Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/astobeingreformeOOkuip © AS TO BEING REFORMED i t Wy its 7 Cd) is Bie ee : a 5 ! ay \ vane AY OF PRINGE Doctrinal Controversy in the Christian Reformed Church » tat ae sit r ¥ t ‘ PAS 4 ; Fi - in 5 a ey ae Uk ‘ ‘ i ‘oF oe) ne ky, Plea Rha! ry ‘ — ‘ Gi A POT nk sil. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSY IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH 66 HAT ails the Christian Reformed Church anyhow?” That question has of late been asked hundreds of times by members of the Chris- tian Reformed Church as well as by outsiders. And it was usually doctrinal controversy in the church that occasioned the question. It cannot be denied that the Christian Reformed Church has in recent years had what would seem to be much more than its proper share of doctrinal debate. To pass over minor conflicts in silence, inside a single decade a minister was deposed for denying the unity of the church of the old and the new dispensations and the Kingship of Christ over the church; a professor of theology was deposed when he refused to give an account of himself before Synod though he was charged with heresy on the basis of certain students’ notes which de- tracted from the divine authority of Holy Writ; sev- eral ministers were deposed because they categori- cally denied the Reformed doctrine of common grace; and a minister was deposed for giving too liberal an interpretation of Lord’s Day 38 of the 44 As To Being Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, which explains the Sabbath commandment. That surely is some record. It would be remarkable for a much larger denomina- tion. And as given it is not even complete. Consequently outsiders generally despise the Christian Reformed Church; many of its own mem- bers are blushing for shame; occasionally even a minister threatens to leave “if this thing does not stop very soon.” The readers hardly expect me to rehash the doc- trinal material that has been presented to the Chris- tian Reformed people of recent years in books, bro- chures, and Synodical Acta. Not a few of them, I fear, are fed up on it. I doubt too whether I could add much that is new. And so I shall discuss my subject largely from a formal viewpoint. I wish to go on record as regarding this doctrinal controversy as a sign of health. No, I do not deny that it has a dark side; of that I am well aware. But there is also a very bright side to it. And just now I want to take pains to show up this bright side because it has been overlooked too much altogether. The Christian Reformed Church still takes doc- trine seriously. It has not been blinded by the pop- ular fallacy of the day which has deceived scores of denominations, thousands of preachers, and millions of church-members, that Christianity is not a doc- trine, but a life. Was ever antithesis more false pawned off? Christianity stands or falls with cer- tain doctrines. It is not merely a system of moral- As To Being Reformed 45 ity ; it is in the very first place the religion of truth. The Christian church is pillar and ground of the truth. Does not history teach us that especially by doc- trinal debate the cause of truth is wont to be ad- vanced? In the furnace of controversy the dirty dross of falsehood has time and again been sepa- rated from the precious gold of truth. The Spirit of truth has been pleased many a time and oft to lead the church progressively in the truth through the clash of opinions. Almost all the great truths of Christendom were crystallized by conflict. That ‘leads me to believe that ere long the Christian Re- formed Church may well prove to be one of the most truly progressive churches of the land. While the Christian Reformed Church was torn by conflict, many other churches seemed to be enjoy- ing enviable peace. But let us not be deceived by the appearance of things. There is a peace which is no peace. Peace obtained at the expense of truth is unworthy of its name. -There are churches which ascribe their apparent peace to doctrinal tolerance, while as a matter of fact they are guilty of doctrinal indifference, the wages of which are death. Ceme- teries too are peaceful places. Some months ago, when I was considering a call from a Christian Re- formed Church, a friend said: ‘‘You don’t want to go back there; they’re always fighting.” I replied: “There are churches which badly need a good fight.’ Let no member of the Christian Reformed Church 46 As To Being Reformed be ashamed of his membership in a denomination that regards purity of doctrine worth fighting for. It is reason for just pride. At the same time, it must be admitted that the manner in which recent doctrinal controversies were carried on in the Christian Reformed Church was not altogether beyond reproach. The spirit of the debate was frequently quite reprehensible. That part of the story is sad. It seems to me that we have sinned against two laws.especially: that of justice or fairness, and that of charity or love. Without making any attempt to cite all possible instances, let me illustrate. A committee of seven was asked to investigate the teachings of Dr. Janssen. The Curatorium, which appointed this committee, apparently wanted to be fair. It selected three men who were known to favor Janssen more or less, three who were known as his opponents, and one neutral. So far so good. But how it blundered when it placed two men on the committee whose own doctrinal soundness was under suspicion! Manifestly that should never have been done. Men who flatly denied the Reformed doctrine of common grace were unfit to pass judgment on the Reformed character of Janssen’s teachings, the more so since he made so very much of this partic- ular truth. They simply could not be expected to give him a square deal. It has always seemed to me that the attempts made through brochures and otherwise to create an As To Being Reformed 47 anti-Janssen atmosphere in the church before the Synod of 1922 was a breach of fairness. The report of the advisory committee which recom- mended the deposition of Dr. Janssen by the Synod of Orange City in 1922, was written by two very able ministers. Synod adopted their report with only minor changes. Protests against this decision were raised before the Synod of Kalamazoo in 1924. This body appointed a committee to study and answer the objections. And this committee was again headed by the two ministers just referred to. I question the fairness of this arrangement. No, it is not difficult to see why the Synod of 1924 assigned this work to these men. They were better posted than any others on the subject matter. And it does not enter my mind to question the perfectly sincere desire of these brethren to be eminently fair. But men are human. And how human it is to try to justify before the public a stand once taken! It is distasteful to say: “I was in error two years ago.” But I come to something more general. It is a recognized rule that a defendant should be regarded innocent until his guilt is proven. I fear that com- paratively few of us have made a concerted attempt to live up to that rule in the doctrinal controversies of recent years. We have been altogether too ready to condemn. And that, I believe, accounts for much of the hard feeling that has been prevalent in our circles for some time. In the spirit of Christian love we should have done 48 As To Being Reformed all in our power to save the brethren who were threatened with deposition. We should have remem- bered the exhortation of James: “‘Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.’”’ But who dares to say that we always did this? Was there not rather manifested a desire in some cases to get rid of a troublesome brother? I for one have no doubt at all that the Reverend Bultema, with a little more patience, could quite easily have been saved for the denomination. The love of Christ requires that he who sees a brother err or suspects him of error, go to see him personally, in order, if possible, to correct him, be- fore publishing the matter. This was not done in the case of Janssen. I am well aware of the attempts that have been made to show that it was not neces- sary in this instance, but the arguments raised have always struck me as sophistry. Even if it could be proven conclusively that in Matthew 18:15-18 Christ was thinking only of personal offenses and not of general sins, yet the principle stated in the first sen- tence of this paragraph would hold. And, by the way, it is not true at all what is said on page 46 of the semi-centennial volume of the Theological School and Calvin College, that the Synod of 1920 expressed as its opinion that this principle did not apply to the Janssen case. The motion was before As To Being Reformed A9 the house to disapprove of the action of Janssen’s colleagues in bringing their suspicions to the atten- tion of Curatorium before seeing him personally. It seemed that this motion would prevail. Then a good brother suggested that this point be dropped because of its personal implication. He did not like the idea of Synod’s virtually rebuking our professors of theology. Thereupon the motion was voted down. But surely one does not need to take a university course in logic to see that not to decide that a thing should have been done is not necessarily equivalent to deciding that it need not have been done. I want to add that I believe that the practical application of the principle under discussion would be conducive in a remarkable degree to the peace of our Christian Reformed Zion. If all the offensive personalities indulged in of recent years among us were to be retracted, what a piece of work that would be! Few of us that took an active part in the discussions can plead perfect innocence. Might not I and others have expressed ourselves more kindly? Dr. Janssen’s public utter- ances sometimes bristled with personal charges. To the present day I refuse to believe that every one of the four professors and four ministers who pub- lished a somewhat unsavory brochure during the Janssen controversy was fully aware of its contents. And should not the brother who quoted: “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? I hate them with perfect hatred” on the floor of the Orange City 50 As To Being Reformed Synod in plain reference to Dr. Janssen, have been publicly rebuked? Quirinus Breen has gone from us. He has fallen under the spell of Modernism. The case is an ex- ceedingly sad one. Are we sad? Do we feel truly sorry for him? I doubt not that many of us do. But the expressions of sadness have not been numerous. On the other hand, I have heard many speak of him in rather proud disdain. And to hardly anybody does it seem to occur that our denominational errors may have had something to do with his defection. Would to God that I might have been spared the pain of writing the foregoing paragraphs of criti- cism! How gladly would I have left them unwritten! But I have long felt an irrepressible urge to say what I have said. Sense of duty bade me speak. I cannot agree with the many who say: “This case or that is a closed incident; let us forget about it.” We have sinned. And only then can we afford to forget about our sins when we have humbly sought forgiveness in the blood of Jesus Christ, which cleanses from all sins, denominational as well as personal. I would humbly call attention to a couple of les- sons which the Christian Reformed Church, especi- ally its ministry, may well learn from its late doc- trinal controversies. We are not well enough posted on Reformed doc- trine. We have indeed the reputation of being ex- ceptionally strong doctrinally. But we are not As To Being Reformed 5) | nearly strong enough. Leading men among us highly recommended Bultema’s Maranatha when first it appeared. For a long time Hoeksema’s arti- cles in The Banner, in which he flatly denied the doc- trine of common grace, went unchallenged. I fear that our preaching is partly to blame for the fact that Hoeksema and Danhof have gained so large a following from our ranks. For comparatively few of us have dared boldly to proclaim that God’s offer of salvation to all who hear the Gospel preached is perfectly sincere. We had a vague notion that this was Arminianism. Yet the professor of Homiletics at the seminary—be it said to his lasting honor— had long stressed this very truth. What we Christian Reformed ministers sorely need to do is to make a thorough study of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. It would do our churches worlds of good. Again, it is high time that we should apply our- selves to the study of Reformed church polity. Just let me mention two matters with reference to which we seem to be considerably at sea. What is the exact nature and extent of the authority of major assem- blies over Consistories? And in what relation do secular jurisprudence and church law stand to one another? In how far do the general principles of the former hold for the latter? By the way, perhaps we may derive a little comfort from the fact that both of these questions seem to puzzle the authorities in the Netherlands almost as much as us. The debates 52 As To Being Reformed in connection with the Geelkerken trial give evidence to that effect. By all means let us strive to preserve doctrinal balance. To stress certain truths at the expense of others often leads to serious consequences. Almost all heresies have originated in that way. It is my opinion that all our doctrinal difficulties of the last decade can be accounted for on this score. To illustrate, let us be careful not to emphasize the supernatural origin of the Bible so strongly that our view of inspiration becomes mechanical, but, on the other hand, let us also beware, as of poison, of the leaven of those who stress the human element in Scripture at the expense of the divine. And let us preach both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, but may we be kept from placing undue emphasis on one or the other of these Scriptural truths. This does not mean that we should always seek the so-called golden mean. Sometimes the mean is anything but golden. Such a policy would result in our filing the sharp edges off God’s truth. Rather let us teach both extremes as God has given them in his Word. We should boldly proclaim the full counsel of God. And let us, without ever sacrificing the truth, endeavor ‘‘to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, with all lowliness and meekness, with long- suffering, forbearing one another in love.” | Perils Besetting the Christian Reformed Church fi Ve : My HN) i vue 5. eu iv eh Paths b Susp y' t's rie Py a ) CHAPTER IV. PERILS BESETTING THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH T IS my purpose in a modest way to sound a note of warning. I would call attention to some perils that beset the Christian Reformed Church. As I see it, we are threatened from two directions. To use Biblical terms, we are in danger of Sadduceeism on the one hand, of Pharisaism on the other. But, with- out pressing these terms, let me mention some seven perils that strike me as being rather imminent. (1) Let no one suppose that the Christian Re- formed Church is so thoroughly sound that it is immune to the rot of Modernism. By this time we. ought to know better. Recently one of our most promising young preachers, himself the son of one of our most highly respected older ministers, became a disciple of Harry Emerson Fosdick. A few of our “laymen” followed suit. What guarantee have we that this incident will not recur? Moreover, if there were a way of determining the exact number of those who deserted the Christian Reformed Church for the Modernist camp in the course of the last two decades, I doubt not that it would prove surprisingly large. The rapidly growing number of our young people who are completing their education at our big Amer- 36 As To Being Reformed ican universities are in special danger. Almost all these institutions are hotbeds of Modernism. Now it goes without saying that as a rule an immature stu- dent is no match intellectually for his highly trained teachers. In an argument he is soon worsted. Not infrequently the consequence is that his faith is shaken. There is grave danger that he will lose his moorings and depart from historical orthodoxy. But let me guard against misunderstanding. Let the reader not think that I would insinuate that our students, say at the University of Michigan, are not to be trusted. That very thing I have heard whis- pered, but the whisperers ought to be disciplined for bringing a whole class of people into disrepute. That is decidedly un-Christian. If anybody has positive proof that a certain student has turned Modernist, let him say so, if need be. But let no one under the guise of piety and orthodoxy flout the ninth com- mandment. As for me, I had the pleasure of spend- ing a Sunday in January, 1925, with the Reformed and Christian Reformed students at Ann Arbor, and I want to testify to the impression that for the most part they are putting up a heroic and prayerful fight against odds to maintain the faith once for all deliv- ered to the saints. Would I seek to dissuade the graduates of our Re- formed colleges from pursuing post-graduate work at American universities? Not that either. It is impossible in this world of ours to avoid all dangers. It is not even policy to attempt it. To try it breeds As To Being Reformed 57 cowardice. Besides, we believe, do we not? the perseverance of saints. Once God the Holy Spirit has wrought faith in one’s heart, one will always be a believer. All the theories of unbelief presented by the cleverest dialecticians cannot deprive one be- liever of true faith. Again, to have one’s faith shaken temporarily by the winds of. doubt, often results in its striking its roots down more deeply into the heart. Paradoxical though it may sound, he who never doubts seldom has a strong faith. And then, is it not true that many of the greatest men that the church of God has ever had were educated largely by the world? To mention just a few of recent data: both Kuyper and Bavinck were graduates of liberal Dutch universities. But we may not tempt God. And we are in sacred duty bound to use all available means for the main- tenance and strengthening of our faith. Therefore special pains should be taken at our own schools to forewarn and forearm the students against the wiles of Modernism. Nor should we stop there. I am con- vinced that we may not rest until we shall have established in America a full-fledged Reformed Uni- versity. Meanwhile let us remember that our students of today at the modern and Modernist universities will be our leaders tomorrow. A prayer for them, that they may continue loyal to the faith of their fathers, is a prayer for our children. Modernism is rapidly being popularized. Time 58 As To Being Reformed there was when it was practically confined to a lim- ited number of university professors. Today it is being instilled into the minds of children almost from the kindergarten up. Books on Modernism some years ago were found almost exclusively on the shelves of intellectual high-brows. Today books of fiction, magazines, and newspapers bristle with it. The day when Modernism was taught only at Yale and Union Seminaries is past. Hosts of pedantic preachers parcel it out to unsuspecting Sunday audi- ences over the length and the breadth of the land. Modernism is in the air. Well may we plead on the promise: ‘‘When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.” And let us not be remiss in performing the duty suggested by the words: “‘Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of the truth.” (2) It is not a pleasant task to warn against the errors of Fundamentalism. We of Reformed per- suasion have so much in common with the Funda- mentalists, and our need of each other in the fight on Modernism is so great, that I would much rather make a plea for presenting a united front against the common foe. As a matter of fact, I do plead for that. Let us by all means give support to such organ- izations, for instance, as the League of Evangelical Students. And yet a gentle warning is by no means super- As To Being Reformed 59 fluous. It would not be strange if, in our aversion from Modernism, some of us should turn Funda- mentalists. Psychologically that could easily be ex- plained. In fact, that is exactly what has happened to a limited number of our people. I am thinking of those who recently joined the so-called Open Bible Church. To me it seems that the Reverend Bultema too has erred in this direction. But, as will be pointed out in another chapter, Fundamentalism is not Calvinism. And not Funda- mentalism, but Calvinism, is the antidote for Mod- ernism. (3) Admittedly worldliness is threatening to en- gulf our Christian Reformed people. So important is the consideration of this peril that it deserves a whole chapter. At this point let it suffice to call attention to a few things which have contributed toward making this danger imminent. About a generation ago the Christian Reformed people closely resembled a drop of oil floating on the waters of American life. They mixed hardly at all. Their isolation was not complete, of course; yet nearly so. And that condition was natural. The great majority of them were immigrants who under- stood neither the language nor the spirit of this land. Consequently it was not difficult for them to keep aloof from certain forms of worldliness. Today con- ditions are radically different. We have been Amer- icanizing at rapid pace. Now most of us move quite freely in the American world. Small wonder that 60 As To Being Reformed we are learning to indulge in those forms of world- liness which are popular among Americans. Our parents were comparatively poor. Some of us are rich, many more are well-to-do. And almost all of us can afford to be worldly. That is, we think we can. Fools that weare! Yes, let us be thankful that we are in a position to.pay for legitimate pleasures. But let us never forget that we pay for the pleasures of sin with our souls. No one can afford that price. For what shall it profit a man if he revel in the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life and lose his soul? The war has something to do with the present sit- uation. Wars usually have a powerful demoralizing influence, not only on the soldiers, but on the popu- lace generally. In this respect the world war was no exception. Its aftermath, in the throes of which we find ourselves today, is unwonted lawlessness, espe- cially among the young. Thatis why our city streets are littered with flappers and sheiks; why feminine modesty almost seems a thing of the past. Let us not flatter ourselves with the thought that our Christian Reformed young people have escaped this scourge. To me it seems that a certain phase of the Re- formed doctrine of the covenant has not been stressed sufficiently in recent years. I have in mind the truth that God’s people differ from the world and ought to take a holy pride in differing. They are in a spirit- ual sense aristocrats. Children they are of the King. Alas, we are losing sight of that and have fallen to As To Being Reformed 61 imitating the common herd; we are selling our birth- right for a mess of pottage. Daniels, Shadrachs, Mechechs, and Abednegos are becoming increasingly — few. If I were asked to list some of the greatest evils under the sun, I surely would assign a prominent place to mixed marriages. They are themselves a form of worldliness and usually lead to much more of it. Words cannot express how sorry I feel for the child of the covenant who marries an unbeliever. I am even more sorry for the ofispring of such a union. But also this evil is becoming prevalent in our Christian Reformed circles. Some of our people think that the doctrine of com- mon grace tends to make people worldly. But that is plainly a fallacy. Common grace is unmistakably taught in Scripture. Let us beware of blaming the Bible and implicitly its divine Author for our sins. When we sin, we are to blame. To be sure, there are those who use the doctrine of common grace as an excuse for worldiiness. Say they: “If God is good to all men and if there is much good in the world at large, then there is no good reason why we should stand aloof from the world.” But what truth has never been abused? And it has never been the policy of the Christian church to hush up a truth because men did abuse it. Interesting enough, also the doc- trine of predestination, which is strongly stressed by certain opponents of the doctrine of common grace, is sometimes employed as a cloak for sin. Not infre- 62 As To Being Reformed quently men say: “If I’m elected, I’ll go to heaven anyhow; and if I’m a reprobate, my salvation is out of the question. So what matters it how I live?” (4) The Christian Reformed Church not only is orthodox, but has shown repeatedly that it is firmly determined to remain orthodox. Splendid! What we need is not less of orthodoxy, but more of it. But is there not a possibility at least that we shall fall into the error of orthodoxism? If we should, history would only be repeating itself. Struggles for ortho- doxy. have often been succeeded by periods of ortho- doxism. Orthodoxy is essential to Christianity. Surely, one may err in certain points of doctrine and yet be a Christian. This can hardly be disputed. Any number of Methodists and Baptists are going to heaven. But there are some fundamental truths to which we must subscribe in order to merit the name of Christians. To mention just one, he who denies the Deity of Jesus Christ is not a Christian. But orthodoxy is not Christianity itself. Sound doctrine stands in much the same relation to Chris- tianity as do the bones of the body to the body itself. A body without bones is not thinkable. So Christian- ity is not possible without the truth. But the bones alone do not constitute the body; they make up a skeleton. Orthodoxy alone is a skeleton too. It is dead. Our fathers were wont to distinguish between his- As To Being Reformed 63 torical and saving faith. The distinction is as sound as important. Historical faith is a mere intellectual acceptance of the truths of Holy Scripture without a change of heart. It is orthodoxy without Chris- tianity. Even the demons have it. During Jesus’ stay on earth they confessed him to be the Son of God. And James says: ‘Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.” The Christian not only believes all that the Bible says about God. That in itself is mere historical faith. But, as the Apostles’ Creed expresses it so precisely, he believes in God the Father, 7m God the Son, and 7x God the Holy Ghost. That is, he commits, entrusts, surrenders himself wholly to the Triune God. That is the very essence of Christianity. By the way, strictly speaking, the Christian does not believe in anything or anybody besides God. He believes a holy catholic church, for example, but he does not believe in it. And to be very precise, while he surely does believe the Bible, he does not believe in it in the same sense in which he believes in God. For him the Bible is indeed God’s infallible Word, but it is not his God. It is God’s means unto salva- tion, but it is not the Savior. And let it never be forgotten that the proof of saving faith is a life of love. If aman says he has faith, but does not lead a life of love, his faith is dead. ‘And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and 64 As To Being Reformed though I have all faith, so that I could remove moun- tains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” (5) The Christian Reformed people on the whole have a profound respect for their Confessions. May that ever be the case! But God forbid that their regard for the Confessions should ever degenerate into Confessionalism. What a pity that not one of our men who in the last decade departed from the Confessions submitted his views in the proper way to the church for study! Bultema, for instance, instead of seeking to prop- agate his peculiar views, which are so manifestly out of harmony with the Standards, should have pre- sented them to the church with the request to apply to them the test of Scripture and, in case they should be found to be Scriptural, to modify the Confessions accordingly. Then the church would have been com- pelled to fall back upon the Bible, and, no matter to what conclusions it might have come, by so doing to express that the Bible stands above the Confessions. As it was, Bultema did no such thing, and all that the church had to do in order to dispose of his case was to appeal to the Confessions. I am afraid that in consequence at least a few of our people are under the impression that the author- ity of the Confessions in matters of doctrine is very nearly tantamount to that of Scripture itself. But that, of course, is confessionalism. The advisory committee which studied ‘ub the Danhof-Hoeksema case at the Synod of Kalamazoo As To Being Reformed 65 deserves high praise, it seems to me, for disproving the erroneous views of these brethren not only from the Confessions and from the writings of leading Re- formed theologians, but from the Bible as well. Technically, it was not at all obliged to do that. But to do so was the part of wisdom. The danger of con- fessionalism was lessened. Let me state here parenthetically that I am sorry that the Janssen case could not be threshed out more thoroughly. If the church had gone to the very bot- tom of the matter, it would have come face to face with a most interesting and equally difficult ques- tion. Janssen’s method of teaching the Old Testa- ment was strongly apologetic. Now among the ablest Reformed theologians there are two widely divergent views on the value of Apologetics. In the December, 1921, issue of Religion and Culture I called attention to the difference. We might speak of two schools: the Dutch, represented by such men as Kuyper and Bavinck, and the Scottish, with Orr, Beattie, and Warfield as its spokesmen. To put the matter very generally, the latter school makes a great deal more of Apologetics than does the former. Janssen, hav- ing been a pupil of Orr’s for some time, had strong leanings in that direction. Shall the church tolerate both views or must it choose between them? The Reverend G. H. Hospers of Ontario, N. Y., has sought to answer this question in a recent pamphlet. And the time may yet come when the church will 66 As To Being Reformed have to give its answer. Scripture will have to be the norm. Some years ago I heard a noted Reformed theo- logian from the Netherlands, whose orthodoxy, so far as I know, has never been seriously questioned, say that in his teaching he considered himself bound by the Confessions in matters of doctrine, but not necessarily, to use his own words, “in exegeticis” or ‘in isagogicis.” When he spoke of “in exegeticis,” he referred to such interpretations of Scripture as one given in Article 37 of the Belgic Confession, where “the books” which will be opened on judgment day are said to be “‘the consciences.” And the refer- ence of “in isagogicis’” was to Article 4, which assigns the authorship of Hebrews to Paul. The statement surprised me. I have often thought of it since. It still seems to me that this esteemed theo- logian took a perilous position. Or is it possible that he was right and that my vision is somewhat blurred by confessionalism? Of another matter I am quite certain. When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they in- tended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with additional light on the truths of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give to the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line, even as the Reformed Churches of the Nether- As To Being Reformed 67 lands have begun to do. I wonder whether we are ready. (6) I fear that we are in at least slight danger of falling prey to the evil of legalism. There has been some anarchy among us of late. Certain brethren flatly refused to submit to the authority of church assemblies in spite of the fact that they themselves had promised submission. Many of us justly resented this. But now there is danger that, in our displeasure, we shall lose sight of the fact that the authority of the church is purely spiritual. Classical minutes and Synodical Acta show that our church assemblies have in recent years been fre- quently compelled to act as courts. Let us not get the impression that they are courts primarily. Only in exceptional cases do they convene as courts. So far as possible, let us avoid calling them courts. The word suggests legalism. It has been suggested that Synod seek to stem the rising tide of worldliness among us by making cer- tain laws. While a limited number of rules and reg- ulations are necessary, it should be remembered that Synods are not exactly legislatures. It has always been Reformed policy scrupulously to avoid adding precept to precept. And let us not suppose that laws make men better. It takes God’s Spirit to do that. By all means let us avoid the sin of placing human usages and traditions on a level with divine ordinances. That were rank Pharisaism. It may 68 As To Being Reformed look like piety, but it is sacrilege. Yet it is no exag- geration to say that there is a tendency in that direc- tion among us. In a plea for catechismal preaching a minister once made the admission that the Bible does not require it. A few members of the Christian Reformed church were somewhat alarmed. In a recent lecture I made a.mild plea for adding a few hymns to our Psalms for public worship. I was severely criticized. Experience has taught me that, while many of our people need to be admonished to keep the Sabbath, there are a number who may well be reminded of the Savior’s statement that the Sab- bath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. “We reject all human inventions, and all laws, which men would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any way whatever.”—Belgic Confession, Article 32. Of late it has become customary in Christian Re- formed circles to speak of Synodical interpretations of the Confessions, and these interpretations are regarded binding on the members of the church in the same degree as the Confessions themselves. Iam afraid that we are on a dangerous road. If we con- tinue to travel it, we shall get line upon line, precept upon precept. Let us not say, for example, that the Synod of Kalamazoo in the matter of common grace added an interpretation to the’ Confessions, but rather that it merely pointed out that certain breth- ren had contradicted the Confessions. On page 44 of his Reformed Pharisaism ? the Reverend K. Schilder As To Being Reformed 69 boasts that, while some Presbyterian churches of Scotland and America have added interpretations to their Confessions, the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands have consistently refused to do this. Let us play safe by following the example of our Dutch mother! (7) Closely related to the peril of legalism is that of uniformity. In things indifferent; that is, in matters which are neither prescribed nor forbidden by the Bible, let us not try to bind one another. The great majority of our Christian Reformed churches do not have a choir. A few of our churches find that they can worship more acceptably with the aid of a choir. Why should they not have one? How broadminded, how tolerant, was the older generation of our Christian Reformed ministers! It was my good fortune to have one of them as my father. In the parental home I have overheard doc- trinal conversations by such men as Beuker, Boer, Hemkes, the Broenes, Hulst, Van Hoogen, Van Goor, Vander Werp, to mention no more. How they dif- fered! How frankly they discussed their differ- ences! Some of the views which they expressed would today surely elicit the cry of “Wolf!” in our circles. But they were no heresy-hunters. Most of them had hearts as big as hams. In its zeal for purity of doctrine, let the Christian Reformed Church beware lest it bring upon itself the curse of uniformity. It may never be forgotten 70 As To Being Reformed that faithfulness to the Standards is perfectly con- sistent with differences of opinion on extra-confes- sional matters. The church which loses sight of this is a sure candidate for petrifaction. In conclusion I must indicate how the aforenamed perils may be avoided. One word says it all. That word is Spirituality. If we are led by the Spirit of truth, we shall avoid the pitfall of Modernism and the one-sidedness of Fundamentalism. If we are controlled by the Spirit of holiness, we shall flee from the sin of worldliness. If we have the Spirit of Christ, we shall be, not merely orthodox, but Christian as well, and thus escape orthodoxism. If the Spirit of God dwells in us, we shall ever esteem God’s Word more highly than that of the church and so steer clear of confessionalism. If God’s free Spirit be ours, we shall be free from the sin of legalism. And, paradoxical though it may seem, if we all have one Spirit, we shall differ from each other and yet agree. With diversity in form we shall “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” There 1s nothing that the Christian Reformed Church needs quite so much as a spiritual revival. Modernism and Fundamentalism Hii Rt | i 4 ' ROS s:$ ee =_ eS * ia — - GHAR eb nV. MODERNISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM HE Reformed Church in America and the Chris- tian Reformed Church are pretty well agreed in their attitude toward the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. How I wish that for pretty well I might substi- tute perfectly! But I cannot do that with complete honesty. The reason was already suggested, and will appear again in the following chapter. Suffice it now to say that pretty well expresses exactly how I have the situation sized up. Both denominations, generally speaking, are down on Modernism. How very true that is of the Chris- tian Reformed Church appears from the fact that it proceeded to the deposition of a professor of theo- logy whose teaching appeared to do violence to the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture, in spite of his repeated protestations that he sub- scribed to this truth as wholeheartedly as anybody. It is not so generally known, but equally true, that a couple of years ago the young minister of an eastern Reformed church was summarily discharged when it appeared that he called into question the virgin birth. The weekly papers of both churches have denounced Modernism in very certain terms. Neither 74 As To Being Reformed church is torn by Fundamentalist-Modernist strife, as are so many American Protestant denominations. What else could be expected? Modernism is per- fectly despicable. Instead of being modern, it is only a revival of time-worn heresies. Any serious stu- dent of history ought to see almost at a glance that it is away behind the times. How much there is in it of seventeenth-century Socinianism and eighteenth- century Rationalism! Instead of being liberal, it is narrow to the point of intolerance and bigotry. It would sneer Fundamentalism out of court. Instead of being scholarly, as it claims to be, it betrays at almost every turn unpardonable ignorance of the teachings of historical Christianity. Just to illus- trate: in Chapter Three of Christianity and Modern Thought, Dr. Richard 8. Lull of Yale University writes: “Mr. Bryan’s text, In His Image, based upon a deep and widespread conviction that man was created in the physical image of his Maker, pictures God the Infinite in terms of a finite being.”” Whata caricature of the orthodox position! Yet Mr. Lull is manifestly in earnest. He does not mean to joke. Modernism is damnable. It would knock the props from under the Christian religion by denying the infallibility of the Scriptures. It would tear the very heart out of Christianity by labeling the doc- trine of the vicarious atonement “theology of the butcher shop.” It would demolish the foundation of the Christian church by placing the divinity of Christ on a level with that of man. It would force As To Being Reformed 75 Christian ethics by foisting upon simple men and women and children a false theology couched in terms of the only true. It would pluck the crown from the all-glorious head of the Christ himself by assigning to him a place—the first, to be sure— in a class with Buddha and Confucius. It would annihilate the one religion that can make men happy now and eternally by denying at every turn the supernatural. Can a Modernist go to heaven? Differently ex- pressed, can a Modernist be a Christian? That ques- tion is frequently asked nowadays. It requires some sort of answer. Let us be guarded in our reply. It is usually a precarious thing for one man to pass judgment on another’s salvation or damnation. Many well-mean- ing Christians are altogether too hasty about this. Let each one look out for himself in the first place. When asked whether few would be saved, the Lord replied: “Do you strive to enter in at the narrow gate, for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and will not be able.” Besides, the subject of the relation of orthodoxy to Christianity is as difficult as itis big. It is generally agreed that one may be off at least a few shades on orthodoxy and yet be saved. Fortunate for you and for me! We are off a little. Everybody is. Nobody’s theology is alto- gether free from error and perfectly pure. But it is possible to draw a line somewhere. Did not Paul command Titus: “A man that is a heretic 76 As To Being Reformed after the first and second admonition reject; know- ing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself”? And did not the same apostle make bold to declare: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed’? Apart from the question, which particular theory of inspiration is correct, it must be said that he who rejects the Bible as God’s inspired Word thereby gives evidence that he has not received the Holy Spirit. Everybody who, having been born of the Spirit, is a child of God, recognizes his Father’s voice in Holy Writ. Again, the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ may well be called the shibboleth of Christianity. ‘He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” Once more, he that trusts for salvation in character rather than in the atonement—and this seems to be characteristic of Modernism—is building on sinking sand, which is sure to give way when the storm of judgment is unleashed. What has just been said about Modernism will strike the reader as being so very obvious, I trust, that further enlargement is unnecessary. But now we come to something which is not so apparent at first blush. Fuller elucidation is required. I hope the reader will not be so naive as to infer from the denunciation of Modernism by the Re- As To Being Reformed 77 formed and Christian Reformed denominations, that these churches have sworn unreserved allegiance to the cause of Fundamentalism. That is not the case. Both adhere, generally speaking, to the fundamen- tal teachings of the Christian religion, which are best expressed by the Apostles’ Creed. But neither church is found bodily in the Fundamentalist camp. They stand for fundamentalism alright, but not alto- gether for “Fundamentalism.” They cannot be classed as “Fundamentalist churches” with the con- notation which this term has through usage acquired. The objection which the Reformed or Calvinistic Christian has to Fundamentalism may, I believe, be stated in these few words: there is in it a rather pronounced strain of Anabaptism. Says the great Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck in his lecture on Common Grace: ‘““The after-effects of Anabaptism are noticeable not only in Mennonit- ism, but also in Labadism, Pietism, and Herrnhut- ism of Continental Europe, and in English and American Independentism and the Baptist groups, in Quakerism and Methodism.’ Note that he men- tions the Baptists and Methodists. Are not these the names of our two largest Protestant denominations? And is it not true that the spirit of Methodism per- vades almost all the Protestant churches of Amer- ica? ‘ This is not the place for a thorough study of Ana- baptism. But let me call attention briefly to at least 78 , As To Being Reformed a couple of evidences of the working of Anabaptistic leaven in American Fundamentalism. Anabaptism stands for Premillennialism. Our Fundamentalist churches have placed the teaching of the premillennial return of Christ on the list of fundamental Christian doctrines. He who will not subscribe to it is, to say the least, suspected of lean- ings toward Modernism. Perhaps the most general characteristic of Ana- baptism is that it teaches a dualism of nature and grace, of the natural and the supernatural. It denies that the two can be harmonized. It even drives a wedge in between them. And then it proceeds to extol the supernatural at the expense of the natural; or, to put it more precisely, it underestimates nature in favor of grace. Much the same thing, I fear, is true of present-day Fundamentalism. Let me offer some concrete evidence. How very poor a showing many a Fundamentalist has made in an argument with a Modernist! This, I fear, is not accidental. The Fundamentalists do not value sufficiently a broad liberal education as the foundation of theological training. Every once in a while a Fundamentalist betrays his ignorance of the distinction between mechanical and organic inspira- tion and fails to do justice to the human element in the writing of the Scriptures. How wary many Fundamentalists are of admitting that God fre- quently employs natural means in performing mir- acles, in themselves supernatural. Who has never As To Being Reformed 79 heard a Fundamentalist speak of the catastrophe which is to end this dispensation as a destruction of the present order of things, to be followed by an en- tirely new creation, rather than an act of purification issuing in the restoration of all things? And would not many a well-meaning but short-sighted teacher of Christianity hesitate to admit that the student who neglects his Aristotle in order to engage in city mis- sion work may for all that be a poorer Christian than his roommate who makes so thorough a study of this pagan philosopher that he has no time left for evangelical work; that the business man who bungles his income tax return in order to attend prayer-meet- ing is not necessarily more spiritual than another who is so scrupulously exact about the same piece of work that he fails to hear the striking of the sweet hour of prayer; and that the woman who is rearing so large a family that she has little or no time left for church work may well receive a richer reward in heaven than her sister without children who is presi- dent of the Ladies’ Aid or the Ladies’ Missionary Society ? And now I must call attention to a very remark- able phenomenon. Bavinck points it out in the lec- ture already referred to in this chapter. The issue between the Modernists and the Fundamentalists may be expressed by the one word supernatural. The thorough-going Modernist denies the supernat- ural, as, for instance, the inspiration of the Scrip- 80 As To Being Reformed tures, the virgin birth of Jesus and his bodily resur- rection, the miracles in general, and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit; while the Fundamentalist clings to the supernatural tooth and nail. Of course, the Fundamentalist is right, the Modernist dead wrong. And yet, very, very strange to say, both pro- ceed from essentially the same erroneous principle. Both deny that the supernatural and the natural can be harmonized. So the Modernist throws over- board the supernatural, while many a Fundamental- ist fails to do justice to the natural. The Reformed position is quite another. It gives just as full recognition to the supernatural as any Fundamentalist can. At the same time it highly exalts the natural by maintaining that it too is of God. And while it does not claim for a moment that paltry human reason can harmonize the two, it does believe that somewhere they meet, embrace, and kiss each other. Says the learned Bavinck in his Re- formed Dogmatics: “On the stand-point of Scripture, all revelation, also that in nature, is supernatural.’”’— Volume I, page 817. “And even supernatural reve- lation is not at variance with nature, for every man in his inmost being is a supernaturalist and believes in a direct working of God in this world.—Volume I, page 377. Where then does the Reformed Christian stand? He denounces Modernism. He esteems the Fundamentalist as a brother in Christ and gladly fights shoulder to shoulder with As To Being Reformed 81 him for the fundamental truths of our supernatural religion. But he keenly regrets his companion’s errors and does not hesitate to point them out in the spirit of love. In his opposition to Modernism he is controlled by the conviction that Calvinism, not Fundamental- ism, is at once its real antipode and its effective anti- dote. } Ni ath wt oy 4 Th hs WAT IY 7 Uy Oy We, © i Li. ; ei hy Firs aS oF , hi Pe i ‘ im } Lah oer if Ny ahha ie ie gay Lm } . Pe a ee 3 ee . oe fi 4 Christianity and Calvinism OrbAy Bloke av as CHRISTIANITY AND CALVINISM T IS often asked: ‘Is it worth while to be a Cal- vinist? Does it not suffice to be a Christian? If only I make sure of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, do I need to bother about being a follower of John Calvin? Granted that I am an adherent of the Chris- tian religion, is it of any real value that I subscribe to that particular interpretation of it which was sponsored especially by the Genevan reformer? Compared with the fundamental doctrines of ortho- dox Christianity, are not the five points of Calvinism quite insignificant?” I am going to give an answer to such questioning. That there are hosts of very fine Christian men and women outside the Reformed fold is so obvious a truth that it seems almost foolish to say so. And the most partisan Calvinist will grant readily that it is far more important to be a Christian than to be a Calvinist. Nay, the intelligent Calvinist will not even express himself thus. In view of the match- less glory of the Christ, the latchet of whose sandals John Calvin is not worthy, kneeling down, to loose, he resents the very suggestion of thus comparing Cal- vinism with Christianity. He is not a Christian in the first place, a Calvinist in the second. He would be a Christian first and last and always. 86 As To Being Reformed Let no one infer that it is of little value to be specifically Reformed. I verily believe that it is a matter of stupendous importance. It is thought quite generally that such interpreta- tions of Christianity as Lutheranism, Methodism, and Calvinism, to enumerate no more, are all of them about equally valid, that the difference is almost entirely one of emphasis, that it is well that each stresses certain points which the others fail to stress sufficiently, and that, in choosing among them, one may safely be guided by taste, temperament, and tradition. It must be granted that there is an element of truth in this reasoning. The most ardent Calvinist, for instance, can hardly maintain that his interpre- tation of the Christian religion is perfectly full- orbed, and that no other interpretation contains aught to supplement it. And yet with the chief con- tention of this presentation of the matter I cannot agree at all. Says Dr. B. B. Warfield in his article Calvinism in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: “Calvinism is not a specific variety of theism, religion, evangelicalism, set over against other specific varieties, which along with it constitute these several genera, and which possess equal rights of existence with it and make similar claims to per- fection, each after its own kind. It differs from them not as one species differs from other species; but as a perfectly developed representative differs As To Being Reformed 87 from an imperfectly developed representative of the same species. There are not many kinds of theism, religion, evangelicalism, among which men are at liberty to choose to suit at will their individual taste or meet their special need, all of which may be pre- sumed to serve each its own specific uses equally OTE TL Vay musi a oh ite Ve Calvinism conceives of itself as simply the more pure theism, religion, evangelical- ism, superseding as such the less pure.” Let me express the same thought in language less Warfieldian. Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Method- ism cannot be represented in their relation to each other by three perfectly good apples of different varieties; say a Northern Spy, a Baldwin, and a Jonathan. If so, it would be a matter purely of taste which one should choose. I prefer the Spy; but it would be perfectly foolish for me to start an argu- ment with my neighbor who may chance to like the Baldwin better. He has as much right to his preference as have I to mine. Matters of taste are hardly debatable. A good Jonathan is as good in its kind as is a good Spy in its kind. But, as was said, this illustration does not fill the bill. Calvin- ism, Lutheranism, and Methodism may well be com- pared to three apples of the same variety, whether Spy, Baldwin, Jonathan, or any other. But these three apples, while all of the same kind, are not equally good. The two representing Lutheranism and Methodism are more or less spotted, even worm- 88 As To Being Reformed eaten perhaps. The one which stands for Calvin- ism is a pretty nearly perfect specimen. Or let us say that three archers are shooting at a target. They are respectively a Lutheran, a Metho- dist, and a Calvinist. Is it so that the arrows of the three strike the target at different places, the first above, the second below, and the third to the right of the center, but all at equal distances from the bull’s eye? Not at all. But this is the case: the Calvinist hits the bull’s eye pretty squarely, while his two companions hit the target alright, but not the bull’s eye. In a word, Calvinism is the most nearly perfect interpretation of Christianity. In final analysis, Calvinism and Christianity are practically synony- mous. It follows that he who departs from Calvinism is taking a step away from Christianity; that he who ignores specifically Reformed doctrine is endanger- ing his doctrinal position as a Christian; that he who lets go of the five points of Calvinism is slipping in the direction of Modernism. Here let: me quote a very bold statement from Dr. Warfield’s article on Calvinism. Presumptuous though it may seem, it is absolutely correct. “It may be contended that the future, as the past, of Chris- tianity itself is bound up with the fortunes of Cal- vinism.”’ An illustration is in order. The basic principle of Calvinism, of course, is the sovereignty of God. As To Being Reformed 89 And one of the most beloved teachings of evangel- ical Christianity generally is that of salvation by grace. But how very evident that the two stand and fall together! Salvation by grace is but a corollary of the sovereignty of God. The Calvinist says that God in his sovereign good pleasure elected certain men unto eternal life. Therefore he gives to these at some time during their life on earth the grace of regeneration, by which naturally dead sinners are made alive. This grace, and it alone, ac- counts for their acceptance of the Christ and his benefits by faith. That is real sovereignty and real grace. But the Arminian Methodist at best says that God elected certain men to eternal life, not in his sov- erelgn good pleasure, but because he foresaw that they would believe. The natural man is not dead spiritually, only sick, and not too sick to accept of his own free will God’s offer of salvation in the Christ. Manifestly that is neither sovereignty nor grace. The Arminian begins by qualifying divine sover- elonty; he ends up by taking much of the grace out of grace. According to him the Savior is indeed a gift of God’s grace, but the sinner’s acceptance of the Savior is not due solely to divine grace. But is it not obvious that he thus comes dangerously near to Liberalism? One of the characteristic teachings of present-day Modernists is that man, with the aid of divine influence, becomes his own savior. In view of the foregoing, I am less surprised than grieved to find in the Reformed Church in America 90 As To Being Reformed an inclination toward Modernism. What else can be expected? Simon-pure Calvinism is being neg- lected. The five points of Calvinism are gradually allowed to go by the board. And thus it becomes inevitable that generally Christian doctrines should suffer. I have already called attention to it that Dr. Wor- cester shows a tendency to depart from some of the fundamentals. About that no more need be said. But some additional] evidence is in order. Said the Reverend E. C. Vanderlaan in the Novem- ber 28, 1925, issue of The Christian Intelligencer: “One does not want to make reckless assertions about Modernism, for there is no way of finding out how many Modernists there may be in our church.” Dr. William Bancroft Hill, President of the 1925 General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, in a sermon delivered before that body made this statement, according to The Leader of June 17: “But J am not leading up to a discussion of the Funda- mentalist and the Modernist. We have both, I doubt not, in our denomination; and each causes the other pain; but thus far, thank God, they have borne patiently with one another, each considering the other a weak brother who should not be made to stumble because for him Christ died. May this spirit of brotherly charity continue, as I trust it will, until both gain fully the insight of John.” Every once in a while one hears it said in Chris- tian Reformed circles that this is no time for insist- As To Being Reformed 91 ing on the niceties of Calvinism, that now we should bring all our strength to bear on the maintenance of the fundamentals of Christianity itself. Without questioning the good intentions of those who speak thus, I want to say that this line of talk is super- ficial, misleading even, and hence dangerous. It is always time to insist on Calvinism of the purest brand. ‘‘Obsta principiis!’”’ ‘Withstand beginnings!’ Add water to the wine of Reformed doctrine, and you have begun to weaken your Christianity. For in last instance the fundamentals of Calvinism are also the fundamentals of the Christian religion. I want to conclude this chapter on Christianity and Calvinism by registering the belief that every true Christian, whatever label he may bear, is at heart a Calvinist. He may not call himself a Cal- vinist; he may even resent being called by this name; _his thinking may be far from consistently Reformed ; yet, in final analysis he is Reformed. May not a Calvinist be described as a person who lives in utter dependence on God? But also the Arminian Christian humbly recognizes his depend- ence when engaged in the act of prayer. There is truth in the oft repeated saying that an Arminian is a Calvinist when on his knees before God. Is it not the glory of Reformed theology that it has held with unwavering consistency to the doctrine of sal- vation by grace? But also our Methodist brethren and sisters sing very heartily of being “Saved by Grace.” The Calvinist aims in all his living at the 92 As To Being Reformed glory of God. But may not much the same thing be said of every one who truly knows and loves God? Surely every Christian loves God above all else. Will he then not as a matter of course seek to live wholly for God? To quote Dr. Warfield, that eminent American Calvinist, once more: ‘Whoever believes in God; whoever recognizes in the recesses of his soul his utter dependence on God; whoever in all his thoughts of salvation hears in his heart of hearts the echo of the soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession— by whatever name he may call himself, or by what- ever intellectual puzzles his logical understanding may be confused—Calvinism recognizes as implicitly a Calvinist, and as only requiring to permit these fundamental principles—which underlie and give its body to all true religion—to work themselves freely and fully out in thought and feeling and action, to become explicitly a Calvinist.” The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination eat ae te x e iW eke SONNET b> vie t FAW ah SP DRA EER eh Ae A at) 42d ve By Glos Ped eh ae Dh f teh i CER ae r ; Wey Pia yy iy + uf G i 16 an Pee ee hd ee ol ; 4 it, Jie od Fs ih ‘ ne at As Ties y CH ASP ikeeiV LD: THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION HILE it is beside the purpose of this book to give an exposition of Reformed doctrine, yet I feel that a few remarks on the doctrine of predestina- tion are called for. This doctrine may well be called the hall-mark of Calvinism. To be sure, it is not its formative prin- ciple, the root from which its springs. The sov- erelonty of God is that. But it is the most direct logical consequence of this principle. God’s sov- ereignty reveals itself most manifestly in predes- tination. Now this distinctively Reformed doctrine is ex- ceedingly unpopular today. Those who are willing to subscribe to it have become few indeed. It is the butt of many a joke in would-be-theological circles. Several churches which are Reformed in name largely ignore it. Not a few members of the Re- formed Church in America reject it. Some members of the Christian Reformed Church too are begin- ning to question it. I believe it is high time that this doctrine be re- asserted. If it is not, I am afraid that Calvinism will well nigh perish from the land. The Bible teaches plainly in several places that 96 As To Being Reformed already in eternity, before the world was, God chose or elected from the human race which was to be created, some unto eternal life, and passed by, and thus virtually rejected, the others. That is a simple statement of the doctrine of predestination. The reader may check up on it by referring to such pas- gages as Romans 8:29, 30; Ephesians 1:4, 5; I Thes- salonians 1:4; I Peter 1:2; I Peter 2:7-9. We come at once to a point of unusual importance. It may be called the crux of the whole matter. One might subscribe to the doctrine as stated in the pre- vious paragraph without yet being Reformed. Many an Arminian would raise no objection to it at all. But the question arises why God chose some and not others. The Arminian replies that God was guided by his foreknowledge, that he chose some because he saw beforehand that they would believe the Gospel and rejected others because he knew that they would not do so. The Calvinist, on the other hand, main- tains that God was guided by nothing but his own good pleasure, his sovereign, free will. That is the very heart of the Reformed doctrine of absolute pre- destination. To put the difference between the Reformed and the Arminian views of predestination succinctly: according to the former, faith is the fruit of election; according to the latter, faith is the ground of elec- tion; according to the former, the ground of election lies in God; according to the latter, the ground of election lies in man. As To Being Reformed 97 It is not at all difficult to show that the Reformed doctrine of absolute predestination is Biblical. Ephe- sians 1:4, 5 teaches it plainly. Writes the apostle: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; having predesti- nated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” With almost startling boldness the apostle prociaims the same truth in Romans 9. Everybody who calls the doctrine into question should by all means read this chapter as a whole. I quote but a few verses. “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.’—vs. 16. “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” —vs. 18. “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, en- dured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory ?’’—vss. 21-23. The Reformed doctrine of predestination is very generally misunderstood today. It is often identified with philosophic determinism or Mohammedan fatal- ism. Now I do believe that sometimes individuals who call themselves Reformed, and even boast of their strict Calvinism, fall into the error of de- 98 As To Being Reformed terminism or fatalism. But it is exceedingly unfair to charge this error to the account of Calvinism itself. Let me mention just two points of difference be- tween fatalism and Calvinism. Fate is an imper- sonal, cold, hard, relentless force, but the God of the Calvinist is a personal being with love as his very essence, good in many ways even to the reprobate. And while fatalism leaves no room for the freedom of the human will, Calvinism teaches that the will of man is indeed not altogether free, controlled as it is by the heart, which in the case of the unregen- erated is evil, so that he cannot will spiritual good, but it is free to this extent that no outside force compels it. It may be well to meet a few objections that are commonly raised against our doctrine. At the very outset it should be realized that we are face to face with a mystery. Far be it from us to claim that we can remove every difficulty by human logic! We frankly admit that we cannot. But this does not perturb us. How can we with our finite and cor- rupted intellects expect to comprehend the infinite God? We ought to be exceedingly grateful to have a God who is far too great for us to understand. “And therefore with holy adoration of these myster- ies, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: ‘O depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowl- edge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, As To Being Reformed 99 and his ways past finding out!’ ”—Canons of Dordt, I, 18. The decree of reprobation “by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy) but declares him to be an awful, irrepre- hensible, and righteous judge and avenger thereof.” —Canons of Dordt, I, 15. It is often said that the doctrine of reprobation makes God unjust, tyrannical, cruel, since, according to it, he sentenced certain men to everlasting perdi- tion long before they had the opportunity to do either good or evil. Several attempts have been made to answer this charge. For example, it has been said that in the decree of predestination God regarded man as having fallen, and consequently he would have been perfectly just in sentencing all men to eternal torment. This is in harmony with the so-called infralapsarian view ef predestination, which is plainly taught in the Canons when it is said that God chose ‘‘from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ.”—I, 7. The Bible gives a pointed reply to the charge of injustice on the part of God in the decree of repro- bation. This reply, while not intended to satisfy human reason, is absolutely conclusive. Having illustrated election and reprobation by the cases of Jacob and Esau, the former of whom God loved, 100 As To Being Reformed while he hated the latter, ‘‘the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,’ Paul raises the question: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?’ What is his reply? “God forbid!’ And then follows a simple appeal to the divine sovereignty. ‘For he saith to Moses: ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’ ”’”—Romans 9:11-15. This appeal should silence all opposition. Once in a while some such reasoning as the follow- ing is heard: “If I am elected unto eternal life, I will get to heaven in the end, no matter how I live now; and if I am one of the reprobate, I am sure to go to hell, no matter how hard I strive to enter in by ° the narrow gate. So what am I going to do about it? I might as well eat and drink and be merry and ignore the whole matter of my salvation.” This line of talk involves the charge that divine predestina- tion rules out human responsibility. While we do not flatter ourselves with the hope of harmonizing these two teachings of Scripture before the bar of human reason, it is not at all difficult to point out a serious flaw in the reasoning just in- dicated. The fact is overlooked that God fore- ordained not only a certain end, but also the means by which this end would be reached. God determined not merely that a given farmer would harvest a thousand bushels of wheat in the summer of 1926, but that he would obtain this harvest by fertilizing, As To Being Reformed 101 plowing, and sowing. The means and the end are inseparable. The farmer who fails to make the necessary preparations is going to have no harvest. In precisely the same way God determined not merely that a certain individual would inherit the rest of heaven, but that he would get there through laboring to enter in. Here too let man not put asunder what God has joined together. He who attempts it will lose his soul. Again we refer to Romans 9. Already in the days of Paul there were those who argued that predes- tionation, in particular reprobation, left no room for human responsibility. And the apostle answered also this charge not by argument, but by an appeal to divine sovereignty. ‘‘Thou wilt say then unto me, “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?? Nay but, O man, who art thou that re- pliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, ‘Why hast thou made me thus?’ ”’ —vss. 19, 20. “The Lord is in his holy temple, let all the earth keep silence before him.”’ As it is impossible for us petty men to square with one another divine predestination and human re- sponsibility, so no one has ever succeeded in fully harmonizing the decree of reprobation with the Sincere offer of salvation which God makes to sin- ners in general and which he is pleased to have them accept, since he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but therein that the wicked turn from his evil ways and live. 102 As To Being Reformed But what of it? Both are unmistakably taught in Scripture. The same Jesus who declared: “No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him”’—John 6:44—, wailed over the city of Jerusalem: “How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!”—Luke 13:34. And how much there is in divine revelation that far transcends human reason! The thing for us to do is to bow in humble adoration and say: ‘“‘Lord, we fail to understand, but we believe because thou sayest it.” And then let us beware of stressing either truth at the expense of the other. To emphasize God’s good pleasure in the sinner’s salvation at the expense of reprobation leads unavoidably to Arminianism. To do the reverse leads to heresy just as repre- hensible. Almost all the objections that men are wont to make to predestination concern reprobation rather than election. Now let me add that the best Reformed theologians have ever been too well balanced to co- ordinate these two phases of our doctrine. Says Bavinck in his Dogmatics: “The highest form of the eternal plan is God’s decree concerning the revela- tion of his perfections in the eternal glorious state of his rational creatures. To it reprobation is wholly subordinate. It is the dark reverse over against which election stands forth most brilliantly.”—Vol- ume II, page 417. As To Being Reformed 103 Something must be said about the proper use of this doctrine. It is not wise greatly to trouble the unsaved about it. They should be told of Paul’s reply to the jailer’s question, what he had to do to be saved: ‘‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” But those who are saved through faith in the Christ may find unspeakable comfort in it. Let me use an old illustration. We often speak of the house of salvation. Among other things a house has a foundation and a door. Of this house election is the foundation, Christ is the door. Those who are still without should be pointed to the door. Surely, it is well when describing the house to them in the invitation to enter, also to call their attention to the strength of its foundation. Yet they should be told not to attempt to enter in by way of the founda- tion, but through the door. But once they are inside, what comfort, what peace, what joy, may they not derive from the knowledge that the house of their salvation stands absolutely secure on the unmoveable foundation of God’s eternal decree! “The founda- tion of God standeth sure, having this seal: the Lord knoweth them that are his.” He has known them from eternity. There are many teachers of religion who, while professing belief in the doctrine of predestination, yet virtually ignore it. “This truth,” say they, “is of academic interest rather than practical. Then why bother the ordinary church-member about it? 104 As To Being Reformed There is even a danger that he will abuse it. It has been known to ‘make men careless and profane.’ ” Over against this attitude I would emphasize the great necessity of preaching predestination. The whole system of Reformed doctrine stands or falls with predestination. It is the foundation. Break it away, and the superstructure will topple into ruins. It was no accident, but the result of log- ical reasoning, that the Arminians denied the other four points of Calvinism as well as absolute predes- tination. Particular redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of saints are corollaries of this dogma. Absolute predestination then is the shibboleth of the Reformed faith. By denying it one loses all claim to the name Reformed as well as to a place in a Reformed church. Just as soon as we decide to shelve this doctrine, we may as well go out of business as Reformed churches and combine with other bodies of Christians. . One of the logical conclusions of predestination is the perseverance of saints. Who dares to deny prac- tical value to this doctrine? The comfort alone which it gives far exceeds in value all the gold and silver, the precious stones and pearls, of the earth and its seas. The assurance which it offers is thrice blessed indeed. Dispelling worry, it liberates the powers of the soul for service in the kingdom. The solid joy which it yields may well stir in those outside the kingdom a holy jealousy and an ardent zeal to enter in; yea, to “take it by force.” As To Being Reformed 105 How very evident that with the dogma of predes- tination is bound up inseparably that doctrine which lies at the very heart of evangelical Christianity: salvation by grace. Begin with absolute predestina- tion, reason on, and you are driven irresistibly to the conclusion that the sinner is saved by free mercy. Begin with salvation by grace, reason backward, and you cannot help concluding that the sovereign God for reasons in himself determined to save certain sinners. Absolute predestination is an absolutely essential element in evangelical religion. Without it its central truth of complete dependence on the grace of God cannot be maintained. Begin to moder- ate it; say, for instance, that God chose certain in- dividuals unto eternal life because he foresaw that they would believe in Christ, and you have already denied salvation by pure grace. Therefore it is not surprising to find that practically all the sixteenth- century Reformers were a unit on this matter. Luther and Melanchton, even Butzer, as well as Zwingli and Calvin, were jealous for absolute pre- destination. Dr. Warfield is authority for the state- ment that “it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement.” Calvinists often speak of “the glory of God.” The genuine Calvinist lives unto God’s glory. No won- der! He realizes that it is God who has chosen him and not he who has chosen God, that God chose him sovereignly and not at all because he deserved it in any way, and that the whole process of his salvation 106 As To Being Reformed from start to finish is due to this choice of God. Otherwise expressed, God does not merely make salvation possible by giving his Son and then help man to save himself through the influence of his © Spirit, but God actually saves. Then, of course, God gets all the honor. “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen!” “Soli Beo Gloria!’’ The Importance of the Doctrine of Common Grace for the Church of Today te is ty i » CHAPTER VIII. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMON GRACE FOR THE CHURCH OF TODAY T is my intention to write, not on the value of the doctrine of common grace in general, but speci- fically on the importance of this truth for the church of today. AsIdoso, I reproduce in the main a paper which I read before the Western Social Conference of the Reformed Church, attended mostly by min- isters, in the spring of 1924. It was printed in its entirety in The Leader. May I not assume that my readers know in a gen- eral way what Reformed theologians mean by com- mon grace? Most of us have in mind the now famous three points established by the Christian Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo. Their essence is: that God in a sense is good to all men; that God restrains sin in the individual and in the race; and that the unregenerated can do civic good. Of course there is much more to the doctrine, but let this suffice for the present. _ Let me suggest a couple of considerations that prompt me to write on the subject. Our Reformed people of Dutch descent can hardly be said to value the doctrine of common grace very highly. Nor should they be blamed for this attitude. 110 As To Being Reformed Historically, it is easily explained. The founders of the western branch of the Reformed Church in America, as well as of the Christian Reformed Church, took an active and leading part in the Seces- sion of 1834 in the Netherlands. The early settlers were almost, if not entirely, all seceders. And likely the majority of later immigrants who united with these churches were of seceder stock. Now it is generally admitted that the men of 1834 never made much of the doctrine of common grace, not nearly so much as, for instance, the so-called ‘‘doleerenden” of 1886. They could not, for the doctrine had not been developed and propagated as it was subse- quently by Bavinck and Kuyper. I come to a fact of more importance. It must be obvious to every Reformed observer that the ortho- dox forces in the Christian churches of America gen- erally are guilty of neglect of the truth of common grace. I do not hesitate to say that this is a serious ailment of a great many—how many I shall not attempt to estimate, but I believe the majority—of our present-day Fundamentalists. Bavinck says in his lecture on Common Grace that both the Bap- tists and the Methodists in America, due to the in- fluence of Anabaptism, deny or ignore this doctrine. Surely they are very strong numerically in the Fun- damentalist camp. Disregard of common grace goes a Jong way toward explaining the deplorable fact that our American Protestant clergy is on the whole so poorly educated. I regard the Methodist ban on As To Being Reformed 111 smoking and drinking as a flouting of at least a few of the things of common grace. And may I not recall in this connection that Dr. I. M. Haldeman, one of our foremost American Fundamentalists, once published a sermon in which he discussed the grow- ing demand in our day for civic righteousness under the title: The Devil’s Righteousness? Turning now to our subject proper, I wish to direct attention from some six viewpoints to the exceeding importance of the doctrine of common grace for the church of today. (1) The churches of our day are passing through a doctrinal crisis. Many of the old creeds have fallen into disrepute. Few, if any, to be sure, have been officially scrapped; but almost all of them are largely being ignored. It is generally known that even Presbyterian pulpits are occupied by men who reject certain articles of the Apostles’ Creed, to say nothing of the Westminster Confession. Leaders in the church assure us that it makes precious little difference what one believes or disbelieves, so long as one lives the so-called Christ-life. ‘No creed but Christ” is the slogan not merely of certain rescue missions, but of a very large part of American Chris- tendom. This cannot go on forever. A creedless church cannot long exist. A reaction is pretty certain to set in. Sooner or later, I expect, the church will come to feel that it has to give an account of what it believes. 112 As To Being Reformed When that comes to pass, the fundamental ques- tion confronting the church will be this: who is God? That question is always fundamental. The — church’s theology in the broad sense of the term has ever been determined by its theology in the nar- row sense. One’s view of God ultimately determines one’s view of man, of the universe, of the way of salvation, of everything. Now the doctrine of common grace has a most direct and important bearing on the question who God is. On the one hand it tells us that God is good to all men. If common grace means anything at all, it means that. But on the other hand com- mon grace implies the existence also of special or particular grace. And so it is an implication of this doctrine that God is not good to all men in the same sense; that he does not manifest his goodness to all unto salvation. With this in mind, it is not difficult to predict to what erroneous conception of God the church may come, nay, eventually must come, if it discards the doctrine of common grace. Hither it will deny that God is good to all men, and then it will be driven to the conclusion that God showers blessings of various kinds upon those whom he does not love with no other intention than that these blessings shall be- come a curse for them; or the church will assert that God is good to all men in precisely the same manner, and thus it will deny that some are saved by special grace while others perish through lack of it. This will amount to a denial of divine sover- As To Being Reformed 113 eignty. In a word, if the church denies common grace, it will one day find itself in possession of a God who is either a despot or a weakling. The doctrine of common grace, however, if con- sistently held to, is a sure safeguard against both of these calamities. It makes for a sound view of God, which, as was already remarked, is basic to all sound theology. (2) If I am not mistaken, present-day theology is in the sign of man. Anthropology is the subject of chief interest. And the burning question is: just how good or how bad is man? The doctrine of common grace gives a definite answer to that question. It tells us that natural, unregenerated, man is totally depraved and conse- quently incapable of doing any good whatsoever of himself. Undeniable fact is, however, that he does a great deal of good. Just think of the civic virtues and the noble morality which often adorn him. This good, says our doctrine, is the fruit of the working of God’s common grace in him. But now observe to what erroneous views of man the denial of common grace must needs lead. If we discard common grace, we are driven inevitably to one of two conclusions: either man is not totally depraved, he can do good of himself; or the good which he does is not really good at all: his virtues are faults; his noble accomplishments are works of the devil; his patriotism, marital fidelity, filial piety, love for his children, common honesty are all of them 114 As To Being Reformed glittering sins. In the doctrine of man the denial of common grace leads to rankest Modernism or black- est misanthropy. If the church would escape being perched on either horn of this dilemma, it must cling tooth and nail to the truth of common grace. (8) The higher critics, so-called, have for many decades been attempting to prove that the religion of Israel was of a kind with the other religions of the ancient world as, for example, the Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Assyrian. At that very point the Old Testament critics have all the time been driving. And, naturally, in their argumentation they were everlastingly calling afention to common elements in Israel’s religion on the one hand and ancient pagan- ism on the other. Of course I agree wholeheartedly with all those believing scholars who contend that the religion of Israel was essentially different, positively unique, in a class entirely by itself. The essence of Israel’s reli- gion lay in the covenant of grace, which God had established with no other people on the face of the earth. Let me put it this way: in other religions it was man that sought God; in this unique religion it was God that sought man. ‘He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation.” I am afraid, however, that some well-meaning Christian teachers and students, in their debate with As To Being Reformed 115 the critics, have been overshooting the mark. That of course is poor policy. I mean this: in their anxiety to prove the unique- ness of Israel’s religion, they have been too ready to deny obvious resemblances between it and other religions. In other words—and now we hitch up with our subject—they have too largely ignored the plain fact that God in the establishment of the cove- nant of special grace took his starting point in com- mon grace. Israel’s religion was built up on the broad foundation of the original religion of human- ity in the families of Adam and Noah, in the races of Seth and Shem. Therefore those attributes of God which are revealed in nature, as his omnipotence and omniscience, are more prominent on the pages of the Old Testament than in the New. That also explains it that God adopted for the religion of his ehosen race some forms already in existence else- where, as the rite of circumcision, for instance. Thus Bavinck reasons in his lecture on our subject. The point is this. Israel’s religion was absolutely unique. That truth should receive all emphasis. But it may not be forgotten that common grace under- lay it. To remember this will strengthen us in our warfare with the critics. (4) Wecome toa point of great practical signifi- eance. Our age has been styled “the missionary age.” I think correctly so. Not since the days of the apostle Paul has the Christian church been laboring so dili- 116 As To Being Reformed gently for the extension of the kingdom through the preaching of the Gospel as it is today. But I con- tend that neglect of the truth of common grace can hardly help resulting in the lagging of this activity. On the other hand, its full recognition must needs be a boon to this great enterprise. It has already been remarked that in the old dis- pensation God took his starting point in common grace. Israel’s religion was built historically on the foundation of the general religion of humanity. However, as time went on the general was relegated to the background, and the particular; that is, the covenant of special grace in the promised Messiah, was pressed into the foreground. Then, in the full- ness of time, the Christ appeared and in him the fullness of special grace was revealed. But lo and behold! Something remarkable now happened. Spe- cial grace was not restricted to Israel; it was im- parted to the world. In the new dispensation the stream of special grace overflowed the bounds of Israel’s nationality and rushed out over the whole world of humanity. Now for this occasion God had preserved the race by his common grace. And so it is characteristic of the new dispensation that in it common grace and special grace, long separated, again flow together. But that is only another way of saying that the new dispensation is the dispensa- tion of missions. How inseparably then are not the doctrine of common grace and the doctrine of missions bound up together! As To Being Reformed 117 Everybody will have to admit that the very first requirement for successful missionary effort is a point of contact between the missionary and those whom he would lead to Christ. The missionary who recognizes this has a wonder- ful advantage over his colleague who fails to see it. God himself has supplied this point of contact in common grace. To illustrate the point I need but quote from the famous address made by the church’s greatest missionary on Mars’ Hill in the city of Athens. How adroitly the apostle took common grace as his starting point in preaching the Christ! “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are more than others respectful of what is divine. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown God.’ Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.” And he went on: “This God hath made of one blood ali nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath deter- mined the time before appointed, and the bounds of their habitations; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being, as cer- tain also of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ ” It has been said by certain consistent deniers of common grace that, since God is not good in any sense to the reprobate, it cannot be his desire that 118 As To Being Reformed they should accept the Gospel offer. It is difficult to see how anyone with this view can be very enthu- siastic about preaching the Gospel to a lost world. How very different is the case of the preacher who is convinced that God has ‘‘no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live”! (5) Ours is the age of social welfare work, tem- perance movements, reform societies. Seldom, if ever, has there been such an insistent demand for civic righteousness as today. It is not for us to determine at this point how far and after what manner the church is to co-operate with these movements. This must be asserted: the church should know of nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified. This may be added: the only way in which society can be saved is through the salvation of individuals. But I hasten to say that the church which ignores these movements is guilty before God of neglect. Christ came into the world not merely to restore the ethical-religious life of man. No, the influence of the Christ is co-extensive with sin. He came to restore all that had been corrupted and disrupted. by sin. His mission was to destroy all the works of the devil. For that reason Christ has something to say about the family, society, industry, even science and art. And it is the church’s business to interpret this all-inclusive message of the Christ to the world. ce at: = ote bere As To Being Reformed 119 But only then can the church be expected to per- form this task if first it has grasped the doctrine of common grace. For the several spheres just named are all included in the larger sphere of common grace. If the church denies our doctrine, there is great danger that it will content itself with leading individual souls to heaven, and let society alone, trusting, as a leading Baptist preacher once put it, that “God will save society when his King comes back.” (6) My sixth point was already treated in the chapter on Modernism and Fundamentalism. Now I shall merely summarize. The Modernist commits the terrible sin of reduc- ing the supernatural to the level of the natural and thus destroying it. The Fundamentalist stresses the supernatural at the expense of the natural. That too is a mistake. The Calvinist, while upholding the supernatural with all his might, also gives due honor to the natural. Therefore Calvinism, not Fundamentalism, is the cure for Modernism. So we argued. And now it must be added that the credit for Calvinism’s just appraisal of the natural belongs to the Reformed doctrine of common grace. It enables us to esteem the natural as God would have it esteemed. It insists that natural blessings as rain and sunshine in due season, natural talents as music and oratory, natural virtues as filial piety and mar- 120 As To Being Reformed ital love are all of them good gifts that come down from the Father of lights. At every turn the doc- trine of common grace exalts the natural. So this truth keeps the Calvinist from the weak- ness of Fundamentalism, and at once arms him for the conflict with Modernism. Pre-, Post-, and A-Millennialism a ¥ ta t} wee iy he if Na ae cy, ae ps j CHAPTER IX. PRE-, POST-, AND A-MILLENNIALISM O MUCH has been written and spoken in late years about Pre- and Post-millennialism that it seems almost superfluous to define them.