Dear Brother,

Is it not somewhat strange, that after all the articles that were written by the Rev. Petter, wherein he teaches a conditional theology, that so many still say that the Rev. Peter does not mean it that way? And that he means something altogether different from what he writes. When you consider the educational background and the studies for years under the most capable and greatest theologians of the world, I say is it not strange, when a common church member writes an article defending the truth of unconditional salvation, that every word he writes is pregnant with meaning, even his motives are judged. You write and I quote: “For it is evident that the author’s sole purpose is to attack a Minister of the Gospel, an office bearer in good standing, in order to expose him to the Churches as being heretical and in need of disciplinary attention”. In this instance I feel you are judging motives, and you have no right to do this. For to expose Reverend Petter to the churches was far from my thoughts when I wrote the article in question. I did not have to do this, as the Reverend Petter did this himself, when he wrote the articles, but I do stand opposed to his conditional theology. I wrote: “And unless we are unconditionally saved there is no salvation at all.”

It was therefore in the light of everything that was written by the Rev. H. Hoeksema and Rev. Ophoff and Rev. Veldman, which articles I underscore as having been in harmony with Scripture and our Confessions over against the conditional theology of Rev. Petter, that I wrote: “For do you not realize that you have lost the right to write under the heading of ‘Among Our Treasures’, for among our treasures, we have learned to sing, “Welzalig hij die al zijn kracht en hulp alleen van u verwacht”. To me a conditional theology is just as much of an error as the common grace theology. I therefore cannot see wherein I have erred.

Further you write, “We personally want to assure Brother Feenstra that both through Rev. Fetter’s writings and our personal discussions with him about these matters, the Rev. Petter endorses, preaches and teaches all that the Reformed Churches as represented by our Protestant Reformed Churches stand for”. There was something wrong then, was there not, for you to personally discuss with Rev. Petter “about these matters”.

But, Reverend Cammenga, things are not fixed that way. Only by a public apology are matters straightened out. That is what you expect of me, too, is it not? Will you please explain to me where I erred, by rejecting the Conditional Theology of Rev. Petter, and underscoring the Unconditional Theology of the Reverends H. Hoeksema, G. M. Ophoff, and H. Veldman.

Yours in Christ,

K. Feenstra