My title in this case is not my subject.

I am not going to write about “an interlude”, but rather my article is an interlude in the series with which I was busy. I want to interrupt my series on “Church Membership” to write about the controversial discussion which is being carried on between our churches and the Liberated, and which has also been transferred into our own circles and is becoming an intra-church controversy. But I want to write about it from the viewpoint of “In His Fear”.

The occasion of this writing is a matter of personal experience and observation. Every once in a while once comes into contact in his discussions of the “subject of the hour” with certain expressions which almost leave the impression, when one analyzes them, of being false arguments. And often one comes into contact with certain attitudes which, it is to be feared, are also wrong. And: one who is at all acquainted with past history can sometimes only with difficulty refrain from drawing a parallel between the present and the past.

Now it is not our purpose to enter into the arguments themselves,—into their contents. That is the domain of the editorial department. And we are quite content to leave that domain to our editor. But rather do we propose to emphasize that this whole controversy must be motivated by the fear of the Lord, and that no argument may be used or heeded which is not in harmony with the fear of the Lord. We therefore want to warn against these pseudo-arguments and these wrong attitudes, in as far as they exist and in as far as we are in danger of using or heeding them. Our reason for warning you, whose desire as children of God is to walk in His fear, is simple: Forewarned is fore-armed.

Pseudo-arguments.

There are certain arguments which, though not as such wrong, and which if demonstrated, reasoned, calmly appraised, and clearly proved, are perfectly legitimate and powerful but which nevertheless carry with them the danger of being catch-phrases, slogans, argumentative traps designed to sway people, to move them from a sound foundation., They are pseudo- arguments, hackneyed, trite expressions, clichés, which have recurred in almost every controversy in church history, and which people have followed often without any sane investigation. I want to emphasize that the people of God may never heed an argument without investigation. And I want to emphasize once more that as such these arguments may not be wrong, as I hope to point out in each case. And once more: we do not intend to enter the contents of the arguments in this article, but simply to point out the dangers that lurk when these arguments are wrongly used. Let me mention some of these arguments.

1.  Terminology argument.

You have heard it as often as I. It is very simple. It runs like this: “The present controversy is just a difference of terms.”

Now the possibility must be granted, of course, that this is true. In the abstract this must be granted; otherwise all possibility of argument and discussion is cut off, of course. But let us remember:

   a.  That terminology may never be slurringly referred to as “a mere technicality”. Technicalities are important. And terms are and will be important as long as words have meaning.

   b.  You may never accept the argument just as it is stated above, period. If the argument is to be used, it must be thoroughly demonstrated. And if it is not demonstrated or demonstrable, the writer should keep it in his pen and the reader should close his eyes to it. To make an application, if anyone says that “condition” and “instrument” are different terms for the same thing, he must prove it and not just say it. Only then will the argument be legitimate. And under no circumstances may anyone simply state the argument and let it go at that.

2.  Authority argument.

The quoting of authorities in support of one’s view, and even the mere mention of authorities, has long been accepted technique in argument. In an ecclesiastical debate reference may quite properly be made to the view of this eminent theologian or that. And such arguments carry a certain amount of weight. But what should our evaluation of them be?

   a.  We must remember that the authority argument has never been recognized as being of primary value. The argument which cites an authority is of secondary value only.

   b.  One must therefore carefully choose the authorities quoted. They should really be eminent and of unsullied reputation. If the citing of an authority is to bear any weight in Reformed circles, for example, one must cite an authority who knows what he is talking about, not only, but one who has a reputation for being Reformed.

   c.  Authorities may not be blindly followed. One often discovers such a tendency. Members of a congregation are inclined to “stick with” their minister: if he says something, it must be so. If this great Reformed thinker says it, who am I to question it? And so forth. Now such loyalty is touching, and such humility appears becoming. But there is only one authority that may not be questioned: the authority of the Word of God. Even our Confessions are after all subject to its authority and may be followed only upon the basis of their Scriptural authority.

   d.  Hence, we should always be careful to analyze the statements of authorities, and hold ourselves in readiness to disagree. That is our right, and that is our duty. A mere statement is not an argument, no matter how great the man who makes it. On the other hand, we should not be quick to brush aside without consideration the thoughts and statements and arguments of those who by reason of past experience and past work have proved themselves worth listening to.

3.  Difference-of-emphasis argument.

There is reason to doubt whether this argument is ever valid or decisive. The reason is very simple: everything should have its proper emphasis. A very common form of argument has been this: We emphasize the element of sovereign election, while the opposition emphasizes the element of human responsibility. And often the relative phrase is added, “more strongly”. In addition to the remark made above, that everything should have its proper emphasis, we may observe:

   a.  The argument may not be used as a “nicety”, that is, to take the edge off any differences. It should not be attempted to make relative differences out of fundamental ones.

   b.  That the difference is one of emphasis must, of course, be established. We should not be satisfied with the mere statement, for then we become guilty of begging the question. And therefore, we must never use the argument as a sort of sop.

   c.  In that connection, a neglect or denial must not be termed a difference in emphasis. Especially is that true when we speak of the doctrine of sovereign election, the Cor ecclesiae, the heart of the church. A weak heart beat may be fatal, you know.

   d.  Finally, the argument may not be used to make contrasting emphases of what should be coordinate emphases. We may not contrast human responsibility and divine sovereignty. The one without the other is impossible.

4.  Me-too-ism.

We may borrow this term from present day politics to describe another type of false argument. It runs this way. When someone is accused of teaching a theory opposed to the Reformed truth, he replies that he too maintains sovereign election, total depravity, irresistible grace, etc., and he also maintains for example, that the promise is for all.

Once more, we remind you that we are not now entering the argument. We will grant the possibility in the abstract of such a position. The point is that the argument may not simply be used in the sense of “me-too-ism”, in order to save one’s Reformed reputation and maintain self in the good graces of the Reformed public. And no one may simply accept the statement at face value. The possibility exists and must be granted, but the actuality and the factuality must be demonstrated. And until it is, the position must stand condemned.

5.  The voice of the majority.

Another argument which often arises is that of the majority opinion. It is often used as a mere “numbers” argument. So many of our leaders are of the opinion. Or: most of our people take that stand. Sometimes, as I recently heard, actual percentages are used: 90% of our people want conditions. And this is intended to sway others to agree with that stand. We may observe:

   a.  That the argument fails until a poll. is taken. I know of no poll, for example, that has determined that 90% of our people want conditions.

   b.  Mere numbers mean absolutely nothing. The old saying that so many million Frenchman can’t be wrong is simply not true. History, and especially church history, has demonstrated repeatedly that the majority has been wrong.

   c.  Remember that majorities are binding and majority decisions are taken on official gatherings.

   d.  Is then a majority to be sneered at? Not at all. But the opinion of a majority is to be accepted only when it is a well-reasoned and well-founded majority opinion. We are not subject ultimately to the will of men in the church, but to the will of the King of the church, Christ. Not the voice of the people rules, but the voice of the Son of God.

We have more to say. But for the present we may sum up by saying: in all our discussions we should beware of being swayed by any clichés, but let us have concise, well-grounded, well-founded, demonstrated arguments, founded upon the Reformed Confessions as the expression of the truth of Holy Writ. And you and I may listen only to such,—in the fear of the Lord.