In one of the Reformaties of the present volume, pp. 341-342, there appeared a contribution by a certain J. J. Bade, to which Dr. Schilder added a post scriptum which to my mind is rather important from the viewpoint of the question whether in the Liberated Churches anything is binding with regard to the question of baptism.

I will first translate this post scriptum as literally as possible. The translation is as follows:

“1. Also we have always pointed out, that a ‘doctrine’ was never directly imposed, and was in first instance never brought into question by anybody. One can make of a ‘doctrine’ anything and everything; and no one has ever consistently taught a thoroughly considered ‘doctrine’ with all its consequences during his whole lifetime. Behind the formulas of 1944 may lie all kinds of ‘doctrines’: the regeneration doctrine, the church doctrine, the doctrine of the sacraments, the covenant doctrine. A thousand times we repeated: we are asked to report within two weeks, whether we promised to teach nothing that was not in perfect agreement with definite FORMULAS. Because of our no to THAT question we were suspended and deposed. Any talk about a ‘doctrine’ is misleading. And this makes the separation between the synodocracy and those that are not stupid, and who further consider that this demand is wrong, greater. The ‘binding’ concerned therefore among others that one FORMULA. Is it possible that we must also seek all possible kinds of ‘doctrine’ which lie behind the fifteen other formulas, and then assure that they are binding or not binding? Let us stay by the facts! When the contributor insists on this he is right.

“2. For the rest presumptive regeneration as ground for baptism does indeed receive significance in connection with the baptismal question. One that” understands the phrase ‘sanctified in Christ’ according to 1905-1942-1944, and hears in that first baptismal question the little word ‘therefore‘, comes to stand face to face with that ‘doctrine’. The binding of officebearers to present this ‘sanctified’ according to synodical opinions, as according to divine revelation, implied therefore at the same time a binding of the parents to accept this doctrine also as binding at the occasion of the baptism of their child. The result is that whoever could not agree with this, could neither present his child to baptism, nor be a silent onlooker at such baptism, nor openly join in the thanksgiving; everyone who sits in the pew knows that those words in the mouth of that minister on the pulpit mean exactly this and that; and that he himself who sits in the pew declares openly in the thanksgiving after baptism (‘We thank and praise Thee’, etc.) that he agrees with it, something that is also clearly expressed.

“3. For this reason the very first demand and the only way unto reunion is fellowship with all the officebearers that have been cast out, and with those parents that present their children to baptism who can answer ‘yes’ to a baptismal question that is not binding according to the interpretation of 1944. If all members who see that hierarchy may never be imposed upon the children of God, had maintained their simple rights the reunion which took place in 1944 and following years would have been much more extensive. It still stands open every day and is demanded every day. But this reunion they still call schism. We call schism the imposition and acceptance and agreeing with and co-impositon of norms not allowed by God with the immediate effect of not admitting those to office who watch over the rights of the flock over against those that are not shepherds, as a synod which is no super consistory.”

Thus far Dr. Schilder.

The main thrust of this post scriptum is, of course, that no synodical decisions, such as were declared in 1905-1942-1944, may be made binding upon the churches. In the abstract, at least, Dr. Schilder seems still to conceive of the possibility that all that call themselves Reformed, regardless of their view of the covenant, of the promise, and of baptism, can live peacefully in the same church fellowship. Now it seems to me that the history of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands ever since 1892-1905 and to the present day has revealed quite the contrary. In 1892 the present Christian Reformed Church (of the Netherlands) refused to go along with the union of the Doleerenden and the Afgescheidenen, mainly because of the question of the covenant, baptism, and presumptive regeneration. In former years Dr. Schilder always sharply rebuked these churches, because according to his conviction they walked in the way of disobedience. Now, however, ever since the meeting of the Vrijmaking in the Hague, 1944, he pleads for union with them. But why? Is there no binding in these churches? There certainly is. They insist on their own view of baptism and regeneration. But the simple fact is that since the days that he conceived of the Christian Reformed Churches as walking in the way of disobedience and demanded that they should return to the Gereformeerde Kerken he has changed his view of baptism and regeneration and the covenant. About this, and also about his acceptance of Heynsianism I wrote Dr. Schilder a long letter immediately after the war, to which he never replied, Be that as it may, the question of reunion is to my mind not so much a question of binding, but rather a principal question concerning the covenant and baptism. 1905 was a miserable compromise on the same question. And subsequent history shows very plainly that the compromise never worked. And so it is not surprising that the main issue at the synod of 1939 to ’44 after all was the question concerning the covenant.

Nevertheless, from the above paragraphs it is evident that in the abstract Dr. Schilder concedes the possibility of reunion with the Synodicals, if only the binding is removed, and if confession is made of the hierarchical action whereby the synod deposed officebearers. For he writes that the first and main demand unto reunion is fellowship with all the officebearers that were cast out and with those parents that cannot reply affirmatively to the baptismal question concerning the “sanctified in Christ” according to the interpretation of 1944.

Now since we in the States have the very same difficulty with the Liberated immigrants, I want to point out how impossible a real reunion is on the basis to which Dr. Schilder refers.

Notice that under “2” Dr. Schilder points out that according to the “binding” interpretation of the phrase “sanctified in Christ” in the first baptism question this question implies the theory of presupposed or presumptive regeneration. And therefore, when this question is asked according to this binding interpretation, the parents and the whole congregation are at the same time bound by this interpretation. Hence, Dr. Schilder concludes that under this binding no parents that cannot agree with this interpretation can present their children to baptism nor join in with the thanksgiving after baptism. Everyone knows, he says, that such a minister that is bound by the interpretation of 1944 definitely refers to presumptive regeneration when he asks the first question in baptism, and that the plural of the first person, “we”, in the thanksgiving after baptism includes the whole congregation and the parents that present their children for baptism. And by doing so they openly declare that they agree with this view of the minister.

But can this be avoided?

Suppose that a reunion took place on the basis that nothing was binding regarding this question.

And suppose that as a result of this reunion a certain congregation would be, say 50% agreed with the synodical view of baptism and 50% with the Liberated view. And suppose, further, that the minister in such a church agreed with the synodical view of the covenant and that he explained from the pulpit that the’ phrase in the first baptism question “sanctified in Christ” means real sanctification and therefore that we must presuppose in baptism that the children are regenerated and further that the words in the baptism thanksgiving, (“We thank and praise Thee, that Thou hast forgiven us, and our children, all our sins, through the blood of Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ and received us through Thy Holy Spirit as members of Thine only begotten Son, and adopted us to be Thy children, and sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism”)* mean just what they express and do not refer simply to the objective bequest or promise to all, but to the fact that the children that are baptized are real partakers of the forgiveness of sins and of the adoption unto children. And suppose, moreover, that the consistory of such a church agrees with that minister, and shakes hands with him at the end of such a sermon. Could in that ease the Liberated element of such a congregation present their children to baptism only because the doctrine proclaimed by the minister and confirmed by the consistory is not synodically binding?

I claim that this is nonsense and also impossible.

Do not forget that after the first question is asked of the parents and confirmed by the consistory and the whole congregation the second question still follows. And that second question reads as follows: “Whether you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian Faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and perfect doctrine of salvation?”

Now Dr. Schilder knows as well as I do that in the course of history there has been much ado about the phrase in this question “taught here in this Christian church”, and that various attempts have been made to have this phrase eliminated from that question. But our Reformed fathers insisted that it should remain. It is also clear that that phrase certainly refers to the local congregation. And therefore it can mean only the doctrine that is taught by the local minister and confirmed by the local consistory. And therefore we still stand before the same difficulty. That question is certainly binding. And I claim that any parent who in such a case answers the first question in baptism and joins in with the well-known words of thanksgiving after baptism certainly expresses agreement with the doctrine that is taught here in this Christian church, which in this case is the doctrine of presumptive regeneration.

And therefore I claim that the Liberated bind themselves, regardless of any synodical decision.

The same thing is true regarding the occasion of confession of faith. The first question that is asked at the occasion of public confession of faith in the Reformed churches is literally the same as the second question in baptism. Is it not plain, then, that those that make confession of faith in any church that upholds the doctrine of presumptive regeneration and the synodical view of the covenant, regardless of any synodical binding, bind themselves to express agreement with that doctrine?

I insist that they do. And therefore I claim that you can never avoid binding. Synodical formulas are not necessary.

And therefore, when we in Canada work among the Liberated immigrants, we first of all make very plain to them, so that there could be no misunderstanding, that although we did not fully agree with the synodical view of baptism and presupposed regeneration, we certainly condemn the Heynsian view, and that our conception of baptism and the covenant and the promise differs radically from that of the Liberated. And only after they had been instructed in that difference and agreed to be further instructed in our doctrine and promised not to make propaganda and to agitate against the doctrine of the Protestant Reformed Churches, did we organize them into a church in our fellowship.

Some of them, I understand, now claim that at the time of organization they never promised anything at all.

But this is manifestly dishonest. They certainly knew the difference between their view and ours. And they certainly understood very well that we would never organize them into a ’Protestant Reformed Church unless they agreed with our doctrine. When Chatham sent a request to our Mission Committee to be organized on the basis of their own view of baptism and the covenant, that request was refused.

I was personally present at the organization of the congregation in Chatham. On that occasion I preached the sermon. And in that sermon I emphasized our conception of the promise and of the covenant unambiguously, so that there could be no misunderstanding. And I emphasized at least three times in my sermon that if they organized as a Prot. Ref. Church, they must be able to reply affirmatively to the second question in baptism, “Whether you acknowledge the doctrine . . . which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and perfect doctrine of salvation?” And I told them very plainly that that means nothing else than the doctrine that is taught in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I emphasized that unless they could agree with this, they must never organize as a congregation. How anyone in that congregation can claim that they agreed to nothing, that nothing was binding in our churches, and that they could maintain their own Liberated view of baptism and the covenant is beyond my comprehension. It is plainly dishonest.

But I claim that the reasoning in the above paragraphs that reunion with the Synodicals is possible if only the deposed officebearers are received and reinstated in their office and the binding decisions of 1942-’44 are removed and no longer considered binding, is thoroughly mistaken.

If Dr. Schilder tells his readers that in the conferences that were held in Grand Rapids he clearly explained his view of the promise and of the covenant, I want to remind him that this is more emphatically true concerning our explanation to him of the Protestant Reformed view. In no less than 13 propositions, which can still be read in the Standard Bearer, I proposed and defended and maintained our conception. Dr. Schilder knows that. And he also knew this when in the Netherlands he advised the Liberated people to join the Protestant Reformed Churches. And if he meant by that that the Liberated immigrants would have the liberty in our churches to make propaganda for the Heynsian view of the covenant, which we hate, the error is his, not ours. Let me emphasize once more that in our churches there is nothing binding but the Three Forms of Unity and, of course, in the second place, the liturgical forms that must be read in our churches. But it is our conviction that the Heynsian view of the covenant and of baptism is not according to those Three Forms of Unity, but is essentially Arminiam

And therefore, if ever correspondence is established between the Reformed Churches (maintaining Art. 31) and our churches (which to my mind is still not at all inconceivable), this question must be thoroughly discussed. It is above all necessary for any proper and brotherly correspondence that we are honest with one another.

Epi paasin aleetheia, “the truth above all.”