Three years have passed since the Board of Trustees of Calvin, as well as the Synod of 1968 were earnestly petitioned by a consistory and by two classes to declare themselves on alleged erroneous teachings set forth by professors at the Free University of Amsterdam. This University is supported by and influential in the Gereformeerde Kerken. our sister Reformed Church in The Netherlands. Many of our advanced theological students have taken their graduate studies there and many more will, no doubt, do so.
The Calvin Board of Trustees felt that: “it was not the proper body to express objection to the alleged heterodoxy.” Synod of 1968 said that it “must not intrude prematurely, but allow the Gereformeerde Kerken to deal with the matter of questionable teachings, within its own area, first.”
Request of Dutch Church – Soon thereafter, the Gereformeerde Kerken urged via the Reformed Ecumenical Synod 1968, that all the Reformed Churches study the matter of the authority of the Scriptures. It was stated: “However much we, together with you, confess from the heart the authority of the Holy Scripture as the Word of God, nevertheless, there are on the other hand a number of questions concerning the scope and nature of this authority which are still very much in discussion . . . still open . . . the time is not yet ripe for coming to a new elucidative confession of the inspiration and authority of Scripture . . . . There is every reason for a continued joint discussion of these questions.” The Synod wholeheartedly recommended this. –Acts, R.E.S. 1968, p. 308.
Fruitland’s Overture – The Fruitland consistory endorsed by Classis Hamilton overtured the Synod of 1969 with an additional slate of quotations from the works and lectures of the University Professors. Synod was told that there is a “New Theology” emanating from Amsterdam which is most damaging to the historic and authentic value of the Scripture. That Synodical concern for the pastoral care of the churches demands that the church face up to the following: 1. The “new teachings” undermine the church’s confessional unity. 2. It is confusing to urge students to attend the Free University for theological studies, on the basis that the school is announced to be “true to the Reformed Faith.” 3. Teachings emanating from the school penetrate the Reformed churches. 4. Such teachings cause mounting uncertainty as to the authority of Scripture.
The overture points out that the Professors deny the historical existence of our first parents in Paradise, and so also deny original sin. They surrender to Biblical criticism, and to the scientific dogma of evolution. Proof of this is offered in quotations from Dr. T. J. Baarda, Professor of New Testament Theology; Dr. H. M. Kuitert, Professor of Systematic Theology; and Professors Augustyn, Koole, Lever, and Hartvelt from the School of Sciences at the Free University (Overture 5, Acts 1969, p. 502).
The mandate assigned to a Study Committee which is to report to the upcoming Synod of 1971 calls for elucidation of the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority . . . in particular the connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and the consequent deductible authority of Scripture” (Acts 1969, 102, C). This allows for the academic stance and the “continued joint discussion” to define Biblical authority, as suggested by the Gereformeerde Kerken of The Netherlands.
The pastoral stance – However, the Scripture of God never allows itself to be disassociated from life in the arena of everyday activity. This urges upon the Study Committee, upon the Synod, upon us all, the pastoral stance. God’s Revelation must be admitted to speak authoritatively in God’s church. The Word is God’s chosen way to reveal Himself unto salvation, and there is no other way to find that out. To “evaluate critically,” means to show us clearly the dangers and errors of all teachings weighed in the balances of God’s Word speaking authoritatively as the last word on the subject. The committee should serve the church with advice and warning as to the manner of interpreting Scripture, presently employed by the men of the Free University.
The evaluation of the “New Theology” should show us clearly just what areas of the truth-speaking Word of God come under its attack. Such evaluation is possible only by contrasting it with the elemental facts of the confession concerning the creation of the world and all things by God, and the government of the world created by God. Our God is not a God in absentia.
By His Word, God tells us what He did in the world, and what He is now doing. Any challenge and denial of what is there said, deserves sound rejection by Reformed Christians. I do not propose to draw the lines in this article. Clear-cut evaluation of the “New Theology” should help our Synod to draw them. Our hermeneutic (Bible interpretation) is bound by the confessional position of the Reformed faith. Reformed Christianity has its own lines beyond which one ceases to be Reformed, or Christian for that matter. All who wish to teach otherwise, though they have come by their ideas ever so honestly, as they say, must be honest enough to change their profession also. They must not receive their money from one party, while supporting the party of the opposition. None must presume to place “my religion” on the table equally alongside of the truth. We are to champion the Christian faith, not anyone person’s religion.
The battle of authority – Dismissing God from the arenas of nature and history, and consequently exiling God to the so-called inner-life, spiritual realm, is a widespread notion of modern theological thinking. If God is cut out of the action in the outward world around man, it is but a very short step indeed, to making the God-idea a mere personal preference. Further down that road is the preachment that God, the living God, is dead. This “extra-historical,” “extra-cosmos” idea of God is not a new theism. When the philosopher Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am”—and when Immanuel Kant said: “The causes in the observable world are a thing only in my mind,” they were sowing the seeds for exiling God from the action. Today we reap the harvest of that sick theism. God is not being considered as being able to tell us by a divine revelation, the way it was, nor the way it is.
If the teachings of this “New Theology” are making God’s Word of none effect, isn’t this due to the disbelief which refuses to bring everything into subjection to the authority of the Word of God? Faith holds the data of Scripture for true with finality. Also, it holds that that data is intended by God as the instruction in salvation, with finality. This saving purpose cannot be ignored. But this brings us to one of the most serious conflicts of our day. In the church, and out, it is the battle of authority. So many are substituting, “As I see it” for “Thus saith the Lord.”
If we take the right position on Biblical authority and inspiration, we are going to clarify once again that Scripture does in fact stand in judgment over all other tests of historical and doctrinal truths. This unique authority of the Bible is in closest relation to the unique authority of Jesus Christ who redeems us. Christ has quickened us into true subjection out of the rebellion of thought and conduct that possesses us. Loyalty to the givens of the Scriptures is not an item of some discussional forum. Rather it is a sturdy commitment to the truth of what our saving Lord has witnessed to us about God, Himself, and us. Where the church is indeed Christ-gathered it demonstrates the power of the Word. In such a case there is little question as to the authority of the Word.
Renze O. De Groot is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Coopersville, Michigan.
The Calvin Board of Trustees felt that: “it was not the proper body to express objection to the alleged heterodoxy.” Synod of 1968 said that it “must not intrude prematurely, but allow the Gereformeerde Kerken to deal with the matter of questionable teachings, within its own area, first.”
Request of Dutch Church – Soon thereafter, the Gereformeerde Kerken urged via the Reformed Ecumenical Synod 1968, that all the Reformed Churches study the matter of the authority of the Scriptures. It was stated: “However much we, together with you, confess from the heart the authority of the Holy Scripture as the Word of God, nevertheless, there are on the other hand a number of questions concerning the scope and nature of this authority which are still very much in discussion . . . still open . . . the time is not yet ripe for coming to a new elucidative confession of the inspiration and authority of Scripture . . . . There is every reason for a continued joint discussion of these questions.” The Synod wholeheartedly recommended this. –Acts, R.E.S. 1968, p. 308.
Fruitland’s Overture – The Fruitland consistory endorsed by Classis Hamilton overtured the Synod of 1969 with an additional slate of quotations from the works and lectures of the University Professors. Synod was told that there is a “New Theology” emanating from Amsterdam which is most damaging to the historic and authentic value of the Scripture. That Synodical concern for the pastoral care of the churches demands that the church face up to the following: 1. The “new teachings” undermine the church’s confessional unity. 2. It is confusing to urge students to attend the Free University for theological studies, on the basis that the school is announced to be “true to the Reformed Faith.” 3. Teachings emanating from the school penetrate the Reformed churches. 4. Such teachings cause mounting uncertainty as to the authority of Scripture.
The overture points out that the Professors deny the historical existence of our first parents in Paradise, and so also deny original sin. They surrender to Biblical criticism, and to the scientific dogma of evolution. Proof of this is offered in quotations from Dr. T. J. Baarda, Professor of New Testament Theology; Dr. H. M. Kuitert, Professor of Systematic Theology; and Professors Augustyn, Koole, Lever, and Hartvelt from the School of Sciences at the Free University (Overture 5, Acts 1969, p. 502).
The mandate assigned to a Study Committee which is to report to the upcoming Synod of 1971 calls for elucidation of the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority . . . in particular the connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and the consequent deductible authority of Scripture” (Acts 1969, 102, C). This allows for the academic stance and the “continued joint discussion” to define Biblical authority, as suggested by the Gereformeerde Kerken of The Netherlands.
The pastoral stance – However, the Scripture of God never allows itself to be disassociated from life in the arena of everyday activity. This urges upon the Study Committee, upon the Synod, upon us all, the pastoral stance. God’s Revelation must be admitted to speak authoritatively in God’s church. The Word is God’s chosen way to reveal Himself unto salvation, and there is no other way to find that out. To “evaluate critically,” means to show us clearly the dangers and errors of all teachings weighed in the balances of God’s Word speaking authoritatively as the last word on the subject. The committee should serve the church with advice and warning as to the manner of interpreting Scripture, presently employed by the men of the Free University.
The evaluation of the “New Theology” should show us clearly just what areas of the truth-speaking Word of God come under its attack. Such evaluation is possible only by contrasting it with the elemental facts of the confession concerning the creation of the world and all things by God, and the government of the world created by God. Our God is not a God in absentia.
By His Word, God tells us what He did in the world, and what He is now doing. Any challenge and denial of what is there said, deserves sound rejection by Reformed Christians. I do not propose to draw the lines in this article. Clear-cut evaluation of the “New Theology” should help our Synod to draw them. Our hermeneutic (Bible interpretation) is bound by the confessional position of the Reformed faith. Reformed Christianity has its own lines beyond which one ceases to be Reformed, or Christian for that matter. All who wish to teach otherwise, though they have come by their ideas ever so honestly, as they say, must be honest enough to change their profession also. They must not receive their money from one party, while supporting the party of the opposition. None must presume to place “my religion” on the table equally alongside of the truth. We are to champion the Christian faith, not anyone person’s religion.
The battle of authority – Dismissing God from the arenas of nature and history, and consequently exiling God to the so-called inner-life, spiritual realm, is a widespread notion of modern theological thinking. If God is cut out of the action in the outward world around man, it is but a very short step indeed, to making the God-idea a mere personal preference. Further down that road is the preachment that God, the living God, is dead. This “extra-historical,” “extra-cosmos” idea of God is not a new theism. When the philosopher Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am”—and when Immanuel Kant said: “The causes in the observable world are a thing only in my mind,” they were sowing the seeds for exiling God from the action. Today we reap the harvest of that sick theism. God is not being considered as being able to tell us by a divine revelation, the way it was, nor the way it is.
If the teachings of this “New Theology” are making God’s Word of none effect, isn’t this due to the disbelief which refuses to bring everything into subjection to the authority of the Word of God? Faith holds the data of Scripture for true with finality. Also, it holds that that data is intended by God as the instruction in salvation, with finality. This saving purpose cannot be ignored. But this brings us to one of the most serious conflicts of our day. In the church, and out, it is the battle of authority. So many are substituting, “As I see it” for “Thus saith the Lord.”
If we take the right position on Biblical authority and inspiration, we are going to clarify once again that Scripture does in fact stand in judgment over all other tests of historical and doctrinal truths. This unique authority of the Bible is in closest relation to the unique authority of Jesus Christ who redeems us. Christ has quickened us into true subjection out of the rebellion of thought and conduct that possesses us. Loyalty to the givens of the Scriptures is not an item of some discussional forum. Rather it is a sturdy commitment to the truth of what our saving Lord has witnessed to us about God, Himself, and us. Where the church is indeed Christ-gathered it demonstrates the power of the Word. In such a case there is little question as to the authority of the Word.
Renze O. De Groot is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Coopersville, Michigan.