Report of Classis East in session Oct. 5, 1960 at Hudsonville, Michigan Rev. G. Lanting, president of our July Classis, presided over the opening devotions, and after credentials of the delegates were accepted, declared the Classis properly constituted. Rev. A. Mulder, following the order of rotation, then took the chair and ably presided over this session, while Rev. Lanting recorded the minutes.
Rev. G. Vanden Berg of Oak Lawn, Illinois, has declined the call sent to him by our Creston church. Creston expects to choose another trio October 31, D.V. From Grand Haven’s bulletin we learn of our Missionary’s itinerary which includes three lectures in the West: “The Infallible Earmarks of the Last Hour” at Prairie City, Iowa, Oct. 11; “Calvin And The Reformed Faith,” at Pella, Oct. 18; “The Raging of Satan” at Killduff, Iowa, Nov. 3. Contribution from the Radio Committee.
Comment on James Arminius In the October 10 issue of Christianity Today, there appears an article entitled “Arminius: An Anniversary Report.” The author of this article is Carl Bangs, an associate professor of Religion and Philosophy at Olivet Nazarene College in Kankakee, Illinois. He tells his readers that the occasion for this article is the fact that October 10, 1960 marks the four hundredth anniversary of the birth of James Arminius (1560-1609).
“The ministers of the Word of God and likewise the professors of theology (which also behooves the other professors and school teachers) shall subscribe to the Three Formulas of Unity, namely, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordrecht, 1618-19, and the ministers of the Word who refuse to do so shall de facto be suspended from their office by the consistory or classis until they shall have given a full statement, and if they obstinately persist in refusing, they shall be deposed from their office.” —Article 53, D.K.O.
And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenuous declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting de five articles which have been controverted in de Belgic churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confessions of the Reformed churches. Whence it clearly appears, that some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public.
Scripture’s first view of this symbolic sanctuary fixture is from within the heart of God’s house outward. If God is to be known at all. He must of necessity reveal Himself, and doing so begin from Himself, moving outward to man. This is evident from God’s instructive commands to Moses to build the tabernacle and its furnishings as issued in Ex. 25:31-40. There we are brought immediately into the holy of holies where was the ark of the covenant.
The woman was the first to sin here upon this earth. Sin had its beginning in heaven among the angels. But the angels are neither male nor female. God created male and female among the world of mankind. And He made them male and female in a definite order and in a very unique way. Of this we will have more to say presently. Now we wish to follow that line of thought that it was indeed the woman who first practiced sin here upon this earth.
In this section of first John the writer touches upon a most basic danger to the church of Christ. He refers to the error and manifestation of those who are most rightly called “antichrists.” The danger for the readers is not really so much from without the church as from within the church, from those who were “out of us” in number but were not “of us” in the faith: No persecution from without threatens. Rather there is a lukewarm spirit of those who deny the essentials of the very Christian religion; and, if it were possible, they would deceive...
“And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.” Exodus 2:1-3
All these interpretations struggle evidently to harmonize the presentation of the woman-harlot with that of the prosperous city as indicated in the text. But it seems to me that none of these interpretations succeeds entirely. It certainly will not do simply to explain that Babylon is the city of Rome. For, in the first place, it is not true that the text in verse 9 warrants that conclusion. For, first of all, it may not escape our attention that the text further interprets these seven mountains as being seven kings.
