C.R.C. History
You may agree that the condition of the church is bad in Holland, but surely this will never happen to our church here in Canada and U.S.A. Things are different here. But are they? Let the Acts of our Synods speak, and then you can judge for yourselves.
In 1922 our Synod also dealt with a minister who wanted certain “Freedoms,” but Synod declared that Article 3 and 7 of the Belgic Confession “disallow the injection of a fallible human element into divine revelation.”13 Again in 1937 a similar concern surfaced and Synod declared that the notes of a certain professor “contained manifestations of a false evolutionistic view of the developments of revelation . . . ” and “manifestations of a naturalistic view of revelation.”14 The Synod made it very clear where they stood.
However, just like the G.K.N. did not remain the same, a shift of thinking is also evident from the pages of our Acts of Synod. In 1959 one of our seminary professors was very concerned about the views of one of his colleagues who bad written an article: “How shall we understand infallibility.” His concern was that “such a view concentrates the infallibility of scripture upon its ‘message’ and implies that scripture contains material on the ‘periphery’ of its message to which infallibility does not apply.” The professor saw that such a “distinction implies that fallible man must determine what is and what is not the message of the scripture”15 and that such views “are a drastic re-interpretation of Article 3 and 7 of our Belgic Confession.”16
The issue at stake is again whether every word of scripture is historically accurate, without error and infallible, or whether due to “scientific” evidences we must re-evaluate certain passages and allow for the possibility that where there is conflict such passages ought not to be considered as infallible.
Synod, however, declared that the charges made against the professor were by “inference” but that these charges did not demonstrate them to be a “necessary inference.”17 Hence the professor in question was exonerated.
However, the concerns did not disappear. Synod appointed a study committee to study the relationship between inspiration and infallibility in the light of scripture and our creedal “standards.” This committee reported in 1961.18
I will not comment on the report itself. A now well known minister has written a revealing article on this report. He said: “by ‘accuracy,’ ‘inerrancy’ and ‘consistency’ we should not in the first instance mean that the historical, psychological or phenomological statements of scripture conform precisely as we today understand precision, the event or circumstance . . . but that they completely fulfill the spirit’s purpose for making those statements.” We are nevertheless assured that scripture is “wholly adequate unto the intent and purpose for which it was given. It’s infallibility conveys the meaning envisioned by its author.” “The adequacy, perfection and sufficiency of scripture is geared to its redemptive intent and purpose which is also true of its infallibility.”19
What the one professor so feared in 1959, namely, that fallible man must determine what is and what is not the message of scripture, is exactly what is suggested in this evaluation of the 1961 report. The scripture is infallible as far as its intent and purpose is concerned. The message of redemption is infallible, but the non–redemptive elements are not included. We now must decide which parts of the Bible are infallible and which are not. Thus we see that in precisely the same year that the G.K.N. committee reported to its Synod that the 1926 Assen decision was no longer an adequate statement due to scientific advances, we find similar voices in our own circles as well.
We ought, therefore, not to be surprised that this pattern of thought continued in our circles so that finally a committee was appointed in 1969 to study “the connection between the content and purpose of scripture as saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deductible authority of scripture.”
Having started with a mandate that assumes that the content determines the authority rather than God as author of all that is written in the scriptures, it is not surprising that at one point the report concludes: “although we must maintain that the Biblical message is rooted in the historical reality of the events recorded in scripture, we must also recognize that these historical narratives are not purely objective factual accounts.”20 We are further told that “scripture interprets as it narrates.” “In its witness to events it also proclaims the meaning of those events.”21 That is why the reports speak of “event character” and “revelational meaning.” You are not getting an actual description of what happened in history, but you are receiving an interpretation of that event.
That could mean that when John records Jesus as saying: “I am the way, the truth and the life,” it may well be that Jesus never actually spoke those words. What is recorded by John is his interpretation of what Jesus said.
Report 44 concludes: “in its witness to events it (the scripture) also proclaims the meaning of these events. Recognizing this leads us to a clear understanding of what kind of a book the Bible is.”22 But is that really the case? Do we have a clearer understanding of what kind of book the Bible is after Report 44 in 1972? I am afraid not. Various individuals have appealed to Report 44 as the “escape route” to justify their denial of a literal earthquake in Matt. 28 and denial of the Genesis accounts as exact history when it speaks of a real garden and a real snake.
In fact, those who are honest, dare to say it the way it is. “Report 44 appears to recognize (in order ‘to interpret historical texts properly’) that same distinction, for it binds the interpreter to the ‘event character’ of Gen. 1–3 but not to a literary genre of those chapters.”23 Others hold to the view that “even though Genesis is not in itself adequate for specifically scientific purposes of present day anthropologists and historians—it still remains the wholly adequate Word of God to us about our past.”
Much more could be said, but the point is clear; again we are faced with the fact that our understanding of scripture must be brought in line with modern science. This much is clearly the case and, therefore, we have followed the G.K.N. and many others who have gone that route. All attempts in the history of the church to “correlate” the scriptures with modern sciences have ended up totally bankrupt. As Dr. Machen warned long ago “the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity.”24
We have clearly seen how the G.K.N. made an about turn between 1926 and 1980. The results are tragic! The C.R.C. has also made an about turn, not because it has officially adopted the clearcut decisions of the G.K.N. in 1967 and 1980, but because it has not dealt with those who hold similar views. It will be only a few years before we are officially as far astray as the G.K.N.
The fact that Synod this year adopted certain recommendations on the grounds of Report 44 is obviously no help. To ask everyone to “affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Gen. 1–3”25 sounds good, but is in fact misleading when we already know that the words “historical” and “event” have a totally different meaning today from what they had when the articles of the Belgic Confession were written. Whether or not a person denies or affirms the “historical Adam” in our circles today has become a play on words. There are those among us who do not believe the writer of Genesis intended those early accounts (snake and the tree) “to be read as history.”26 In fact we are honestly told that “games have been played with the word ‘historical.’ The word has acquired such broad meaning that every professor at Calvin Seminary can affirm the ‘historical Adam,’ though it is not very likely that all of them read the Genesis accounts as straight-forward history.”27 Indeed we need to be as concerned for our church as Herman Ridderbos was for the G.K.N. when he said: “That which gives me concern is the spiritual confusion which slowly makes not only reformed life but also the Christian life and confession more and more undefinable and indefinite.”28
How can we regain clarity amidst our confusion? We must leave the relative and return to the absolute. What becomes the crucial question in our whole discussion of spiritual adultery (apostasy) is this: “What do you believe concerning the scriptures?” “It is the Christ who speaks to us in Scripture. In it he tells us who he is and what we are. He tells us that he has come to save us from our sins.”29 Therefore, to avoid spiritual adultery, you must understand something about God’s revelation of himself to you. This is the answer to our dilemma today.
How does God reveal himself today? “God’s revelation in nature, together with God’s revelation in Scripture form God’s one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man.”80 This is the key to understanding that there is no competition between scripture and science. Those who accept the authority of “science” over that of Scripture have not understood God’s grand scheme of his revelation to man. Understanding that gives us a clear direction on how to understand Gen. 1–3 as well.
We know what Rom. 1:20 says about natural revelation: “For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.” Yet as clear as natural revelation is, it was never meant to function by itself. Already in paradise we see both natural and supernatural revelation of God. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was just like all the other trees in the garden. It was naturally the same as the others, not supernaturally. “If it had been naturally different, then it would not have served its unique purpose . . . but now God’s supernatural revelation distinguished it from all the other trees . . . for the supernatural to appear as supernatural the natural had to appear as really natural.”31
Now we can also see the unique purpose of the scriptures. The scriptures are the finished product of God’s supernatural and saving revelation to man after his covenant disobedience. What Adam and Eve’s sin amounted to was a denial of God’s natural and supernatural revelation. They became hopelessly lost, unable to judge any of God’s revelation in a right way.
Yet the Lord comes again in a supernatural way and in the scriptures calls out: “Come let us reason together.” God is appealing to covenant breakers who are denying his revelation. Can man respond to that? Only when the Holy Spirit gives him a new heart will he accept the evidence of scripture about itself and about nature for what it really is. The power of the Holy Spirit enables man to see all things in true perspective.
Yet, even the redeemed sinner, who has been reconciled to God has the “old man” in him. This “old man” still wants to interpret nature apart from the supernatural revelation . . . The only safeguard he has against this . . . is to test his interpretations constantly by the principles of the written Word.”32 That is the only way every “scientist” will be able to rightly understand his science. Even “the philosopher is directly subject to the Bible and must in the last analysis rest . . . upon the Word.”33
This is the way out of our confusion and spiritual adultery. We must understand that Scripture is not merely a record of revelation (as Report 44 appears to presume) but it is itself revelation. It is the finished and final product of God’s supernatural revelation to make us obedient covenant children. “No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation for no prophecy ever came by the will of man but men spake from God being moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet.1:21) Has the Holy Spirit moved your heart to believe every word that is written in the Word? Have you obeyed your Lord? Unless the scriptures are that precious to us, we will not hear our Lord. We will turn Him off with all kinds of excuses of “time-boundness” or “Babylonian or Mesopotamian mythology” or something else.
The Christian chemist, biologist, and physicist dig into nature to discover the marvellous things God has created. The fantastic scientific advances indeed display the glorious handiwork of God in nature. We praise and magnify him for it. Studying the scriptures, the Christian exegete digs deeper and deeper into God’s special revelation to discover greater and greater treasures. Psalm 119:18 says: “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law.” And who do we see? “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he (Jesus) explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” (Luke 24:26).
Even as man will never exhaust the manual of natural revelation, so in studying the scriptures, for every area of life, man is confronted by the love of God calling him back to Himself: “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven . . . so is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” Our lives are refreshed, we blossom and yield fruit unto the Lord in obedient response to His Word, just as the rain waters the earth and brings forth fruit for the sower and bread for the eater. According to this same Word, the Holy Spirit comforts, strengthens, directs the redeemed. We see this is Psalms 119:28: “My soul is weary with sorrow, strengthen me according to your Word;” verse 35: “direct me in the paths of your commandments for there I find delight;” verse 37: “renew my life according to your word.”
I plead with you my fellow church members, accept the revelation of God in the scriptures. Do not allow yourselves to be influenced by a liberal theology which takes away the authority of the Bible as Christ himself confronting his people. Believe all of it and live according to it.
I know that the word apostasy sounds harsh but it must be called what it is: spiritual adultery. Already many lives, marriages and homes are being destroyed by an idol, a god worse than Molech: “Modern liberal theology is worse than following the Molech of old.”35
My concern for the Christian Reformed Church, in t he words of Francis Schaeffer, is that: “Men—men who were supposedly the men of God—have stood by while the children were eaten up by modern theology. And then we are told to show no emotion. . . . Every scar this present generation has, every tear cried, every baby which some of you who read this have willfully aborted, every drug trip you have taken, cannot be separated from the fact that the church has turned away and become unfaithful. Men of this generation are babies in the hands of Molech. And are we, as mere dilettantes, supposed to stand by, hear their cries and cover them up by beating loudly the drums of a profitless discussion? I tell you. No. We are to weep and to act.”36
13. Acts of Synod, 1922, p. 279.
14. Acts of Synod, 1937, Art. 191 and 149.
15. Acts of Synod, 1959, p. 69, point 8A.
16. Acts of Synod, 1959, p. 70, point 9A.
17. Acts of Synod, 1959, p. 69, point B1.
18. Acts of Synod, 1961, Report No. 24, p. 253–928.
19. Reformed Journal May/61, p. 184.
20. Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority, (Report 44), p. 55, pt. 3.
21. Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority, (Report 44), p. 53.
22. Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority (Report 44), p. 55, pt. 3.
23. Banner Article: “Response to Critics,” Aug. 23/82, p. 12.
24. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism. p. 7.
25. Acts of Synod, 1982, Art. 108, p. 109.
26. Banner Article: “Response to Critics,” Aug. 23/82, p. 12.
27. Banner Article: “Response to Critics,” Aug. 29/82, p. 12.
28. Calvinist Contact: “Gereformeerde Weekblad is no more,” Sept. 9/82.
29. Cornelius Van Til, Defence of the Faith, Vol. 1, p. 81.
30. Cornelius Van Til, Defence of the Faith, VoL 1, p. 4.
31. Cornelius Van Til, Infallible Word, p. 269.
32. Cornelius Van Til, Infallible Word, p. 282.
33. Cornelius Van Til, Infallible Word, p. 289.
34. Francis Schaeffer, Church Before a Watching World, p. 54.
35. Francis Schaeffer, Church Before a Watching World, p. 55.
36. Francis Schaeffer, Church Before a Watching World, p. 55.
Note: Rev. Harry J. Bout has for the past year been the pastor of the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Bowmanville, Ontario. After extensive discussion with his consistory of the issues raised in this article, he in August asked the consistory to publically express its convictions regarding them. When a majority refused this support he offered his resignation. Five weeks later Classis Quinte declared him deposed from the ministry because of his resignation.