Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 1 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
WHY WE DISAGREE ON THE NIV (2)
“Rat
he
rf
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
”and“amov
ef
ort
hewor
s
e
?”
In our previous editorial (a) on the New International Version (NIV) we quoted Dr. Jacob Van
Br
ugg
e
n,a
n
dwenot
e
dt
ha
t“
t
het
he
or
yofdy
na
mic equivalence leads to (Bible, RD) translations
t
ha
tr
e
movet
he
ms
e
l
ve
st
oof
a
rf
r
omt
h
eor
i
g
i
na
lf
or
m oft
heme
s
s
a
g
e
.
”(
b)I
nt
hewor
dsofGe
n.
Sy
nod1980,t
hi
sl
e
a
dst
ot
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onst
ha
ta
r
e“
r
a
t
he
rf
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
.
”Whe
nwer
e
vi
e
wt
heAc
t
s
of Gen. Sy
nod1980,wer
e
a
d:“
TheCommi
t
t
e
eunde
r
s
t
a
ndsi
t
sma
nda
t
ei
ns
uc
hawa
yt
ha
tone
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ons
houl
dber
e
c
omme
nde
dt
ot
h
eChur
c
he
s
.I
ta
s
kst
heque
s
t
i
on:‘
Di
dours
t
udyoft
he
NASB and the NIV result in a preference of one of these modern translations abovet
heRSV?
’I
t
a
ns
we
r
s
,‘
Ont
heba
s
i
sofourc
ompa
r
a
t
i
ves
t
udyoura
ns
we
ri
sne
g
a
t
i
ve
.
’
”(
Obs
e
r
va
t
i
on,B5,p.
76)
Fur
t
he
r
mor
e
,wer
e
a
dt
ha
t“
t
heNI
Vha
sabe
a
ut
yofi
t
sownbe
c
a
us
eofi
t
sc
l
a
r
i
t
ya
ndi
t
sf
r
e
s
hne
s
s
of expression. There is, however, another side to the coin, that, namely, the translation is rather
f
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
.
”(
p.
231)And,a
sweo
b
s
e
r
ve
di
nourMa
y23/
98e
di
t
or
i
a
l
,“
whe
nwede
c
i
det
ous
e
a theory of translation (dynamic equivalence) that leads to translations that remove themselves too
far from the original form of the message, then it is indeed possible that we run the risk of
mi
s
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ngSc
r
i
pt
ur
e
.
”
Thes
e
nt
i
me
n
tt
ha
tt
heNI
Vi
s“
r
a
t
he
rf
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
”i
ss
ha
r
e
dbyma
nyot
he
r
s
.Pr
of
.J
.DeJ
ong
,
in his arti
c
l
e“
Whi
c
hVe
r
s
i
onNow?
”
,wr
ot
et
ha
t“
t
heSy
nodofSmi
t
hvi
l
l
e1980,whi
c
hf
i
r
s
tde
a
l
t
with the NIV, recommended the use of the RSV above that of the NIV specifically because of the
character of the RSV translation. In its consideration it noted that the majority report of the
Commi
t
t
e
er
e
por
t
i
ngt
oSy
nods
a
i
dt
ha
tt
heRSVi
sa‘
s
c
hol
a
r
l
ywor
df
orwor
dt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on’a
ndt
ha
t
t
heEng
l
i
s
ho
ft
heRSVi
s‘
di
g
ni
f
i
e
da
n
dbe
s
ts
ui
t
e
df
orl
i
t
ur
g
i
c
a
lus
e
.
.
.
’Compa
r
e
dt
ot
hec
ol
l
oqui
a
l
character of modern speech, the translators of the RSV preserved dignity of language... The NIV
wa
ss
e
e
nbya
l
lc
ommi
t
t
e
eme
mbe
r
sa
s‘
t
oof
r
e
e
’or‘
t
ooi
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
i
ve
.
’Thema
j
or
i
t
yCommi
t
t
e
e
a
l
s
os
t
a
t
e
dt
ha
t‘
.
.
.
t
hes
o-called dynamic equivalent manner of translation makes the version too
f
r
e
ef
orus
ei
nt
hepul
pi
t
.
’He
nc
et
heSy
nod1980de
c
i
de
dt
oa
doptt
heRSVi
nt
hec
onf
e
s
s
i
onsa
nd
l
i
t
ur
g
i
c
a
lf
or
ms
.
”(c)
Ge
ne
r
a
lSy
nod1995a
l
s
or
e
c
or
dst
hes
e
n
t
i
me
ntt
ha
tt
heNI
Vi
sc
ons
i
de
r
e
dt
obe“
r
a
t
he
rf
r
e
eort
oo
f
r
e
e
”i
ni
t
st
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.Unde
rt
het
i
t
l
e“
Li
ng
ui
s
t
i
cCha
r
a
c
t
e
rofTr
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on”i
tobs
e
r
ve
st
ha
t“
we
have found occasions when the NIV is freer than we believe to be acceptable, and on these points
the translators really should be called to account on the basis of their own commitment to the
a
ut
hor
i
t
yofSc
r
i
pt
ur
e
.
”(
Obs
e
r
va
t
i
ons
,B2d,p.
34)Unde
r“
Cor
r
e
s
ponde
nc
eRe
c
e
i
ve
d”wen
o
t
et
ha
t
t
heChur
c
ha
t“
Por
tKe
l
l
sr
e
f
e
r
st
ot
heRe
por
toft
heCommi
t
t
e
eonBi
bl
eTr
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onswhi
c
h
reported to Gen. Synod 1980 that the NIV lacked exactness andf
a
i
t
hf
ul
ne
s
sf
ori
t
s‘
f
r
e
e
’
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.
”(
C#1,p.
35)
I
nhi
sa
r
t
i
c
l
e“
TheEndofUni
f
or
mi
t
y
,
”Pr
of
.De
J
ongwr
i
t
e
st
ha
tt
heNI
V“
i
snotat
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onoft
he
wor
dsofSc
r
i
pt
ur
e
,butoft
he‘
t
houg
htoft
hebi
bl
i
c
a
lwr
i
t
e
r
s
.
’The
s
e‘
bi
bl
i
c
a
lwr
i
t
e
r
s
’a
r
e
obvi
ous
l
yr
e
ga
r
de
da
spe
opl
ewhowr
i
t
ei
nt
he
i
rown‘
t
houg
htpa
t
t
e
r
nsa
nds
y
nt
a
x.
’Sot
he
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
or
sf
oc
us
e
dnotpr
i
ma
r
i
l
yont
hewor
ds(
i
.
e
.wha
twa
swr
i
t
t
e
n)buton‘
c
ont
e
xt
ua
lme
a
ni
ng
s
’
of words, the thoughts the words are meant to convey. Accuracy here is regarded as a faithful
Pg. 1 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 2 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
r
e
nde
r
i
ngnotofwha
twa
swr
i
t
t
e
n,buto
ft
he‘
me
a
ni
ng
’oft
he‘
wr
i
t
e
r
.
’He
r
eane
wpr
i
nc
i
pl
eof
translation is introduced, one which to my mind threatens our understanding of the way in which
the Scriptures ought to be understood and transmitted... There is an implicit step back from the text
t
ot
het
houg
h
toft
het
e
xt
..
.
.
amovet
ot
h
eNI
Vi
snotamovef
ort
hebe
t
t
e
rbutf
ort
hewor
s
e
.
”(
e
)
When we read what Prof. De Jong has written, we are left with some questions. Is it true, as Prof.
deJ
ongs
ugge
s
t
st
ha
tourmovet
ot
heNI
Vi
si
nde
e
d“
amovef
ort
hewor
s
e
?
”Andi
ft
ha
ti
si
nf
a
c
t
the case, what brought about this move to the NIV? There are, no doubt, a number of possible or
probable answers to the
s
eque
s
t
i
ons
.Pe
r
ha
pst
hi
ss
oc
a
l
l
e
d“
movef
ort
hewor
s
e
”i
si
npa
r
t
attributable to the assumption that the RSV Bible would, in the near future, no longer be available.
Therefore a change to another Bible translation was deemed to be inevitable. This wrong
a
s
s
umpt
i
onma
ye
xpl
a
i
nGe
n.Sy
nod’
s(
1995)unwa
r
r
a
nt
e
dde
pa
r
t
ur
ef
r
om t
hepr
ude
nt
l
yc
a
ut
i
ous
and careful approach employed by previous Synods in the implementation of changes to, for
example, our Psalms and Hymns, confessions, and liturgical forms (Book of Praise). The
traditionally cautious and careful approach of allowing the churches a number of years to review
and test the work of the various Committees before implementing their recommendations, was
unfortunately not followed by Gen. Synod 1995 in recommending a new Bible translation.
Anumbe
ro
fc
hur
c
he
sdi
di
nf
a
c
tr
e
c
omme
ndt
ha
t“
f
ur
t
he
rs
t
udy
”ont
heNI
Vbema
de
,a
nda
l
s
o
t
ha
t“
at
e
s
t
i
ngpe
r
i
odoft
hr
e
ey
e
a
r
s
”bec
ons
i
de
r
e
d“
t
oa
l
l
owf
ur
t
he
rt
e
s
t
i
ngoft
hi
st
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.
”
These recommendations were summarily dismissed with what might be considered a rather
pr
e
j
udi
c
e
da
n
dpr
e
t
e
nt
i
ousr
e
s
pons
e
.Ge
n.Sy
nod(
1995)c
ons
i
de
r
e
dt
ha
t“
at
e
s
t
i
ngpe
r
i
odf
ort
he
NIV with the involvement of ministers and the churches before a final recommendation of the NIV
is not necessary since the Committee has already thoroughly studied the NIV, and has come to a
conclusion of its strengths and weaknesses. Therefore it can be expected that further testing will
onl
yde
mon
s
t
r
a
t
et
hes
a
mes
t
r
e
ng
t
hsa
ndwe
a
kne
s
s
e
s
.
”(
Art. 72, consideration F, p.37) Simply put:
TheCommi
t
t
e
e“
ha
sa
l
r
e
a
dyt
hor
oug
hl
ys
t
udi
e
dt
heNI
V.
”The
r
e
f
or
et
heCommi
t
t
e
e
’
s
r
e
c
omme
nda
t
i
onsa
r
ea
bs
ol
ut
ea
ndf
i
na
l
.Aopi
ni
ondi
f
f
e
r
e
ntf
r
om t
ha
toft
heCommi
t
t
e
e
’
si
snot
acceptable and is also not expect
e
d.Noi
nput“
ori
nvol
ve
me
ntofmi
ni
s
t
e
r
sa
ndt
hec
hur
c
he
s
”i
s
required. A testing period is not necessary. Further deliberation or re-consideration is not required.
It is regrettable that Synod 1998, in spite of a number of appeals to reconsider our move to the NIV,
ha
sopt
e
df
o
rt
hes
t
a
t
usquo.Thea
ppe
a
loft
hec
hur
c
ha
tEl
or
at
ha
t“
t
heNI
Vi
st
oof
r
e
e
”wa
s
di
s
mi
s
s
e
dwi
t
ht
hec
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
on/obs
e
r
va
t
i
ont
ha
t“
ac
a
r
e
f
ulpa
r
a
phr
a
s
ei
ss
ome
t
i
me
smor
e
a
c
c
ur
a
t
et
ha
nal
i
t
e
r
a
lt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.
”Wenot
et
hewor
d“
s
ome
t
i
me
s
.
”Thec
hur
c
ha
tLondona
l
s
o
a
ppe
a
l
e
dt
hede
c
i
s
i
onofGe
n.Sy
nod.I
ta
s
s
e
r
t
st
ha
t“
t
he
r
ei
sno‘
s
y
s
t
e
ma
t
i
ca
t
t
e
mpt
’i
nt
hea
c
t
sof
Ge
n.Sy
nod1995t
o‘
di
s
pr
ovet
hec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m ofSy
nod1980’
,a
ndf
ur
t
he
r
mor
epoi
nt
soutt
ha
t“
Ge
n.
Synod Abbotsford did not interact with the objections that Dr. J. Van Bruggen raised against the
NI
V.
”Thi
sa
ppe
a
lwa
sdi
s
mi
s
s
e
dwi
t
ht
hes
t
a
t
e
me
ntt
ha
tt
he
r
ewa
s“
i
nt
e
r
a
c
t
i
onwi
t
ht
hea
r
g
ume
nt
s
t
ha
tGe
n.Sy
nodSmi
t
hvi
l
l
e(
1980)us
e
dt
or
e
j
e
c
tt
heNI
V,
”a
ndt
ha
t“
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
ohi
s(
Dr
.Va
n
Br
ugg
e
n’
s
,RD)c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
moft
hedy
na
mi
ce
qui
va
l
e
ntme
t
hodoft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ngi
sf
oundi
nt
he1995
report (p.36, 37)
.
”
When we read the report of the Committee on Bible Translations to Gen. Synod 1995, particularly
pages 36 and 37, then it cannot be denied that the Committee did consider and also did respond to
Pg. 2 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 3 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
what Dr. Van Bruggen has written. There remains the question whether that response constitutes a
proper interaction with the objections that Dr. Van Bruggen raised against the NIV, and whether
t
ha
tr
e
s
pons
ea
ddr
e
s
s
e
sa
ndme
e
t
st
hec
r
i
t
e
r
i
ont
ha
t“
t
he
r
emus
tbes
t
r
onga
r
g
ume
nt
st
os
wi
t
c
hove
r
t
oa
not
he
rmode
r
nve
r
s
i
on.
”(
Ge
n.Sy
n
o
d1980,c
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
on3a
,p.
23)I
tha
sbe
e
ns
ugg
e
s
t
e
dt
ha
t
“
oneoft
hes
t
r
i
ki
ngt
hi
ngsi
nt
hede
ba
te on the adoption of the NIV in the Churches is an almost
consistent failure to interact with the Report to Synod (Committee on Bible Translations to Gen.
Sy
nod1995,RD)i
na
nys
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
ntwa
y
.
”(
e
)Wenot
et
hewor
ds
,“
a
na
l
mos
tc
ons
i
s
t
e
ntf
a
i
l
ur
et
o
int
e
r
a
c
twi
t
ht
heRe
por
tt
oSy
nod.
”Tha
ti
spr
e
c
i
s
e
l
yt
hepoi
ntt
ha
tt
hec
hur
c
he
sa
tEl
or
aa
nd
London make regarding the Committee on Bible Translations to Gen. Synod 1995. There was no
“
s
y
s
t
e
ma
t
i
ca
t
t
e
mpt
”byt
heCommi
t
t
e
et
o“
di
s
pr
ovet
hec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mofSy
nod1980”whe
nt
hi
sSy
nod
s
t
a
t
e
dt
ha
tt
heNI
Vt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onwa
s“
r
a
t
he
rf
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
,
”a
ndnos
e
r
i
ouse
f
f
or
twa
sma
det
o
“
i
nt
e
r
a
c
twi
t
ht
heobj
e
c
t
i
onst
ha
tDr
.JVa
nBr
ugge
nr
a
i
s
e
da
g
a
i
ns
tt
heNI
V.
”
I
nt
hea
r
t
i
c
l
e“
Va
nBr
ugge
na
ndBi
bl
eTr
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ons
:I
g
nor
e
dorFor
g
ot
t
e
n?
”wer
e
a
dt
ha
t“
i
ts
e
e
ms
rather strange that Van Bruggen is not more influential in his views on Bible translations and
textual issues. His views are by and large supported by Scripture. He builds his arguments on
Scriptural and Confessional foundations. To the knowledge of the present writer, no Reformed
scholar has ever gone on record as openly engaging his arguments. (f) Is Van Bruggen being
f
or
g
ot
t
e
nori
g
nor
e
d?Pe
r
ha
pss
omeofbot
h.
”(
g
)Pe
r
ha
psweha
ves
i
mpl
yf
or
g
ot
ten or carelessly
i
g
nor
e
dVa
nBr
ugge
n’
sa
s
s
e
r
t
i
ont
ha
t“
i
nt
heNe
wTe
s
t
a
me
nt
,t
heNI
Vi
s
.
.
.t
oof
r
e
ei
ni
t
s
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.
”Va
nBr
ugge
na
l
s
owr
i
t
e
st
ha
t“
t
oal
e
s
s
e
re
xt
e
ntt
ha
ni
nt
hec
a
s
eoft
heTEV(
Toda
y
’
s
English Version), however, the NIV misuses this freedom for doctrinal purposes. Often the NIV
does not transmit the intention of Scripture accurately. The NIV New Testament in its present form
c
a
nnotbec
ons
i
de
r
e
dar
e
l
i
a
bl
es
ubs
t
i
t
ut
ef
ort
heKJ
Vore
ve
nt
heRSV.
”(
h)
The Report of the Committee on Bible Translations to Gen. Synod 1995 which recommended the
NIV for use within the churches could be described as a very detailed and comprehensive report
(253 pages). Yet the output of those who have raised serious questions about the usefulness and
accuracy of the NIV is certainly not less precise or prolific. There are the books by Dr. J. Van
Bruggen (The Ancient Text of the New Testament / The Future of the Bible), the critique of G.W.
and D.E. Anderson (New International Version), the articles of Prof. De Jong (Which version
Now? / The End of Uniformity), and the report by Robert Martin (Accuracy of Translation and the
NIV).
I
na
ne
a
r
l
i
e
re
di
t
or
i
a
lweobs
e
r
ve
dt
ha
t“
whe
nt
hee
xpe
r
t
sdi
s
a
g
r
e
ei
ti
swi
s
et
of
i
ndoutpr
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
why there is such pronounc
e
ddi
s
a
g
r
e
e
me
nt
.
”Weha
ves
ubs
e
que
nt
l
yr
e
vi
e
we
dwha
tanumbe
rof
scholars have said and written about the matters connected with and involving Bible translation.
Weha
vee
xa
mi
ne
d,i
npa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
r
,t
he
s
ewr
i
t
e
r
s
’s
e
nt
i
me
nt
sr
e
ga
r
di
ngt
heNI
V.I
st
heNIV indeed
“
r
a
t
he
rf
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
”a
ndi
sourmovet
ot
heNI
Vf
orus
ewi
t
hi
nt
hec
hur
c
he
s“
amovef
ort
he
wor
s
e
?
”I
si
tpos
s
i
bl
e
,a
ss
omeha
ves
ugg
e
s
t
e
dt
ha
tt
heNI
Vi
sr
e
a
l
l
yami
s
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onof
Sc
r
i
pt
ur
e
?
”I
ft
hi
si
si
nde
e
dt
r
ue
,t
he
nt
h
i
st
r
ut
hwi
l
lneed to be demonstrated by providing specific
e
xa
mpl
e
sof“
r
a
t
he
rf
r
e
eort
oof
r
e
e
”t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on(
mi
s
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on)ofSc
r
i
pt
ur
ei
nt
heNI
V.The
r
e
will, D.V., be an opportunity in future issues of Reformed Polemics to examine some of the very
specific examples provided by the previously mentioned writers. These writers deserve our close
Pg. 3 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 4 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
a
t
t
e
nt
i
on,f
or
,
“
t
he
r
ei
snot
hi
ngmor
ec
e
n
t
r
a
lt
ot
heChr
i
s
t
i
a
nl
i
f
et
ha
nt
hewor
s
hi
pofGod.Our
worship must honor the Word of God by using a precise and accurate translat
i
on.
”(
i
)
RD
(a) Reformed Polemics, May 23/98.
(b) (h) The Future of the Bible, Jacob Van Bruggen, (Nelson, 1978), Conclusions, p.96.
© (d)The End of Uniformity, J. De Jong, Clarion, Dec. 1/95.
(e) Readers Response, Rev. John Van Popta, Reformed Polemics, March 29/96.
(
f
)Ot
h
e
r
sh
a
v
ec
r
i
t
i
qu
e
dh
i
swor
k
,s
e
ef
ore
x
a
mpl
e
,“
Th
eMa
j
or
i
t
y
-Te
x
tTh
e
or
y
:Hi
s
t
or
y
,Me
t
h
odsa
n
dCr
i
t
i
qu
e
,
”
Daniel B. Wallace, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 37, No. 2 (June 1994).
(g) Van Bruggen and Bible Translations: Ignored or Forgotten?, Wes Bredenhof, Reformed Polemics, April 26/96
(i) The Mistranslation of Scripture, Rev. K. A Kok, Reformed Polemics, Nov. 12/94.
Fe
nc
i
ngt
heLor
d’
sTabl
e
By Rev. B. J. Berends
No doubt, everybody knows by now that the Synod of Fergus made a rather far-reaching decision
wi
t
hr
e
s
pe
c
tt
oour“
e
c
c
l
e
s
i
a
s
t
i
c
a
lc
ont
a
c
t
”wi
t
ht
heOrthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), a
decision which touches our subject, “
Fe
nc
i
ngt
heLor
d’
sTa
bl
e
.
”Thede
l
e
ga
t
e
sofSy
nods
i
mply did
so by deciding (unanimously) to add one sentence (as underlined) to the following statement as
proposed to the OPC by our Committee for Contact with the OPC (CCOPC): The churches of the
Re
f
or
ma
t
i
onc
onf
e
s
st
ha
tt
heLor
d’
ss
u
p
pe
rshould not be profaned (1 Cor. 11:27, see Heid. Cat.
Lor
d’
sDa
y30, Q&A 82; Westminster Confession ch. 29,8). This implies that the celebration of the
Lor
d’
sSuppe
ri
st
obes
upe
r
vi
s
e
d.I
nthis supervision the Church exercises discipline and manifests
itself as true church. This supervision is to be applied to the members of the local church as well as
to the guests. This means that a general verbal warning by the officiating minister alone is not
sufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith and confirmation of a godly life is required.
The eldership has a r
e
s
pons
i
bi
l
i
t
yi
ns
upe
r
vi
s
i
ngt
hea
dmi
s
s
i
ont
ot
heLor
d’
sSuppe
r
.
It is far-reaching in view of the fact that the OPC until now has considered that underlined position
of our churches an expression of “
de
nomi
na
t
i
ona
le
xc
l
us
i
vi
s
m.
”Tobepr
e
c
i
s
e
,t
heOPCGe
ne
r
a
l
Assembly of 1987i
ni
t
sj
udg
me
ntont
hea
ppe
a
lbyRe
v.B.
R.Hof
f
or
d,c
.
s
.
,s
t
a
t
e
d,“
Thespiritual
hospitality of welcoming love may be imposed upon or abused, and the complainants are properly
sensitive to the judgment that may be incurred. But there are other dangers that the complaint does
not recognize: DANGERS OF A DENOMINATIONAL EXCLUSIVISM IN PRACTICE IF NOT
IN PRINCIPLE, AN EXCLUSIVISM THAT MAY COMPROMISE OUR WITNESS TO THE
TABLEASTHELORD’
S.
”(Our emphasis! Please, take note of this quote in the context of the
Press release of Classis Ontario-South, December 9, 1987, Clarion Vol.37, No.6, p.134fft).
Obviously, a profession of the Reformed faith would exclude believers from churches other than
Reformed (Sister) churches, the exact position the CanRC expresses in article 61 of the Church
Order. And even more so that requirement ofa“
c
onf
i
r
ma
t
i
onofag
odl
yl
i
f
e
,
”be
c
a
us
ef
r
om whi
c
h
body would any Reformed Consistory/Session accept such a confirmation other than from
Consistories/Sessions with which they are united in the true faith?
Pg. 4 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 5 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
Thea
boves
t
a
t
e
me
nton“
Fe
nc
i
ngt
heLor
d’
sTa
bl
e
,
”a
l
ongwi
t
has
t
a
t
e
me
nton“
Conf
e
s
s
i
on
a
l
Me
mbe
r
s
hi
p,
”
*c
ons
t
i
t
ut
e
sourpr
e
s
e
ntPr
opos
e
dAgr
e
e
me
ntfor Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the
OPC. Unfortunately, this Proposed Agreement (minus that synodical change/addition!) had already
been communicated by our CCOPC to the 1997 General Assembly of the OPC, via its Committee
on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations (CEIR).
We rea
di
nt
h
eCCOPCr
e
por
tt
oSy
nodFe
r
g
us
,“
TheCEI
Rr
e
por
t
e
dt
ot
heGeneral Assembly that
the relationship with the Canadian Reformed Churches had taken an important step forward. It
reported in full detail the Proposed Agreement for opening the way to Ecclesiastical Fellowship
between the Canadian Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The CEIR
f
ur
t
he
rs
t
a
t
e
d:‘
Wel
ookf
or
wa
r
dt
ot
hene
xtGe
ne
r
a
lSy
nodoft
heCa
na
di
a
nReformed Churches (in
1998) with the expectation that, in view of this agreement it will act to establish a bond of
Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC in which we can continue to discuss our differences as
churches, and so, if God grants, arrive at a more perfect unity in doctrine, polity, and l
i
f
e
.
’
”
In conclusion, we are i
nf
or
me
dt
ha
tt
hi
sr
e
por
t“
wa
sa
dopt
e
dbyt
heGe
ne
r
a
lAs
s
e
mbl
y
,
”a
ndt
ha
t
ma
nyde
l
e
g
a
t
e
s“
e
xpr
e
s
s
e
dt
he
i
rj
oya
ndt
ha
nkf
ul
ne
s
sf
ort
he
s
ede
ve
l
opme
nt
s
.
”Nowwec
a
nbe
sure that the synodical addition and change will not be received with gratitude by the OPC, or by
some of our own members, not immediately, that is. Mind you, I wonder how many members of
the OPC know about the content of that Proposed Agreement. The two ministers I phoned knew
precious little about it (anymore), one of whom was a delegate at the 1997 OPC General Assembly.
Thel
a
t
t
e
rs
ugg
e
s
t
e
dt
ha
tIs
houl
dc
ont
a
c
t“
Te
xa
sJ
a
c
k,
”i
.
e
.
,t
heRe
v.J
.Pe
t
e
r
s
on,(
t
heus
ua
lOPC
delegate at our Synods) to find out more regarding the significance of this Proposed Agreement for
Ecclesiastical Fellowship. I hope everyone understands that to contact him or any other member of
the CEIR does not go very far in order to ascertain whether the membership as a whole knows the
content of that CCOPC Proposed Agreement and whether they are considering implementing it.
At this time, therefore, it is of greater consequence of what our own membership thinks of this
Proposed Agreement, past and present. The greater the unity among us, the better the present
Proposed Agreement will be communicated to the OPC, and the more they will be pleased to adopt
it to the honour of Christ, our Head, for their own benefit and for that of the coming generations.
Obviously, the members of our CCOPC did not exactly represent our churches, considering the fact
that the synodical addition/change was a matter of unanimity. In view of their mandate from Synod
Abbotsford, they were, perhaps, more concerned about the ways and means to establish that
seemingly e
l
us
i
ve“
e
c
c
l
e
s
i
a
s
t
i
c
a
lf
e
l
l
ows
hi
p”r
a
t
he
rt
ha
nus
i
nga
l
lt
he
i
rme
e
t
i
ng
s(
a
l
lseven of
them) to discuss with the OPC (with CEIR) what we as churches be
l
i
e
ver
e
g
a
r
di
ng“
c
onf
e
s
s
i
ona
l
membership”a
nd“
f
e
nc
i
ngt
heLor
d’
sTa
bl
e
,
”and why we consider it so important and beneficial
for the OPC to do likewise.
Asar
e
s
ul
tt
he
yha
venowt
he“
une
nvi
a
bl
e
”(
?
)t
a
s
kofc
ommuni
c
a
t
i
ngt
ha
tsynodical sentence as an
intricate part of what we as churches stand for on the basis of the Word of God. I hope that all the
members of the CCOPC are willing and ready to do so with conviction, with forthrightness,
convinced of the truth that is expressed in the multitude of observations and considerations that led
Synod Fergus to this necessary addition/change to the Proposed Agreement. If the OPC is truly a
Reformed Church, dictated by what is spiritually edifying and not by what is humanly
Pg. 5 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 6 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
expedient/attainable, all its members will no doubt show a Reformed ear and eye for what is really
at stake, for them and for us, with that Proposed Agreement.
To that end, I am also writing this article. As you know, the last time I have tried to point out the
s
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
nc
eofha
vi
nga“
c
onf
e
s
s
i
ona
lme
mbe
r
s
hi
p.
”I
nt
ha
tc
onne
c
t
i
onInowwoul
dl
i
ket
os
t
r
e
s
s
the need of “
f
e
nc
i
ngt
heLor
d’
sTa
bl
e
,
”orr
a
t
he
rt
hene
e
dofha
vi
nga“
c
l
os
e
dLor
d’
sTa
bl
e
,
”t
he
need of allowing only those believers to attend who have publicly professed the Reformed faith, the
faith steeped in Holy Scripture, as expressed and confessed in the Reformed Confessions, in the
Westminster Standards by the OPC (to be done by all the members!) and in the Three Forms of
Unity by the CanRC, as it is done by all the members (who have made public profession of the
faith!)
As you can see there is a close connection between publicly professing the true faith and to express
and to be strengthened in that faith around the table of the Lord. The one follows the other. What
we are called to do at t
het
a
bl
ei
st
o“
di
s
c
e
r
n”t
hebodyofChr
i
s
t
,t
odi
s
c
e
r
nt
heChr
i
s
ta
sHehas
revealed himself in the Scriptures, from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22, that is, to discern the One
whom we have learned to confess in/with those Reformed Confessions. Therefore, not only that we
believe but also wha
twebe
l
i
e
vei
si
mpor
t
a
ntwi
t
hr
e
s
pe
c
tt
ot
hea
t
t
e
nda
nc
eoft
heLor
d’
sTable. In
fact, whether we are truly one, one with respect to the doctrines of Holy Scriptures, one in our
profession/confession of those doctrines, touches the honour of the Host, the Christ of which those
doctrines, those confessions speak. The question is, are we truly united with Him, and with one
another, on the only foundation He himself has laid and revealed in Holy Scripture? I hope it is
clear that the Reformed confessions based on Scripture play an indispensable role in determining
the unity of the faith by those who attend the table of the Lord, whether they are indeed truly united
and are strengthened in the true faith.
A true faith is believing that everything is in Christ, that your salvation is out of Christ from
beginning to end, and that we, depraved as we are because of our original and actual sins, live by
grace alone. We are saved, not because of our own will; it is the gift of God - not by works, so that
no one can boast. With the Reformed confessions we truly have learned to boast in Christ, as the
only Saviour, as the only Mediator between a holy and righteous God and sinful man. With those
Reformed confessions we have learned to acknowledge Him in whom we have been baptized, have
learned to know Him as the Mediator of that one covenant of grace God has established with
believers and their children, that divine covenant with its promises and demands. All that and much
more belong to the true faith as delivered to us by grace and as expressed and confessed in the
Reformed confessions. And all that and much more we express and confess at the table of the Lord,
a
sma
ni
f
e
s
t
e
da
l
s
obyourFor
mf
ort
heCe
l
e
br
a
t
i
onoft
heLor
d’
sSuppe
r
.I
nvi
e
wofa
l
lt
hi
show
could we ever take responsibility for allowing persons to attend the Table of the Lord who are
members of churches which deny the infallibility of Holy Scripture, neglect if not reject the
Scriptural doctrine of the one Covenant of Grace, speak of the free will of man, and which deny
what we confess specifically in the Canons of Dort as expressed by the acronym TULIP. Therefore,
this question: is it truly giving evidence that the Supper is t
heLor
d’
sbya
l
l
owi
ngpe
r
s
onst
oa
t
t
e
nd
who belong to such churches, thus, persons responsible for doctrines that rob Christ of His honour,
the Christ of the Scriptures, the Christ, whom we as Reformed churches have learned to confess in
our Reformed Confessions?
Pg. 6 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 7 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
Let us then go all out to convince the OPC that as Reformed Churches we should let first things
remain first. First there is the call to unity around the Pulpit of Christ (around the living preaching
in church), as well as around the instruction at Catechism, in that one and complete doctrine of
salvation, to work faith in the hearts of the members/hearers, and then (and only then!) there is the
call to those who respond to that Reformed preaching and instruction to attend the table of Christ
for the s
t
r
e
ng
t
he
ni
ngoft
ha
tf
a
i
t
h.Tha
t
’
swha
tIwoul
dc
a
l
lt
heRe
f
or
me
dor
de
rofdoing things in
His Catholic Church. To that end may the Lord our God bless the CCOPC and the CEIR for the
mutual benefit of both the OPC and the CanRC.
The churches of the Reformation believe that they have to contend for the faith which was once for
all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and are called to watch out for those who cause divisions and put
obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Rom. 16:17). Anyone who
answers the membership vows in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the doctrine of
t
heBi
bl
ea
st
hepa
t
r
i
s
t
i
cc
hur
c
hha
ss
umma
r
i
z
e
dt
hi
st
e
a
c
hi
ngi
nt
heApos
t
l
e
s
’Cr
e
e
da
ndt
he
churches of the Reformation have elaborated on this in their confessions. Every confessing member
i
sboundt
ot
hi
sdoc
t
r
i
nea
ndmus
tbewi
l
l
i
ngt
obei
ns
t
r
uc
t
e
di
ni
t
.
”
(
TheSy
nodofFe
r
g
usa
dde
dt
ha
tl
i
t
t
l
ewor
d“
a
s
.
”Obvi
ous
l
y
,i
twa
nt
e
dto make it abundantly clear
that we adhere to the doctrine of the Bible as we ha
vel
e
a
r
ne
dt
oc
onf
e
s
si
ti
nt
heApos
t
l
e
s
’Cr
e
e
d
and the Reformed Confessions, which include the other Creeds as well. [See B.C. art.9])
Letter to the Editors
Re Volume 4 #17 May 9 1998 Church News
“
Re
v.J
.Boe
r
s
maha
sr
e
s
i
g
ne
d.
.
.
.
.
”
Al
l
owmet
owa
g
epol
e
mi
c
a
la
ndc
omme
ntont
hea
bovea
nnounc
e
me
ntunde
r“
Chur
c
hNe
ws
”
.
According to the Church Order of Dordt, which we as churches have adopted, the churches have
correctly limited the number of peopl
ewhoha
vea
ut
hor
i
t
yt
opr
oc
l
a
i
ma
nde
xe
g
e
t
eGod’
sWor
di
n
a
n“
of
f
i
c
i
a
l
”c
a
pa
c
i
t
y
.Thi
st
a
s
ki
sg
r
a
n
t
e
de
xc
l
us
i
ve
l
yt
ot
hemi
ni
s
ters of the Word. (Art. 16 C.O)
Upon ordination and installation to office, officebearers (ministers) are required to sign the form of
Subscription. (Art. 26 C.O) There in they promise among other things that the Doctrinal Standards
of the Canadian Reformed Churches do fully agree with the Word of God and that they will
faithfully teach and defend the aforesaid doctrine. Further they also promise that if any difficulties
or different sentiments respecting this doctrine should arise in their minds they promise that they
will neither publicly or privately propose, teach nor defend the same until they have first revealed
such sentiments to the Consistory, Classis and Synod and cheerfully to accept their judgment.
As we can see then this is not to be taken lightly and neither dealt with frivolously by just sort of
walking away from it. In fact the Church Order points out the way Churches may release a
minister from his task. First, if he accepts a call to another church. (Art. 9) Second, if he is judged
unfit and incapable of serving the congregation effectively. (Art. 11) Third, if upon reaching
retirement age or is rendered incapable of performing is duties he may retire retaining the honor
and title of minister. (Art. 13) Fourth, he may receive a temporary release for illness or other
substantial reasons. (Art. 14)
Pg. 7 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 8 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
Thi
sbr
i
ng
su
st
ot
hewor
d“
r
e
s
i
g
ne
d”t
h
a
ta
ppe
a
r
e
di
ny
ourannouncement, a word which is foreign
to the Church Order as far as officebearers are concerned.
Sot
he
nwha
tdomi
ni
s
t
e
r
sr
e
a
l
l
ydowhe
nt
he
y“
r
e
s
i
g
n”
?TheChur
c
hOr
de
rr
e
f
e
r
st
oi
ta
sa
“
f
a
i
t
hl
e
s
sde
s
e
r
t
i
onofof
f
i
c
e
”a
ndt
he
ybe
c
omeguilty of a serious and gross sin which is the ground
for the suspension of officebearers. (Art. 71 & 72) As churches we must stick to and apply the
things by which we have mutually bound ourselves for the maintenance of good order in the
Church of Christ.
It is a sad thing in the life of the churches when these things happen. Sad because the underlying
cause of this other actions are not dealt with in an open, honest, and frank way.
How can we proclaim unity from the rooftops when in our own house there seems to be no concept
of what unity really is?
Sincerely,
John Bareman
Synod of Free Reformed Churches in South Africa
Short report on some issues from the 1998 Synod of the Free Reformed Churches of South Africa:
The Synod was held on the 30th of April, in Pretoria. It is the first time that all five congregations
ha
vebe
e
nr
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
e
da
tt
hes
y
nod.Tha
ti
nc
l
ude
st
he“
ne
w”c
ong
r
e
g
a
t
i
onofBe
t
ha
l
.Al
s
oi
n
a
t
t
e
nda
nc
e
,
we
r
et
wode
l
e
ga
t
e
sf
r
om ours
i
s
t
e
rc
hur
c
he
s“
DeGe
r
e
f
or
me
e
r
deKe
r
ke
ni
nNe
de
r
l
a
nd.
”
Important on the agenda, was the report by the curators on the new theological training in South
Africa. The positive report was gracefully accepted. In future the students will also be given a
chance to report back in a more formal way to the senate on the theological training. The lecturers
were also given the chance to report on the classes that have been given in the past 4 months. Also
reported on was the AC Barnard-library which has been bought for the small amount of R2000 (=US$400,-). A letter of thanksgiving will be sent to Prof. Barnard from the NGK.
One of the most important decisions made at the synod, was in connection with our relationship
wi
t
ht
he“
Pa
r
t
i
c
ul
i
e
r
eSi
nodeFr
i
e
s
l
a
nde
nc
l
a
s
s
i
sGr
oot
e
g
a
s
t
”i
nHol
l
a
nd,c
onc
e
r
ni
ngmi
s
s
i
onwor
k
in South Africa. The Synod decided that a mission deliberation has to be held among all the five
congregations, so that no misunderstanding or wrong feelings may occur, that would be detrimental
to the mission work.
Another issue concerned the correspondence with the central government. It was decided that the
congregations should be informed on any correspondence with the central government.
Cont
a
c
twi
t
hot
he
rhomec
hur
c
he
s
,l
i
ket
he“
Ge
r
e
f
or
me
e
r
deKe
r
kva
nSui
d-Af
r
i
ka
(
GKSA)
”a
ndt
he
“
Ne
de
r
dui
t
s
eGe
r
e
f
or
me
e
r
deKe
r
k”
(
NGK)
,wa
sa
l
s
oon the agenda. Some agitated congregations
from above mentioned churches, as well as English Reformed Churches, have to be contacted. A
better systyem dealing with these churches has to be made. A representative from the GKSA, Dr.
Neels Smit, also brought forward the greetings and blessings from the GKSA, pleading for further
co-operation between the VGKSA and the GKSA. A better Afrikaans translation of the Bible on a
Pg. 8 of 9
Vol. 4, No. 20
June 20, 1998
Page 9 of 9
www.spindleworks.com/rp
formal equivalent basis will be discussed with the South African Bible Society. There wer
e
n’
ta
ny
new decisions made concerning relationship with foreign churches, except that a higher financial
contribution will be made to the IKGK. The rest of the synod was held in camera. Synod also
gratefully, stated that all the churches remained true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ, based on the
Wor
da
c
c
or
di
ngt
ot
he“
Dr
i
eFor
mul
i
e
r
eva
nEe
nhe
i
de
ndeKe
r
kor
de
”
Bethal will host the next synod in 2000.
Brotherly greetings from South Africa.
Axel Hagg
Pg. 9 of 9