For the present I have no time to reply to your articles in the Reformed Journal.
But I ask of you, in all fairness, to do either of two things:
1. Insert in all your articles N.N. instead of using my name. I cannot recognize my theology in your presentation of it. You are literally fighting against windmills.
2. Or prove, with actual quotations from my writings, not by mere philosophical argument aid deduction (for you have a very fluent pen, but your argumentation, thus far, is weak) that I actually teach what you present to your readers as my doctrine.
What you must prove is:
1. That I actually ever taught the equivalence of election and reprobation in the counsel of God. I always taught the very contrary.
2. That I must first identify the elect (and actually do) before I can preach the gospel. This is nonsense.
3. That a gospel which is particular in content cannot, be addressed to all the hearers. This also I deny.
4. That there is grace for the reprobate in the preaching of the gospel (the “First Point” of 1924).
I would also like to have you explain your conception of the “absolute antithesis.” I am afraid that you confuse antithesis and dualism.
Please, answer in the Reformed Journal. Once you started a discussion in your, paper, and when I replied in The Standard Bearer, you asked to continue your discussion in our organ on the pretext that there was no room in the Reformed Journal. Because I did not consider your proposition fair at all I did not go into it. Later you complained that you offered me a discussion but that I did not want it. That is not true. I think that a discussion you start in the Reformed Journal cannot be finished in theStandard Bearer before a different class of readers. Hence the above request.