remember two things at this point:
first—that Kuyper, even when writing as a “professional theologian” always sought a hearing among the common folk who loved God and His Word. Therefore lie frequently used examples and figures of speech to clarify his point. This won for him such a wide and appreciative following among thousands. But since figures of speech often arc inadequate and open to misunderstanding, they were seized upon by the opposition, both within and outside of the Reformed camp. This, I believe, explains to some extent the opposition of Hulst and Hemkes;
and second—that Kuyper’s use of the term “kern” must be interpreted in the light of his own understanding and application thereof. Also Scripture was “kern” (kernel) in the sense of life-giving and life-sustaining seed of truth for all of life, but then only because it was product of the living Spirit of God. The Bible, and I would expect all to agree here, simply doesn’t say everything. Also the Westminster Confession, that jewel among the Reformed symbols of faith, testifies in this connection: “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, etc . . . .” (Ch. I. vi). No theologian worth his salt simply strings together a series of texts and supposes he has really “taught” God’s Word. Nor will preachers, teachers, parents, merchants, philosophers, farmers, etc.—if theirs are Christ-informed and Christ-controlled minds—do that. Here we wrestle with the whole issue of the relation between the creational and the redemptive work of our God, and thus between “general” and “special” revelation (to use these terms). And this Kuyper did in perhaps the most thorough, profound and sensitive way ever done by any theologian, while throughout magnifying the written Word. Even brother De Jong senses that the shoe begins to pinch, for he does speak of “pattern” found by Calvin in Scripture. Well, Kuyper—whether we agree with his “pattern” or not—attempted the same, as did Bavinek and Warfield and Berkhof. No one less than Warfield wrote an excellent monograph on The Right of Systematic Theology.
Without belaboring what perhaps I have already belabored too long, I would ask but one thing of our readers: Let’s not misunderstand Kuyper and his use of the term “kern,” in order to drive wedges where really there arc none!
Today I hear strange things among Reformed believers on this side of the ocean. Because of opposition to some positions and practices seemingly defended by our AACS brethren, ammunition against these is being gleaned in strange armories. Some now say they don’t believe in “sphere sovereignty” any longer, and that Kuyper by setting this forth (he wasn’t its originator, you know) has led. Reformed believers in an unbiblical direction. Unless the basic issues are clearly set forth -and that requires discussion which will fill many pages a sideswipe at a pbrase or an infelicitous expression or an inappropriate application will produce false polarizations among brothers and sisters who really stand together on the Scriptures. This breeds a party-spirit which destroys our unity in Christ according to His Word.
To be sure, the article itself does not intend this. Conclusions drawn from it by some readers, however, well may. And this, I am sure, we all want to avert.
Yours in the Lord, PETER Y. DE JONG Sioux Center, Iowa
REPLY
It was not and is not my intention to do less than justice to Dr. Abraham Kuyper’s respel1; for the Bible as God’s Word or to his aim to be obedient to it. If Dr. P. Y. De Jong’s reaction to my article eliminates a possible misunderstanding of Kuyper in this respect, it will serve a good purpose.
That Kuyper wanted to be guided by the Word of God is too plain in his voluminous writings to be open to question. That, amid the fantastic variety of his interests and labors he always succeeded in living up to this ideal, however, Kuyper himself would never have dared to claim. Was Kuyper in his view of the relationship between the Bible and Theology faithfully following his principle or was there a serious inconsistency at this point? That is the difficult question which we face. Dr. De Jong suggests that Hulst and Hemkes in their criticism of Kuyper during the controversies of two generations ago did him less than justice because they misunderstood his use of the word “kern” or “kernel” to describe biblical revelation. De Jong defends Kuyper against this criticism especially by some references to the second volume of his Encyclopedie,1 in which his concern to be biblical is clearly stated, and he cautions us against misunderstanding Kuyper by making “a sharp contrast between Kuyper on the one hand and Vos, Warfield, Berkhof and Calvin on the other,” driving “wedges where really there are none.”
Kuyper and Vos
While we must not misjudge Kuyper, we may not just brush aside the real nnd important difference which Dr. Richard Gaffin2 has pointed out between the views of Kuyper and Vos. Dr. Gaffin shows from a number of references to the third volume of Kuyper’s Encyclopedie how Kuyper made a sharp distinction between the Bible and the theology of the church. For him, the Bible contained no theology but the material out of which the church constructed its theology. Holding to an exactly opposite emphasis, Dr. Vos insisted on the continuity between Paul and his interpreters. For him Paul was a theologian, and “biblical and systematic theology must not be arbitrarily and artificially separated.” “Scripture must determine not only the content hut also the method of theology.”3 It seems that at this point Dr. Kuyper, despite his often expressed desire to be faithful to the Scriptures, was putting some distance between the Bible and the churches’ doctrine which in Vos’ view ought not to exist. Dr. Gaffin has pointed out how Kuyper’s assumptions have consciously and unconsciously influenced later Reformed thinkers.4
Relationship to AACS Writings
Dr. De Jong expresses his concern that differences between these Reformed leaders not be imagined or exaggerated in order to provide bases for critici7jng the AACS movement. I want to misrepresent’ no one, not any more than he does. It seems to me that in the pressing problems that we face with respect to this controversial movement we must observe that, regardless of whether the difference between Kuyper’s and Vos’ view of the relation between the Bible and the theology be considered large or small, both views are sharply opposed to that promoted by men of the AACS. Among them the Bible is being radical!y downgraded as only one among a number of “forms” of the Word of God. This neither Kuyper nor Vos would ever have dreamed. of doing. Consider, to take just one example of Kuyper’s writing, the following: “The confession is still almost universal that this self-revelation (of God) lies at our disposal in the Holy Scriptures, but while one group affirms; In the Holy Scripture and nothing else, another group asserts that the apocryphal books as well, and tradition, yea, the papal inspiration also, claim our attention; those who are mystically inclined tend to supersede the Scriptures by personal inspiration; and minds that wander off yet further point you to a Word of God in nature, in history, in the conscience, or in the ideal disposition of your heart” (last italics, mine).5 Doesn’t this error which Kuyper describes as farther from the truth than that of the Roman Catholics or the mystics look conspicuously like the AACS definitions of this broader “Word of God”?
We are not left to conjectures of our own regarding the cxistence of this difference between the AACS men and Kuyper and other Reformed theologians. It is emphatically stated. in AACS writings. Dr. Arnold De Graaff in the conclusion of his The Educational Ministry of the Church (pp. 157, 158) writes regarding Kuyper’s massive Encyclopedie that “Dr. Kuyper’s attempt to derive theology solely from Scriptural revelation” was a mistake.
“Without reference to the structural norms revealed in creation, theology cannot account for man’s faith, nor for the church as the fellowship of believers, nor for the nature of the church’s ministries. The basic concepts of which theology avails itself cannot be derived from Scripture, since the Bible does not contain scientific theological concepts. The Word of God is not a textbook for theology . If the theologian limits himself exclusively to Scripture, he is continually in danger of confusing the direction, the content, and the structure of faith, which invariably leads to a docetic conception of faith.” “. . . Since the meaning of Scripture cannot be grasped without considering the creational ordinances, we have felt free to make use of the ‘ground plan’ of these structural norms that has been provided by the Philosophy of Law. As a systematic discipline theology cannot do without such a theoretical account of the order of creation.” Neither Kuyper nor Vos, nor Calvin nor any other standard Reformed theologian would have wanted. anything to do. With such a radical downgrading of the Bible in which we are warned that it will “invariably” mislead us unless it is corrected and viewed in the light of a philosophy derived from other sources. We shall gain nothing but confusion and frustration for ourselves, and our faith for our churches and schools, or for our testimony to the world by pretending that such difference do not exist or are unimportant and ought to be ignored in the interest of pulling us together in a common front. We shall help neither ourselves nor those who are confused by or misled into such fundamental errors by just ignoring them. We only hope for a real Reformation of Christian life and revival of Christian faith if we return without compromise to the “Thus saith the Lord!” of the Scriptures. When God’s Word enjoins us to speak “the truth in love” it permits us to neglect neither love nor truth.
1. This Second volume of Kuyper’s Encyclopedie was translated into English and reprinted by Eerdmans in 1968 under the title, Principles of Sacred Theology. Dr. De Jong’s references to the Dutch edition are found in it on pages 341ff. and 573.
2. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin’s essay entitled, “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul” is found in the book Jerusalem and Athens, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House 1971, on pp. 266 ff. I referred. to it at some length in an article entitled, “The Bible and Church Doctrine” in the February 1972 issue of THE OUTLOOK, pp. 8, 9, and more briefly in the April 1973 issue, p. 12.
3. Pp. 233, 234.
4. In a footnote on p. 472 Gaffin even cites Dr. P. Y. De Jong’s is critical review of Ridderbos’ book on Paul as revealing this pervasive influence of Kuyper’s objectionable view!
5. Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, pp. 348, 349.
(An interesting and informative but rather inconclusive article on “The Development of Doctrine – an Evangelical Perspective” by Peter Toon in the March 1973 Reformed Journal directs attention to this same important subject. I am convinced that it should have more extensive study and frank discussion among us.)