Vol 31 Issue 07

Such was the subject of an essay delivered by the Rev. J. Blankespoor at a ministers’ conference held recently in Oskaloosa, Iowa, and published in Concordia of Dec. 2, 1954.

Among the many labors of the pastor is the important duty of visiting the sick as prescribed in the call letter.

“The Protestant Reformed Churches believe that, in obedience to the command of Christ, the king of the Church, to preach the blessed gospel to all creatures, baptizing, and teaching them to observe all things which Christ has commanded, it is the explicit duty and the sacred privilege of said church to carry out this calling according to the measure of our God-given ability. 

Julian’s attempt to destroy Christianity We concluded our preceding article with the remark that we would call attention to Julian’s attempt to destroy Christianity. 

In our closing remarks last time we raised the interesting and important question as to what moral right those who left us have to refuse the congregations of Chatham and Hamilton, Ontario to join them again as sister congregations in their denomination. They have no moral right to do so. What is more, they are no able to refuse such a reunion. Instead they are obligated to contact them and seek the realization of such a reunion.

Before we proceed with our exposition we must take a closer look at &me of the verses of the section last dealt with, Isaiah 40:21-41:7.  Isaiah 41:2a. The versions translate here: who raised up the righteous man (Cyrus) from the east, called him to his foot . . . ? 

Following is the “opinion” in the case of the property of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Mich., issued by Superior Court, the Hon. Judge Thaddeus B. Taylor presiding.  We give it without comment.  STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GRAND RAPIDS, IN CHANCERY.  THE FIRST PROTESTANT REFORMED CHURCH, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff., vs. HUBERT DE WOLF et al,  No. 13935  Defendants OPINION 

Independentism  It is rather striking that the attorney for the opposition in Superior Court attempted to show that the church government of the Protestant Reformed Churches, under the Church Order, was more or less congregational and independentistic (as the court records will, undoubtedly, show); in 1924 he knew very well that the Christian Reformed Church, under the same Church Order, adhered to the Presbyterian form of church government.  In proof of this, I quote from the court records of our case in 1925.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” II Cor. 5:17