Following is a communication addressed to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church to convene June l2, 1973 and also to member churches of the denomination.
The consistory and members of the congregation of the Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto have studied Synod’s decisions of 1972 with regard to the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” and the guidelines for the churches in Report 44. Having given these matters study and careful consideration, we find ourselves unable to accept and/or to be bound by these guidelines, the pastoral advice, or the implications which arise from them.
Two things must be made clear:
1. While we must agree with the Committee that these decisions do not have the status of a confession, yet these decisions come under Article 29 of the Church Order and are “settled and binding for the churches . . . .” Then note: We have guidelines for our understanding and future discussion of the nature and extent of biblical authority. We are now bound by these guidelines as they set the direction and mark the way in which we must understand and discuss biblical authority. The same can be said for the pastoral advice.
2. We judge that a scholarly Committee, working on behalf of Synod, and Synod itself in two regular meetings do mean what they say, i.e., that the many qualifications which appear in this report are limitations of the nature and extent of biblical authority and we no longer have an authoritative Bible. We believe that the authority of Scripture is neither derived from nor dependent on its content, but it is derived from and dependent on its Author.
We list a number of reasons for our decision.
I. Concerning the guidelines and pastoral advice: A. Synod presents a position in which the nature and extent of Biblical authority is determined or conditioned by the contents of the Bible. The Bible is said to be authoritative only when it speaks of saving revelation in Jesus Christ. Whereas in fact the nature of the Scripture’s authority is divine and the extent is total because God is the Author. With Synod’s decision every man has his own Bible and is entitled to decide what relates to saving revelation.
To illustrate: “In this way the nature and extent of biblical authority involve both the authority of the divine author and the content and purpose of his authoritative message. These are like two sides of one coin,” p. 22 (508).* For further illustration, see Appendix 1.
B. Synod claims that Scripture is solely and cxc1usively redemptive in character. See pages 22–27 (508–513). Whereas the Bible clearly teaches that it transforms and hardens, brings life and death, redemption and judgment.
To establish this point, we believe Synod has fallen into the kind of erroneous exegesis against which it itself warns. On page 22 (508f.) the Committee quotes from John 20:30, 31, Romans 1:16, and II Timothy 3:15–17 to establish that Scripture is solely and exclusively redemptive. These passages do prove that Scripture is redemptive in character and purpose, but not that it is exclusively so. There is more in Scripture concerning its purpose. It declares itself to be a savor of life unto life and of death unto death. It declares its proclamation to be unto heart transformation and also unto heart hardening. (Isaiah 6 as also quoted by Christ regarding His parables in Matthew 13. See also Acts 28.) The Bible both speaks of and brings about both life and death, redemption and judgment (cf. also Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 2, Question 2 and Lord’s Day 31, Question 84). We must not suppose that the Word of God hardened only some people to whom it was first addressed.
By means of such erroneous exegesis Synod presents the Scripture as man-focused rather than God-focused. It is, of course, true that the Scriptures are written for and to man. But the guidelines and .advice are speaking of the purpose and intent of the Scriptures. They state that the purpose and intent of the Scriptures is redemptive. In reality, the purpose and intent of the Scriptures is to accomplish the purposes of God, including the redemption of His own, to His praise and glory. This He does through Covenantal revelation to man. This Covenant God has bound Himself to His promises, and we cannot bind Him in His revelation to us to a final purpose that ends in man.
C. Synod demonstrates unresolved confusion of the distinction between authority and interpretation. Whereas the Bible clearly teaches that all Scripture bears the same authority, that of its Author, God, which is in no way affected by the interpretation and application men may make. The nature of that authority is always divine and the extent total.
One example in which authority. interpretation and application are hopelessly confused in a single sentence would be, “Similarly, while the extent of Scripture’s authority is plenary and verbal, the words must be understood in the context in which they are given and with the meaning intended by the divine author.” Page 24 (510). For further illustrations see Appendix 2.
D. Synod makes a clear and unqualified confession of the Bible’s historical reliability impossible. This being true of the whole Bible, this also is true of any part whereas the Scripture’s testimony of itself provides an unshakable foundation for the believer’s confession. All that the Scripture says is to be believed because the Author says so.
The guidelines deprive the believer of his right and privilege to apply the authoritative Word of God to the situations of life, or in any way to follow up the biblical mandate to discover the wolves among the sheepfold. They create the necessity of an oracle (a scientist or scholar) to interpret either general or special revelation. Thus the guidelines tend to become guidelines into confusion where clearcut distinctions are no longer possible. Consequently, the officebearer’s signature on the Formula of Subscription becomes meaningless. For illustrations see Appendix 3.
E. Synod asserts the plenary authority of general revelation, page 20£ and 51f (506f and 537f). This assertion equates general and special revelation (makes revelation in the Bible and revelation in nature equal). The understanding of the biblical record of Genesis is called into question in the light of what some scientists have discovered. In effect, this does more than equate: It makes general revelation superior, giving it priority above the Bible. For explanation, see Appendix 4.
II. Our concern for the way in which Synod dealt with this matter:
The matter was brought to the floor of Synod and decided in a manner which effectively deprives the member churches of the right to study, appeal or protest. We do not believe in such a form of church government—it is Synodocratic.
Report 44, which certainly was a matter of tremendous concern and importance for the churches, did not even come before the churches until the Agenda for Synod was published. This meant that no congregation, consistory, or person could present any evaluation officially before the churches before Synod dealt with it. This is especially pertinent and deplorable when one considers the amount of concern Report 36 elicited from the churches and the fact that the Committee maintains the same basic thrust and approach in Report 44. It is a fact that this Report is made up of some 53 pages of confusing and difficult material.
III. Our relationship to other churches: We are concerned about the effect on the relationship to other denominations with whom we were in correspondence. Churches which criticized the Christian Reformed denomination for possible trends toward liberalism have in some measure been censured and now have a redefined relationship to the Christian Reformed Church.
Talks with two denominations, the Orthodox Presbyterian and the Canadian Reformed, have been broken off. Both are known as orthodox denominations who question the trend toward liberalism in our churches. To quote the editor of the Presbyterian Guardian, “Whatever trend toward liberalism mayor may not exist within the Christian Reformed Church, that Church seems clearly to feel more at home with the more liberal of its brother and sister churches.”
DECLARATION AND REQUEST:
In view of the above, which of necessity was put in summary form, we cannot be bound by the adopted guidelines and pastoral advice. Since under the guidelines and pastoral advice a variety of views are possible, this material does not lend itself to a formal protest. To attempt a formal protest would lead to further confusion, endless, frustrating dialogue, with the result that the historic faith is further eroded.
For this reason we ask Synod to rescind its decision. It is our prayer that Synod may repent of its decision. Further, we leave our future in the hand of our gracious and Almighty Father in Heaven.
May our God of grace bless you and lead you as you consider our deep concern.
In the love of our Lord,
Consistory Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto, Ontario
APPENDIX and Further quotes and comments relative to Synod’s decision
1. “In the light of the above considerations, we must say that the divine, plenary authority of Scripture is expressed in its totally redemptive, saving message.” Page 21 (507).
“Thus a description of biblical authority requires an understanding of the content and purpose of the divine message as well as the acknowledgement of the authority of the divine author of Scripture.” Page 20 (506).
“Hence attention now is focused upon the message of Scripture as this helps us to understand the nature and extent of Scripture’s authority.” Page 22 (508).
“Although the character of Scripture as redemptive revelation implies its divine authority, that same redemptive character has much to say concerning the nature and extent of that authority.” Page 17 (503).
2. “In the light of the above considerations, we must say that the divine, plenary authority of Scripture is expressed in its totally redemptive saving message.” Page 21 (507). (Also under appendix 1.)
“What we call the historical books of the Bible are in actuality prophetic history, a selection of events to proclaim what God has done and is doing for the salvation of His people.” Page 25 (511). What does this mean?
3. Exhibit 1 As illustration, Synod’s decision re: “Central Avenue Consistory of Holland, Michigan, Appeals to Synod to Adjudicate Allegations re: Doctrinal Views of Dr. W. De Boer.” Page 96–98, Acts 1972.
“That Synod declare that the Central A venue Consistory has not demonstrated that Dr. W. De Boer is in violation of the historic confessions of the church.”
The views of Prof. De Boer are well known and Synod in its decision has made a clear and unqualified confession of Scripture’s historic reliability impossible. Synod claims that it has not been demonstrated that Dr. De Boer is in violation of the historic confessions. Synod has not answered the question: Are his views in harmony with the Bible?
Exhibit 2 Acts 1972, p. 69. a. “That Synod instruct the Board of Publications to make available to the denomination, in popular form, the contents of Report 44, for the purpose of reaching also the general membership of the churches;
b. Specifically, that the board accomplish this in a series of articles in The Banner, expanding (italics ours) each of the points of pastoral advice;
c. Further, that following publication in The Banner, the board, using its discretion in incorporating suggested improvements (italics ours) in these articles, make them available to the churches in booklet form.”
Synod, in the above:
1. demonstrates that the general membership cannot be guided by the guidelines and advice as adopted,
2. grants a committee the liberty to expand (interpret) the advice in The Banner,
3. grants a committee the right to incorporate suggested improvements (changes, additions, interpretations?) in the decision.
We simply do not believe that it is possible to have a clear, unqualified confession in the midst of such evident confusion.
Exhibit 3
Recent publications in The Banner amply demonstrate the confusion as to the meaning and interpretation of Synod’s action. The Banner carried articles by Dr. J. Daane who endorses and interprets Synod’s decision, The Banner, Oct. 27, 72f, Jan. 5, 73f.
The study committee, now dismissed, which produced Report 44, interprets its report and advises Dr. Daane how to read Synod’s decision: “We urge Dr. Daane to give closer attention to the explicit text of Report 44 when he attempts to interpret its implications.” Voices, The Banner, Feb. 2, 1973. To which Prof. Daane responds: “What the Committee teaches in its Report, but denies in its letter, is reasserted in the explanation of the Report that one of its members is presenting to the churches This confused state of affairs is a summons to the Committee to write again in these pages to clarify its position.” Voices, The Banner, Feb. 23, 1973. If a professor in theology cannot understand Synod’s decision, may then the members of the churches be bound by it?
4. Here is introduced a confusion concerning the use of the “Word of God,” which is foreign to the consistent use of this term in our confessions and liturgical forms. Further, when one speaks of the divine plenary authority of general revelation, he is either saying far too much, or is saying something that is really devoid of meaning. It is true that whatever creation and history reveal concerning God and His work is authoritatively true. But what do they say? Who is to determine? Must we now listen to the scientists to tell us what the creation and history tell us of God and His work? Does the statement really mean that man’s interpretation of general revelation carries divine, plenary authority? What else can it mean? General revelation is not, as is the Bible, a verbal communication to man, written precisely for his understanding. This has already been carried, by some, to the point that man can discover and set God’s laws of life for the creation and verbalize them. This completely ignores the fact that man the interpreter and the creation and history, which is being interpreted, are under the curse of God and await the full effective application of the work of redemption. Such will not be realized until Christ returns.
*Page numbers are from the booklet Synod published, numbers in ( ) are from the Acts of Synod, 1972.
The consistory and members of the congregation of the Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto have studied Synod’s decisions of 1972 with regard to the “Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” and the guidelines for the churches in Report 44. Having given these matters study and careful consideration, we find ourselves unable to accept and/or to be bound by these guidelines, the pastoral advice, or the implications which arise from them.
Two things must be made clear:
1. While we must agree with the Committee that these decisions do not have the status of a confession, yet these decisions come under Article 29 of the Church Order and are “settled and binding for the churches . . . .” Then note: We have guidelines for our understanding and future discussion of the nature and extent of biblical authority. We are now bound by these guidelines as they set the direction and mark the way in which we must understand and discuss biblical authority. The same can be said for the pastoral advice.
2. We judge that a scholarly Committee, working on behalf of Synod, and Synod itself in two regular meetings do mean what they say, i.e., that the many qualifications which appear in this report are limitations of the nature and extent of biblical authority and we no longer have an authoritative Bible. We believe that the authority of Scripture is neither derived from nor dependent on its content, but it is derived from and dependent on its Author.
We list a number of reasons for our decision.
I. Concerning the guidelines and pastoral advice: A. Synod presents a position in which the nature and extent of Biblical authority is determined or conditioned by the contents of the Bible. The Bible is said to be authoritative only when it speaks of saving revelation in Jesus Christ. Whereas in fact the nature of the Scripture’s authority is divine and the extent is total because God is the Author. With Synod’s decision every man has his own Bible and is entitled to decide what relates to saving revelation.
To illustrate: “In this way the nature and extent of biblical authority involve both the authority of the divine author and the content and purpose of his authoritative message. These are like two sides of one coin,” p. 22 (508).* For further illustration, see Appendix 1.
B. Synod claims that Scripture is solely and cxc1usively redemptive in character. See pages 22–27 (508–513). Whereas the Bible clearly teaches that it transforms and hardens, brings life and death, redemption and judgment.
To establish this point, we believe Synod has fallen into the kind of erroneous exegesis against which it itself warns. On page 22 (508f.) the Committee quotes from John 20:30, 31, Romans 1:16, and II Timothy 3:15–17 to establish that Scripture is solely and exclusively redemptive. These passages do prove that Scripture is redemptive in character and purpose, but not that it is exclusively so. There is more in Scripture concerning its purpose. It declares itself to be a savor of life unto life and of death unto death. It declares its proclamation to be unto heart transformation and also unto heart hardening. (Isaiah 6 as also quoted by Christ regarding His parables in Matthew 13. See also Acts 28.) The Bible both speaks of and brings about both life and death, redemption and judgment (cf. also Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 2, Question 2 and Lord’s Day 31, Question 84). We must not suppose that the Word of God hardened only some people to whom it was first addressed.
By means of such erroneous exegesis Synod presents the Scripture as man-focused rather than God-focused. It is, of course, true that the Scriptures are written for and to man. But the guidelines and .advice are speaking of the purpose and intent of the Scriptures. They state that the purpose and intent of the Scriptures is redemptive. In reality, the purpose and intent of the Scriptures is to accomplish the purposes of God, including the redemption of His own, to His praise and glory. This He does through Covenantal revelation to man. This Covenant God has bound Himself to His promises, and we cannot bind Him in His revelation to us to a final purpose that ends in man.
C. Synod demonstrates unresolved confusion of the distinction between authority and interpretation. Whereas the Bible clearly teaches that all Scripture bears the same authority, that of its Author, God, which is in no way affected by the interpretation and application men may make. The nature of that authority is always divine and the extent total.
One example in which authority. interpretation and application are hopelessly confused in a single sentence would be, “Similarly, while the extent of Scripture’s authority is plenary and verbal, the words must be understood in the context in which they are given and with the meaning intended by the divine author.” Page 24 (510). For further illustrations see Appendix 2.
D. Synod makes a clear and unqualified confession of the Bible’s historical reliability impossible. This being true of the whole Bible, this also is true of any part whereas the Scripture’s testimony of itself provides an unshakable foundation for the believer’s confession. All that the Scripture says is to be believed because the Author says so.
The guidelines deprive the believer of his right and privilege to apply the authoritative Word of God to the situations of life, or in any way to follow up the biblical mandate to discover the wolves among the sheepfold. They create the necessity of an oracle (a scientist or scholar) to interpret either general or special revelation. Thus the guidelines tend to become guidelines into confusion where clearcut distinctions are no longer possible. Consequently, the officebearer’s signature on the Formula of Subscription becomes meaningless. For illustrations see Appendix 3.
E. Synod asserts the plenary authority of general revelation, page 20£ and 51f (506f and 537f). This assertion equates general and special revelation (makes revelation in the Bible and revelation in nature equal). The understanding of the biblical record of Genesis is called into question in the light of what some scientists have discovered. In effect, this does more than equate: It makes general revelation superior, giving it priority above the Bible. For explanation, see Appendix 4.
II. Our concern for the way in which Synod dealt with this matter:
The matter was brought to the floor of Synod and decided in a manner which effectively deprives the member churches of the right to study, appeal or protest. We do not believe in such a form of church government—it is Synodocratic.
Report 44, which certainly was a matter of tremendous concern and importance for the churches, did not even come before the churches until the Agenda for Synod was published. This meant that no congregation, consistory, or person could present any evaluation officially before the churches before Synod dealt with it. This is especially pertinent and deplorable when one considers the amount of concern Report 36 elicited from the churches and the fact that the Committee maintains the same basic thrust and approach in Report 44. It is a fact that this Report is made up of some 53 pages of confusing and difficult material.
III. Our relationship to other churches: We are concerned about the effect on the relationship to other denominations with whom we were in correspondence. Churches which criticized the Christian Reformed denomination for possible trends toward liberalism have in some measure been censured and now have a redefined relationship to the Christian Reformed Church.
Talks with two denominations, the Orthodox Presbyterian and the Canadian Reformed, have been broken off. Both are known as orthodox denominations who question the trend toward liberalism in our churches. To quote the editor of the Presbyterian Guardian, “Whatever trend toward liberalism mayor may not exist within the Christian Reformed Church, that Church seems clearly to feel more at home with the more liberal of its brother and sister churches.”
DECLARATION AND REQUEST:
In view of the above, which of necessity was put in summary form, we cannot be bound by the adopted guidelines and pastoral advice. Since under the guidelines and pastoral advice a variety of views are possible, this material does not lend itself to a formal protest. To attempt a formal protest would lead to further confusion, endless, frustrating dialogue, with the result that the historic faith is further eroded.
For this reason we ask Synod to rescind its decision. It is our prayer that Synod may repent of its decision. Further, we leave our future in the hand of our gracious and Almighty Father in Heaven.
May our God of grace bless you and lead you as you consider our deep concern.
In the love of our Lord,
Consistory Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto, Ontario
APPENDIX and Further quotes and comments relative to Synod’s decision
1. “In the light of the above considerations, we must say that the divine, plenary authority of Scripture is expressed in its totally redemptive, saving message.” Page 21 (507).
“Thus a description of biblical authority requires an understanding of the content and purpose of the divine message as well as the acknowledgement of the authority of the divine author of Scripture.” Page 20 (506).
“Hence attention now is focused upon the message of Scripture as this helps us to understand the nature and extent of Scripture’s authority.” Page 22 (508).
“Although the character of Scripture as redemptive revelation implies its divine authority, that same redemptive character has much to say concerning the nature and extent of that authority.” Page 17 (503).
2. “In the light of the above considerations, we must say that the divine, plenary authority of Scripture is expressed in its totally redemptive saving message.” Page 21 (507). (Also under appendix 1.)
“What we call the historical books of the Bible are in actuality prophetic history, a selection of events to proclaim what God has done and is doing for the salvation of His people.” Page 25 (511). What does this mean?
3. Exhibit 1 As illustration, Synod’s decision re: “Central Avenue Consistory of Holland, Michigan, Appeals to Synod to Adjudicate Allegations re: Doctrinal Views of Dr. W. De Boer.” Page 96–98, Acts 1972.
“That Synod declare that the Central A venue Consistory has not demonstrated that Dr. W. De Boer is in violation of the historic confessions of the church.”
The views of Prof. De Boer are well known and Synod in its decision has made a clear and unqualified confession of Scripture’s historic reliability impossible. Synod claims that it has not been demonstrated that Dr. De Boer is in violation of the historic confessions. Synod has not answered the question: Are his views in harmony with the Bible?
Exhibit 2 Acts 1972, p. 69. a. “That Synod instruct the Board of Publications to make available to the denomination, in popular form, the contents of Report 44, for the purpose of reaching also the general membership of the churches;
b. Specifically, that the board accomplish this in a series of articles in The Banner, expanding (italics ours) each of the points of pastoral advice;
c. Further, that following publication in The Banner, the board, using its discretion in incorporating suggested improvements (italics ours) in these articles, make them available to the churches in booklet form.”
Synod, in the above:
1. demonstrates that the general membership cannot be guided by the guidelines and advice as adopted,
2. grants a committee the liberty to expand (interpret) the advice in The Banner,
3. grants a committee the right to incorporate suggested improvements (changes, additions, interpretations?) in the decision.
We simply do not believe that it is possible to have a clear, unqualified confession in the midst of such evident confusion.
Exhibit 3
Recent publications in The Banner amply demonstrate the confusion as to the meaning and interpretation of Synod’s action. The Banner carried articles by Dr. J. Daane who endorses and interprets Synod’s decision, The Banner, Oct. 27, 72f, Jan. 5, 73f.
The study committee, now dismissed, which produced Report 44, interprets its report and advises Dr. Daane how to read Synod’s decision: “We urge Dr. Daane to give closer attention to the explicit text of Report 44 when he attempts to interpret its implications.” Voices, The Banner, Feb. 2, 1973. To which Prof. Daane responds: “What the Committee teaches in its Report, but denies in its letter, is reasserted in the explanation of the Report that one of its members is presenting to the churches This confused state of affairs is a summons to the Committee to write again in these pages to clarify its position.” Voices, The Banner, Feb. 23, 1973. If a professor in theology cannot understand Synod’s decision, may then the members of the churches be bound by it?
4. Here is introduced a confusion concerning the use of the “Word of God,” which is foreign to the consistent use of this term in our confessions and liturgical forms. Further, when one speaks of the divine plenary authority of general revelation, he is either saying far too much, or is saying something that is really devoid of meaning. It is true that whatever creation and history reveal concerning God and His work is authoritatively true. But what do they say? Who is to determine? Must we now listen to the scientists to tell us what the creation and history tell us of God and His work? Does the statement really mean that man’s interpretation of general revelation carries divine, plenary authority? What else can it mean? General revelation is not, as is the Bible, a verbal communication to man, written precisely for his understanding. This has already been carried, by some, to the point that man can discover and set God’s laws of life for the creation and verbalize them. This completely ignores the fact that man the interpreter and the creation and history, which is being interpreted, are under the curse of God and await the full effective application of the work of redemption. Such will not be realized until Christ returns.
*Page numbers are from the booklet Synod published, numbers in ( ) are from the Acts of Synod, 1972.