As was stated, in the “Concordia” for October 12, Rev. Petter announced his intention to write a series of articles on “The Declaration of Principles of the Protestant Reformed Churches”. In this same issue appeared Rev. Petter’s first installment. It partook of the nature of an introduction and consisted exclusively of admonitions to brotherly conduct in controversy. In the “Concordia” for October 26 is printed Rev. Fetter’s second installment under his section-heading—“Among Our Treasures”. In this article Rev. Petter writes on the subject of right attitude in discussion. I don’t want to hide that I am disappointed. I had imagined that Rev. Petter had done with admonition, and accordingly I was looking forward with considerable eagerness to an article from Rev. Petter’s pen—the first of the series—dealing with the content of the “Declaration of Principles”. Nevertheless I have read this essay of Rev. Petter on “Right Attitude in Discussion”, or controversy (Rev. Petter uses these terms interchangeably). I have studied its paragraphs, sentences, and words. And the result is that I have need of making a few observations.

Rev. Petter writes: “Thus our attitude toward each other (in discussion or controversy,—O) must certainly be that true Christians in the measure that they are Christians must find each other”. Rev. Petter means this (he can’t very well mean anything else): If the two parties to a controversy are truly Christians, they must find each on the basis of the truth.

Let us bring this statement down to earth by applying it to our case. If we (Revs. H. Hoeksema, H. Veldman, and the undersigned) on the one hand, and Rev. Petter on the other hand are truly Christians, Rev. Petter and we must find each on the basis of the truth. This is Rev. Petter’s reasoning. But it raises this question: what is truth here? According to Rev. Petter’s conviction, faith is a condition. That for him is truth. We affirm with just as much emphasis that faith is not a condition but solely an instrument,—a doctrine that Rev. Petter has condemned. Hence, what Rev. Petter must mean is that he and we must or should find each other on the basis of his doctrine. But this is impossible for us. And as it is just as impossible for him to find us on the basis of our doctrine, each of us shall have to walk alone regarding the question whether faith is a condition. For neither parties to a dispute may trample their convictions, forsake what they believe to be the truth of God’s Word, for the sake of finding each other. Really to find each other consists in their being able to agree on what is truth. All other union is out of the flesh.

Next Rev. Petter asks: “Why is there such a great difference among Christians?” He means: why is there such a great difference as to doctrine among true Christians? Why, in other words, does Rev. Hoeksema and Rev. Veldman and the undersigned affirm that faith is not a condition but solely an instrument and in this conviction pronounce Rev. Petter’s teaching erroneous; and why do I, Rev. Petter, affirm that faith is a condition and in this conviction condemn the teaching of Rev. Hoeksema?

Let us attend to Rev. Petter’s answer. He writes: “Because of our sin, our different natures, our different characters, our different relationships of life pushed into different directions by the power of sin. For insofar as we are sinful we do not seek and find unity in God as He comes to us in the Word. We do not find that focal, rallying point for our thoughts there, but on the contrary we find that point of control in ourselves. We are lovers of self. We hate to be subject to God and to one another. And so instead of the one word of God to which we are all drawn in will and mind and understanding we all draw in our own direction even when finally as a group we rally around one subordinate focus. That is the power of sin with which we always have to reckon.” So far Rev. Petter.

Now what have we here? A truly amazing confession from Rev. Petter regarding his doing. If what Rev. Petter writes is true, and if he actually means what he says, he accuses himself of and confesses to the following, namely that the reason I, Rev. Petter, defend the doctrine that faith is a condition and condemn the teaching that faith is not a condition but solely an instrument is my, Rev. Petter’s, sin; the reason is my differing nature, character, and relationships of life; the reason is that by the power of sin in me I push my relationships of life into a direction opposite to that in which Revs. Hoeksema and H. Veldman push their relationships of life; the reason is that, being sinful, I do not seek and find that unity in God as He comes to us in His Word; the reason is that I, Rev. Petter, do not find that focal, rallying point for my thoughts in God’s Word, but on the contrary find that point of control in myself; the reason is that I am loving myself; the reason is, finally, that I hate to be subject to God and to the brethren (Revs. H. Hoeksema, H .Veldman, and the undersigned). Therefore I teach that faith is a condition and condemn the opposite doctrine.

This is indeed an amazing confession. It all comes down to this: My, Rev. Petter’s, openly defending the doctrine that faith is a condition and my condemning the teaching of the brethren, Revs. Hoeksema, Veldman and Ophoff, that faith is not a condition but solely an instrument, is a work of darkness in the working of which I am motivated solely by my sinful flesh.

Now this is what Rev. Petter really is telling us in his article. He does not, of course, focus his argument on his controversy with us. The reason I do so is to clarify the point that he argues.

Is Rev. Petter’s confession genuine? Is it actually the conviction of his heart that as a champion of conditional theology he wars a carnal warfare of unbelief as constrained by his carnal love of self? Such, of course, is not his stand at all. But this: that he defends the truth in opposition to what he believes to be our error, and that therefore he fights the good fight of faith. It is only a few weeks ago, isn’t it? that he was telling us in the “Concordia” that he would maintain everything that he had in essence written about conditions. And with what vehemence did he not condemn our position. Certainly, Rev. Petter’s stand is that he fights the good fight of faith.

Unless we are reprobated, we, too, firmly believe that we fight the good fight of faith. It is in that conviction that we champion our doctrine and oppose it to what we believe to be Rev. Petter’s error. Hence, Rev. Petter must not tell us that in order to take the right attitude in our dispute with him we must take the stand that we fight a carnal fight as motivated by love of self. We believe that we rise to the defense of the truth as laid down in the Scriptures and in our Confessions.

Certainly, the point that Rev. Petter is arguing is not that he and we are actually defending the truth, be it as Christian men, whose best works, including our good fight in this present controversy, are tainted with sin. How, seeing that Rev. Petter has condemned our position, could he seriously be taking the stand that he and we, and we as well as he defend the truth under the impulse of the love of Christ.

Nor must Rev. Petter say that if the expression “by nature” be inserted in his reasoning, it ceases to be offensive. That is not true. His reasoning is just as offensive with the expression “by nature” inserted in it. What difference is there between his telling us that as Christian men he and we defend what each of us believes to be truth because we are sinful men (this is the point to Rev. Petter’s article) and his saying that he and we defend what each believes to be the truth because by nature we are sinful men? No difference whatsoever.

It ought to be clear that what, according to Rev. Petter’s article, is the right attitude in controversy is not at all the right attitude but a strictly forbidden attitude, an attitude that Rev. Petter himself is not taking, at least in his dispute with us. The only position he condemns is our position, certainly not his own. The attitude that Rev. Petter insists on can be taken by the disputant only if he condemns in his heart what he defends with his mouth and agrees with his opponent.

Once more then, Rev. Petter’s conception of what constitutes the right attitude in controversy is wrong. The church of the elect in order to be taking the right attitude in her controversies with darkness must certainly not take the stand that in defending what she believes to be the truth of God’s Word, she fights the carnal fight of unbelief under the constraint of her sinful flesh.

True it is, that, as Rev. Petter says, there is a great difference among Christians. But the reason is not that, as Rev. Petter maintains, all Christians are carnal and that no Christian loves God and the Scriptures. Were that true, where would be the true church? Some Christians do love God and His Scriptures, and are united on the Scriptures. All are not reprobated. There is the true church. And the true church controverts in the conviction that she fights the good fight and thus not as passing sentence of condemnation on herself for fighting that fight.

Rev. Petter’s conception of, what constitutes right attitude in controversy, as applied to the Protestant Reformed in their dispute with the Liberated would verily be this: that the Protestant Reformed pronounce their defense of Protestant Reformed doctrine a work of the flesh; that they confess that the reason they defend this doctrine is their sin, their differing nature, character, relationships of life pushed into a different direction by the power of sin in them; their not seeking and finding that unity in God as it comes to them in His Word, their not finding the rallying point of their thoughts in God’s Word, but on the contrary their finding that point of control in themselves; and finally their hating to be subject to God. In a word, in order to be taking the right attitude in their dispute with the Liberated, the Protestant Reformed, according to Rev. Petter’s conception, must repudiate their whole theology. Is this what Rev. Petter wants them to do? If not, why does he present to our people such an impossible conception of what constitutes right attitude in controversy?

Rev. Petter’s article on the right conduct in controversy is misleading. Therefore I felt it my bounden duty to make an attempt to expose the fallacy of its argument.

A remark or two in conclusion.

The following sentences from Rev. Petter’s pen strike me as strange. He writes: “In parenthesis I want to remark that to characterize the Liberated as teaching common grace, without at least some designation of particular persons is very misleading. And the same is true of the term Heynsianism, which can cause all manner of confusion, both by the saying that we have condemned it and by saying that they have embraced it.”

Especially the clause in italics, which are mine, sets me to wondering particularly in the light of the fact that Rev. Petter with such vehemence and apparent conviction has condemned our position. Rev. Petter’s article contains more such dubious statements, such as the following: “We certainly shall have to be mindful of the fact that we have grown in America in close relation with the Christian Reformed Church. . . . At the same time the Liberated have had their own wholly different surrounding that influenced them.

“The relation is sometimes characterized this way: They are in danger of underemphasizing the divine determination and efficacy, and that we are in danger of slighting the tremendous fact of moral-ethical implication, reaction and responsibility of the creature.”

And then in the sequel Rev. Petter goes on to state as a fact: “From our side that very easily appears in an emphasis on the sovereignty of God that neglects the intricacy of man’s moral-ethical place in the sovereignty. Then we no longer have the real Biblical sovereignty. As an illustration I may say that I believe that the revelation of that sovereignty does not crush out the element of the conditional relation, for the abundant use of it in the Bible proves that it exactly brings out the riches of that sovereignty.”

If I understand English—and I do—then what Rev, Petter is here telling us is that the difference between the Liberated and us is one of emphasis.