Date - Feb/83

Contributor - Rev. Henry VanEssen

Title - Reformed or Not: Is There a Difference?

Topic - Reformed Denomination

It is very gracious of Pioneer to give me an opportunity to reply to Pastor Opmeer's "Open Letter" in the January 1983 issue. It is however with some mixed emotions that I write this answer. I am grateful for Pastor Opmeer's response. He has summed up his vision of the Church; and it appears to me that his understanding of the Church differs considerably from what I understand to be the reformed position (in the broad, non-denominational sense of the word). At the same time I must say that I do not recognize myself or this reformed position in his summary of my view.

Two preliminary remarks:

Two remarks before delving into the meat of the discussion: 1) Pastor Opmeer in his open letter does not try to deny any of the points made by me in the October 1982 issue. 2) Neither does he apparently see that I am asking our RCA churches in Canada the following question: Do we really want to be reformed or do we want each pastor and each local church to be free to teach what he/she happens to believe is the scriptural truth, whether such teaching agrees with our confessional standards or not? The answer to that question is, in my opinion at least, important for the further development of the RCA in Canada; important for Classis decisions concerning church extension and an eventual Particular Synod of Canada; and also important for consistories and congregations as they consider what and whether to support with their assessments and askings..

Admission of change of view.-

At this point I hasten to admit that there was a time that I myself strove for an "open evangelical church of general reformed persuasion", in which there would be room for people of various church backgrounds, including Christians of Baptist and Pentecostal persuasion. They would, of course, have to work together with the (local) RCA in a constructive manner; but they would not be forced to change their particular convictions when functioning in the church in some capacity. But after considerable experience and reflection I have changed my mind on that. The reason for this change is the realization that there are indeed two understandings of the church in Protestant Christendom; one of these comes out of the reformed approach to Scripture; the other one comes out of the Anabaptist view of the Bible. One Church in 0. T and N. T:

The reformed approach to Scripture sees above all the unity of the whole Bible, of the Old and New Testaments. All believers are saved by grace through faith including Adam and Eve. They are therefore members of the one Church. "We believe and profess one unique catholic or universal Church, which is a holy gathering of true believers in Christ, expecting all their blessedness in Him, being washed in His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This Church has been from the beginning of the world and will be to its end .... 11 (Belgic Confession of Faith, Art. 27). Thus the N.T. heathen converts are declared to be ingrafted into the one tree, Israel (Romans 11:17 - 24).

N. T. Church is Israel Continued.-

The N.T. Church is therefore not the new Israel; it is rather a further spreading of the true and original Israel begun by the Lord God in and with Abraham (compare Hebrews II). For there is also but one covenant of grace which is begun in Genesis 3 and which is still in place today. But the administration during the period before the historical saving work of Christ was but a foreshadowing of the real administration under Christ and since then. This is the main theme of the Letter to the Hebrews. All this means that the promises of the O.T. to the O.T. believers are the promises of God's Church; and insofar these promises are not yet fulfilled, they shall be fulfilled one day for the Church, which is the true Israel. This means further that the covenant regulations and promises and commandments (also with regard to the children of believers) are those of the Church of today. (Therefore infant baptism as a sacrament of the covenant of' grace under N.T. administration cannot be an option; it is the Lord's command. Seen this way to ignore it or to oppose it is making light of God's holy sacrament, if not plain disobedience of it.)

The Church in the World.-

This understanding of the Church also means that the future of Israel is the future of the Church (Romans 1 1:24 26). But this is not all. For in the O.T there is clearly a close connection between the people of God and the land in which they live (see for example the fifth commandment); or, to use other terms, between redemption and creation. In other words, the people of God have a responsibility over against the place where they live. The rule of God over them affects the whole of this life, justice and righteousness in the land, the government, the size of their crops. The O.T. prophets had much to say about all that. Since the N.T. Church is the continuation of O.T. Israel (under the same covenant of grace), therefore, the N.T. Church must also listen to the prophets; she dare not let go of creation by concentrating only on personal, individual redemption. Thus the people of God today must strive as much as they did in the O.T. times to let God's rule have its way in today's society (theocracy).

A Different Bible Interpretation:

Over against this view stands the Anabaptist position one the Scriptures. That interpretation is a literalistic one. It sees an old covenant and a new covenant, two totally different covenants, so different, that there are really two different groups of people who relate to the Lord: the Israelites under the O.T. and the Church as the Bride of Christ under the N.T.

Therefore, the O.T. is only important for the Church insofar as N.T. teachings are confirmed or explained by it.

The Church Different from Israel.-

Since the interpretation of Scripture is literalistic and since Israel and the Church are two different entities, all prophecies in the O.T. which are not yet fulfilled, will one day be literally fulfilled only for Israel (= the Jews). Here is the reason for all the prophetic interpretations of today's news with regard to the state of Israel. Also, since the old covenant is only for Israel, there is no connection between circumcision and infant baptism. All teaching of the O.T. on the covenant of grace is with one stroke made completely irrelevant to the N.T. Church

The future of the Church will also be different from that of Israel. In the 1830's a brand new teaching appeared, saying that Christ would return twice: the first time secretly to swiftly and silently take the Church to Himself in heaven (called the rapture), the second time to come openly to reign in the millennium.

Finally, it should be clear that because of the total separation between Israel and the Church, the Church is also completely separated from creation, from all responsibility over against today's society. All the Church has to do is to save souls and to instruct these converts to save and instruct more souls. This view has resulted in a more or less complete abdication of the believer's responsibility for the society in which he lives. The most visible examples are those Christians who refuse to vote ("be ye separate"). But the drift into humanism, particularly in the U.S., can be directly attributed to the refusal of evangelicals over the last 80 or so years to let the Word of God, or rather the Law of God, be heard in legislative assemblies, school boards, etc.

This is not all ...

The above, rough summary that it is, may serve, I trust, to show how completely opposed these two views of Scripture and the Church are, and how difficult it would be to have people holding these opposite views working side by side in one congregation or classis. And this is not all. At least two serious consequences can be observed in the practical use of these theologies.

Two Ways of Ministry:

A. The Anabaptist Way -

The congregational ministry based on the Anabaptist position is characterized by a (very) individualistic approach to people: a) establishing whether they are saved or not; b) determining their spiritual level; c) helping to "improve" them; etc. Preaching and teaching is geared to saving people, Sunday after Sunday, or to urging people to reach higher levels of personal fellowship with God; how we may have 4 1 more" of God. (A sideline of considerable interest is, of course, the present day history of Israel in the light of O.T. prophecy and Revelation.) The focus is therefore very much on the (prospective) Christian and what God is willing to do for him.

B. The Reformed Way -

The ministry based on the reformed position does not at all neglect the personal relationship between the individual and the Lord God. But the individual is ministered to within the covenant community. There is much more awareness of what God can do and often does long before we consciously confess Him as Lord and Saviour. Many Christians have believed from childhood on. The reformed teaching and preaching also stresses the place and service of God's people in society, not just to save souls, but also to be stewards of the dominion God has given to the believers over His creation and this society. At the same time this is not to be pure social gospel; it lets the Word 'of God impact upon all of today's technical and cultural developments. The reformed teaching and preaching ministry stresses the sovereign lordship of the Triune God over every aspect of personal and communal life.

It should be clear from all this that a person with an Anabaptist outlook should be rather uncomfortable if not outright unhappy in a reformed environment. To name only one occasion: to have the O.T. prophetic message applied to today's Church and world would, for such a person, be clearly wrongly dividing the Word of truth.

Outside Influence.-

It must be admitted that most evangelism materials and other Christian education aids used in evangelical churches have this Anabaptist leaning. In my own personal life of faith and ministry they have had a large influence, until a year or so ago. I have a notion that this may have happened in other places as well.

The Doctrine of Trinity:

The second serious consequence of these two theologies affects the very heart of the Christian faith, namely the doctrine of the Trinity. Paul writes that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness" (11 Tim. 3:16). For Paul at that time, "all Scripture" meant the O.T. Therefore, it becomes a serious matter when the whole O.T. is practically, although not always theoretically, dismissed as applicable only to Israel and not to the N.T. Church. The result is visible in the various Christian groups and sects which have basically lost the teaching of the Trinity. There are those who focus almost exclusively on Jesus; others are so into the Holy Spirit, that the Father and Son practically (!) fade out of the picture. One Pentecostal pastor admitted that the sacrament of Lord's Supper was a good exercise to remember what the Lord did, but that it was really superceded by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It would go too far to delve deeply into this, but by possibly oversimplifying, one may say that in the O.T. the main emphasis is on God the Father, in the Gospels on God the Son, and in Acts on God the Holy Spirit. Yet the outward works of the Triune God are indivisible: the Son and the Spirit are together with the Father in the work of creation and in the preparation of redemption. The Father and the Spirit are very much involved in the work of redemption by the Son in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is the quiet One who makes possible that what the Father has purposed according the counsel of His will by accomplishing it in the Son. Church history shows us that where the emphasis on One of the Three becomes unbalanced, there the people of God become very much endangered to eventually stray into man-made religions (example: Jehovah's Witnesses). The practical loss of the O.T. for a large part of the N.T. Church, may have some serious consequences.

In One Accord?

By writing all this, I want to make it clear that I am not casting doubts on Pastor Opmeer, neither am I denying the truth of the gifts of the Holy Spirit or the use thereof. I am simply stating what I believe to be an extremely important question for the RCA churches in Canada. For from a number of (sometimes painful) personal experiences, I can testify that it is impossible for various theological views and practices to walk together unless they be basically agreed. Our present plans for the development of the RCA in Canada hinge on the assumption that all churches, also those now being started, shall be able to walk and work together. Therefore, they should be agreed in the main points of their teaching and faith.

Pastor Opmeer writes, "we do not have to be 'different'. Let's not strengthen the 'Reformed' conviction. Rather, let's strengthen the household of God". This would be ignoring reality. Our understanding of Scripture and the Church is either one way or the other. Our teaching will lean either one way or the other. Therefore, the churches to which we minister will subconsciously) adopt one view or the other. And my personal experience is that in daily practical work of ministry in Church and world these two views cannot operate together in one congregation.

A Personal Conclusion:

Ever since my own personal crusade experience in 196 1, I have sought to be open to "allow the Holy Spirit to blow through our lives and our worship services and programs," as Pastor Opmeer put it. I have sought, prayed, struggled, read and listened. In that sense, the above is the result of some twenty years of pastoral living.

It is true that I could have kept these convictions to myself, just as I could have declined the invitation to write the Reformation Day article. I considered that, also because of possible division as a result of these articles. But there comes a time when one has to stand up for his convictions. I wish to assure Pastor Opmeer that I share his concern for bringing the Gospel to the unbeliever. But obedience is still better than anything else. Our first priority is to be obedient to the whole of Scripture. And out of the whole of Scripture, I receive an understanding of the Church which is very much in line with the Standards of our faith. That understanding appears to me to be absolutely necessary for our congregations if they are to be healthy and able to carry out the full work of ministry in this world as our Lord requires it. May our discussions contribute to the coming of His Kingdom.