Vol 21 Issue 08

That Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper cannot and may not be denied, for the very simple reason alone, that Christ Himself told His disciples, when He instituted the Holy Supper and broke the bread: “This is my body”, and when He poured the wine: “This is my blood”. Christ is surely very near, when we partake of Communion in the church of Jesus Christ in the world. But because we strongly oppose the theory of Transubstantiation to which the Roman Catholics hold, and also oppose the theory of Consubstantiation to which the Lutherans hold, we are apt to...

To the person who is at all acquainted with doctrinal controversies that have arisen in the past, the above subject is familiar. He will recognize it as being the topic of much discussion and deliberation in the sphere of Reformed circles especially during the years 1919-1920. At that time, it will be remembered, the well-known Dr. Janssen was accused, among other things, of exposing heretical views concerning the miracles which took place at the time of the Old Testament dispensation. He maintained, for instance, that the fall of the walls of Jericho was to be ascribed, not chiefly to a...

Affirmative Rebuttal: Had the negative presented his arguments orally instead of on paper, I would open this rebuttal by saying: I enjoyed listening, brother. I invariably do. There is something about the style and method of the Rev. Petter that is truly refreshing and makes him pleasant to hear and read. However, when in that same Petterian style he ends his argument with the statement, as bold as it is sweeping, “These many arguments will, I trust, elicit from all those competent to judge, the verdict that notwithstanding the unsurpassed beauty, the almost prophetic spirit, power and discernment that mark...

Negative Rebuttal: When the Negative now undertakes a refutation of the arguments of the opponent, we must clearly understand what the justified assumptions are. The Affirmative has plainly assumed too strongly the a priori validity of his position, and also assumed that he was defending the status quo. We take this connection to remind our esteemed opponent that his position far from a priori valid, is rather the decretal of group of men subject to the weaknesses that mark all men and its apriori probability of inherent truth is as weak or strong as their power of judging ultimate things,...

As was said, we learn from the reactions of Manoah to what his wife told him, that he, too, was of that number in Israel who feared God. Had he been an unbeliever he would have made light of her words. But he was deeply interested and concerned, believing and hopeful, for he turned to the Lord in prayer. If only the messenger would appear unto them once more and teach them what they shall do unto the child that is to be born. As was said, the prayer was superfluous for the instruction for which Manoah prays had already...

Q. 33. Why is Christ called the only begotten Son of God, since we are also the children of God? A. Because Christ alone is the eternal and natural Son of God; but we are children adopted of God, by grace, for his sake. Q. 34. Wherefore callest thou him our Lord? A. Because he hath redeemed us, both soul and body, from all our sins, not with gold or silver, but with his precious blood, and hath delivered us from all the power of the devil; and thus hath made us his own property. The thirty-fourth answer is a...

We found the following articles in The Witness, a paper published by some of the brethren that do not agree with the stand of the Evangelical and Reformed Church: EUREKA CLASSIS AND REFORMED CHURCH IN THE U. S. The “Plan of Union” 1932, Art. 1, states that “Congregations and institutions may retain their names, but they shall designate their membership in the Evangelical and Reformed Church.” Numerous congregations have not designated their membership. They have not by regular procedure officially changed doctrinal stand and church adherence. And neither have such congregations transferred property rights. Wherefore also we take the position...

The above is the title of a lengthy printed protest by some members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church “against actions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia in the Matter of the Licensure and Ordination of Dr. Gordon H. Clark.” I had read about the controversy involved in the Presbyterian Guardian, but I had not seen the complete text of this protest. A friend was kind enough to send it to me, for the which I hereby offer him my sincere thanks. It appears that on July 7, 1944, a special meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia was held, for the purpose...

In connection with our article under the above heading in The Standard Bearer of Dec. 15th, we received the following communication from some of our brethren in South Dakota: Hosmer, S. D. Dec. 30, 1944. Rev. H. Hoeksema, Editor “The Standard Bearer” Grand Rapids, Mich. Dear Rev. Hoeksema: Last evening Rev. Krieger, Rev. Bosma, Rev. Pfeiffer and I were together and decided to send you the following communication. With surprise and consternation we read your article in the “Standard Bearer” dated December 15th concerning the Evangelical and Reformed Church. In this article you committed a grievous error, as we shall...