19 Sep GS 1980 art 143

Posted at 14:52h in CanRC, GS 1980 by

GS 1980 ARTICLE 143 – Appeal –  Church at Neerlandia

Committee Ill presents:

A. Material – 

VIII, I, 9 –  Letter of the Church at Neerlandia, Alberta, appealing a decision of the Regional Synod in Western Canada of October 30, 1979, with enclosures.

B. Observations

  • 1. The Church at Neerlandia in its letter of November 3, 1978 informed Classis Alberta-Manitoba, April 1979 that one of the reasons for its deci­sion re: Rev. DeJong’s Classis appointment for June 4, 1978 – ” … we consider it not wise that you will preach for us here in Neerlandia on Sun­ day, June 4 … ,” was “the persistent and increased doubts concerning Rev. DeJong’s views of Church and Communion of Saints …” (Acts, Article 13, sub 2, 4).
  • 2. Classis Alberta-Manitoba, April 1979 considered that “after thorough examination of the correspondence between Rev. DeJong and the Church at Neerlandia, it has found no deviation from the Three Forms of Unity in the teaching and preaching of Rev. DeJong.”
  • 3. Classis Alberta-Manitoba, April 1979 according to Articles 5, 9, 11 of the Acts read and discussed the report of the Committee appointed by Classis January 9/10, 1979 (Acts, Article 52, 57), in which also the letter of the Church at Neerlandia of November 3, 1978 was dealt with, and the Counter-report of the Church at Neerlandia; Classis decided: “that the preaching of Rev. D. DeJong concerning Church and Communion of Saints is in accordance with the Three Forms of Unity and as such the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia were unfounded” (Acts, Article 13).
  • 4. Classis Alberta-Manitoba, April 1979 does not adduce grounds for this decision.
  • 5. The Church at Neerlandia in its letter of September 20, 1979 to Regional Synod (West) of October 30, 1979 appeals the decision of Class is Alberta­ Manitoba, April 1979 mentioned above under 3.
  • Neerlandia writes “We particularly appeal that part of this decision where Classis judges that ‘the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia were unfounded.'”
  • The Church at Neerlandia requests Regional Synod to decide “that Classis Alberta-Manitoba of April 17/18, 1979 erred” in making this decision.
  • 6. The Church at Neerlandia adduces the following grounds for this request:
    • a. “The teaching of Rev. D. DeJong, that the Communion of Saints is wider than the Church, posits an invisible Church beside the True Church as confessed in Articles 27-29 of the Belgic Confession, and in Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 21, Question and Answer 54 and 55. Since neither Scripture nor Confessions know of an invisible Church besides the Church, Rev. D. DeJong’s teaching is on this point contrary to Scripture and Confession.
    • b. Rev. D. DeJong’s using his view on the Communion of Saints as wider than the Church to admonish the Congregation to a cooperation with believers outside the Church on the basis that these believers are nevertheless within the Communion of Saints, is an overstepping of the boundaries of Scripture and Confession and a laying upon the Congregation an opinion rather than the Word of God, yet with the force of the Word of God.”
  • 7. Regional Synod (West) of October 30, 1979 having read and discussed this appeal of the Church at Neerlandia judged that (Acts, Article 5, G):
    • “Classis Alberta-Manitoba of April 17, 18, 1979 did not err in deciding ‘that the preaching of Rev. D. DeJong concerning the Church and the Communion of Saints is in accordance with the Three Forms of Unity and as such the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia were unfounded.'”
  • 8. This judgment of Regional Synod was based on the following considera­tions:
    • a. The Rev. D. DeJong teaches that the Communion of Saints is as broad as the Holy Catholic Church.
    • See his sermon on Lord’s Day 21, Question and Answer 55, p. 25.
    • b. The Rev. D. DeJong is opposed to the teaching of an invisible church (sermon on Lord’s Day 21, Question and Answer 54, p. 9).
    • c. The Rev. D. DeJong does stress the necessity of a visible unity of all believers in the local Church (“at the Lord’s own table”).
    • d. The Church at Neerlandia fails to supply any proof that the Rev. D. DeJong’s preaching is not according to the Catechism or that the meaning he puts into the Catechism is foreign to the Scriptures, since Neerlandia’s claim that Rev. DeJong teaches that the Communion of Saints is wider than the Church appears to rest on the misunderstanding on the part of Neerlandia of what Rev. DeJong really preaches namely that the Communion of Saints is as wide as the Holy Catholic Church.
    • e. The Church at Neerlandia does not substantiate the charge that the Rev. D. DeJong admonishes the congregation to cooperation with believers outside the church and the admonition to acknowledge the Communion of Saints with “outsiders” and to practice this commu­nion, may not be construed as an admonition to cooperate with said believers.
  • 9. The Church at Neerlandia in its letter of November 4, 1980 to General Synod 1980 appeals this decision of Regional Synod (West) mentioned above under 7 and requests General Synod to declare:
    • a. “Regional Synod was wrong in judging “that Classis Alberta-Manitoba of April 17, 18, 1979 did not err in deciding ‘that the preaching of Rev. D. DeJong concerning the Church and the Communion of Saints is in accordance with the Three Forms of Unity and as such the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia were unfounded’;
    • b. The views in the preaching of the Rev. D. DeJong concerning the Church and the Communion of Saints, and which concern the confes­sions directly, are contradictive and confusing and in conflict with Scripture and Confession, and that, therefore, the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia were warranted.”
  • 10. The grounds which the Church at Neerlandia adduces for this request are:
    • a. In his sermon on Lord’s Day 21, Question and Answer 55 of the Heidel­berg Catechism, Rev. DeJong teaches that “all the believers, all and everyone, have been made by the Spirit of Christ as constructive and cooperative members of the Body of Christ” (p. 25 Sermon).
    • b. From this teaching it may be derived that “Rev. DeJong identifies the Communion of Saints with the Holy Catholic Church” (p. 2 Appeal) and thus undermines the duty of all believers to join themselves to this congregation wheresoever God has established it, as confessed in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession.
    • c. Rev. DeJong’s teaching that “all believers already belong to the Church, posits the idea of an invisible Church” and “breaks down all Church consciousness (kerkbesef)” (p. 5 Appeal).
    • d. Rev. DeJong, identifying the Communion of the Saints with the Holy Catholic Church, teaches that on this basis we must practice the Com­munion of Saints “with other believers who do not go with us” (p. 30 Sermon).
  • 11. From the enclosures added to Neerlandia’s appeal it appears that accord­ing to the Church at Neerlandia their doubts whether Rev. D. DeJong’s teaching is in accordance with the Three Forms of Unity originated when Rev. DeJong preached in the Church at Neerlandia while the congrega­tion was involved in discussions about the necessity of a Canadian Reformed school in Neerlandia. Sermons of Rev. DeJong are alleged to have been confusing with regard to the validity of the efforts of parents who would have their children instructed at their Canadian Reformed school.
  • 12. Although it does not appear from the Acts that Classis Alberta-Manitoba of April 17, 18, 1979, while judging the Rev. DeJong’s preaching concerning church and Communion of Saints, took note of Rev. DeJong’s teaching as published in his sermons on Lord’s Day 21, the report of the committee that served Classis with advice shows that Classis took those sermons into consideration in order to reach a decision.
  • Regional Synod states that Rev. DeJong’s sermons on Lord’s Day 21 were allowed into the discussion by Rev. DeJong and Classis.
  • 13. From Neerlandia’s appeal to General Synod it is clear that
    • a. the objections of the Church at Neerlandia concentrate on Rev. DeJong’s teachings in the published sermons on Lord’s Day 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
    • b. they are in essence the same as the complaint worded in their appeal to Regional Synod, namely that Rev. DeJong “uses his view to admonish the congregation to a cooperation with believers outside the church on the basis of the confession of the Communion of Saints” (p. 11 Appeal to Regional Synod).

C. Considerations

  • a. It is clear from the acts of Regional Synod and of Classis Alberta­ Manitoba of April 17, 18, 1979, and from the enclosed documents that Rev. DeJong’s teaching in the published sermons on Lord’s Day 21, notably in Question and Answer 55, represents his views of the Church and the Communion of Saints.
  • b. The Church at Neerlandia does not object to the statement of Regional Synod “that Rev. DeJong does stress the necessity of a visible unity of all believers.”
  • c. There is no proof that Rev. DeJong’s teaching that the Holy Catholic Church is identical to the Communion of Saints (Apostles’ Creed), is against the Scriptures.
  • d. The statement of the Church at Neerlandia that the teaching of Rev. DeJong that “all believers already belong to the Church,” posits the idea of an invisible church and is against Scripture and Confession, is not proven. (p. 12 Appeal Regional Synod; p. 5 Appeal General Synod.)
  • It is the misapplication of this view that may “break down all church consciousness (Kerkbesef).”
  • e. The Church at Neerlandia in its letter of introduction (p. 3) asked Regional
  • Synod that the teaching of Rev. DeJong in his sermons on Lord’s Day 21 be compared with the teachings of I Corinthians.
  • f. It appears that Regional Synod and Classis Alberta-Manitoba, while deal­ ing with the appeals of the Church at Neerlandia, did not compare Rev. DeJong’s explanation of Question and Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Cate­chism with the teaching of I Corinthians concerning the Communion of Saints.
  • g. The Scripture passages referred to under Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Catechism show that the confession of the Communion of Saints as formulated in Answer 55 is mainly founded on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
  • In this letter the apostle addresses himself to the church at Corinth with its official congregational meetings (“when you are assembled,” I Corinthians 5:4; 14:26; “when you assemble as a church,” I Corinthians 11:18; 14:23), in which discipline is exercised (I Corinthians 5:4, 5) and the Lord’s Supper is celebrated (I Corinthians 11:20), where the Word is preached (I Corinthians 14:19) and where “outsiders” and even “unbeliev­ers” may come in and_ be convinced by the preaching (I Corinthians 14:22-24) and where the believers receive their appointments, gifts and assignments in their special office and in the office of all believers (I Corinthians 12:27).
  • The church (ekklesia) in Paul’s letter is the assembly of the saints which is officially called together.
  • That congregation is called the body of Christ (“You are the body of Christ and individually members of it,” I Corinthians 12:27).
  • On the basis of this fellowship with Christ, the members of the con­gregation as members of the body of Christ are called to pursue unity and brotherly love and to avoid divisions, to edify each other and be edified. The conclusion is warranted that the Heidelberg Catechism in Answer 55 explaining the Communion of Saints as confessed in the Apostles’ Creed gives a summary of the teaching of Paul in I Corinthians
  • regarding the unity and brotherly love in the local congregation.
  • h. When Rev. DeJong in his explanation of Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Catechism extends the Communion of Saints to communion with “other believers who do not go with us” and do not sit “with us at one Lord’s Supper table,” he overlooks that
    • 1. the Heidelberg Catechism, on the basis of I Corinthians, speaks about the saints as believers who have joined themselves to the congrega­tion (ekklesia) and who as members of the church (ekklesia) have their duties towards their fellow members.
    • 2. according to I Corinthians, the fellowship with Christ and His believers (Communion of Saints), being proclaimed to the church and visibly sig­nified in the Holy Supper (“you are the body of Christ”), is practiced and is to be practiced in the circle of those who belong to the church (ekklesia) (“you are … individually members of it”).
    • 3. Paul’s admonitions that the members of the body of Christ “may (shouId) have the same care for one another” just like all members of a physical body work together (I Corinthians 12:25), are directed to the church as an assembly, officially and locally, called together; Paul’s admonitions to practice the Communion of Saints are aimed at the proper functioning, growth and upbuilding of the local church as the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:25).
  • i. Rev. DeJong, in his sermon on Question and Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Catechism, did not properly base his explanation of Answer 55 on the Scriptures in I Corinthians.
  • j. Rev. DeJong’s exhortation in the last part of his sermon (p. 30) to “prac­tice the Communion of Saints” “with the other believers, who do not go with us” contradicts the first part of the sermon (p. 19), “‘The Com­munion of Saints is a property of the Church, is characteristic for the Church.
  • When you join the true Church. it can rightly be said that in doing so, you exercise the Communion of Saints.
  • To practice the communion of the Church is in itself to practice the Communion of Saints.’ “

D. Recommendations

General Synod declare that

  • 1. there was reason for the Church at Neerlandia to be confused by and to consider the views of Rev. D. DeJong concerning Church and Communion of Saints as expressed in the sermon on Lord’s Day 21 Question and Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Catechism, contradictive.
  • 2. the Regional Synod (West) of October 30, 1979 failed to compare Rev. DeJong’s explanation of Question and Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Cate­chism with the teaching of I Corinthians concerning the Communion of Saints and thus Synod’s judgment that “the doubts of Neerlandia were unfounded” is based on insufficient grounds and not doing justice to the complaints of the Church at Neerlandia.

After an extensive discussion of the presentation of Committee Ill the fol­lowing amendment, duly seconded, is moved:

  • Synod decide,
  • I. to adopt of the Report of Committee Ill re: Appeal of the Church at Neerlandia,
    • a. the Observations 1-10, 12, 13;
    • b. the Considerations a, b, c, d.
  • II. to add as Consideration e:
    • there is no evidence in the sermons on Lord’s Day 21, that Rev. D. DeJong admonishes the congregation to cooperate with true believers outside the Canadian Reformed Churches in interdenominational activities on the ground of the Communion of Saints, even less evidence that he admonishes to do this with neglect of the calling to admonish to unity in the Church at the address pointed out by the marks of the Church (Article 29, B.C.).
  • III. to add as Consideration f:
    • there is no ground to judge the preaching of Rev. D. DeJong to be confusing and contradictive; it only appears to be so to those who do not take into con­sideration the distinction Rev. DeJong teaches between the Church as gathered by God as his exclusive work and the same Church as work of the believers in obedience to the revealed will of God.
  • IV. Not to accede to the request of the Church at Neerlandia.

DEFEATED

The following motion, duly seconded, is moved:

  • “Synod decide,
    • I. To delete Consideration h.
    • II. To add a new Consideration i:
      • Rev. DeJong in his sermon on Question and Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Catechism did not properly base his explanation of Answer 55 on the Scrip­tures of I Corinthians.
    • III.To change the Recommendations to read:
      • 1. a. In the light of Considerations a, b, c, and d. the Church at Neerlandia has not submitted proof that the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia regarding Rev. DeJong’s doctrinal purity are warranted;
        • b. Regional Synod West 1979 was not wrong in its decision.
      • 2. In the light of Considerations f, g, h, and i, Rev. DeJong’s teaching in his sermon on Lord’s Day 21, Question and Answer 55, of the Heidelberg Catechism compared with the explanation of the Catechism and the teaching of I Corinthians can be called confusing.
    • 3. Not to accede to the requests of the Church at Neerlandia.”

DEFEATED

The following motion, duly seconded, is moved:

“Synod decide,

To change the recommendations of the Committee III report by adding,

  • 1. In the light of Considerations a, b, c, and d, the Church at Neerlandia has not submitted proof that the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia regard­ing Rev. D. DeJong’s doctrinal purity are warranted.
  • 2. In the light of Considerations e, f, g, h, i, j, there was reason for the Church at Neerlandia to be confused by …”

ADOPTED

The following motion, duly seconded, is moved:

  • “To add under Recommendation 1, ‘Regional Synod West 1979 was not wrong in its decision as recorded in its Acts, Article 5, G.'”

DEFEATED

Next, the report of Committee III, along with the amended recommenda­tions, which read as follows, is voted upon:

Recommendations

General Synod declare that

  • 1. In the light of Considerations a, b, c. and d, the Church at Neerlandia has not submitted proof that the doubts of the Church at Neerlandia regard­ing Rev. D. DeJong’s doctrinal purity are warranted.
  • 2. In the light of Considerations e, f, g, h, i, j, there was reason for the Church at Neerlandia to be confused by and to consider the views of Rev. D. DeJong concerning Church and Communion of Saints as expressed in the sermon on Lord’s Day 21, Question and Answer 55, of the Heidelberg Catechism, contradictive.
  • 3. The Regional Synod (West) of October 30, 1979. failed to compare Rev. DeJong’s explanation of Question and Answer 55 of the Heidelberg Cate­chism with the teaching of I Corinthians concerning the Communion of Saints and thus Synod’s judgment that ‘the doubts of Neerlandia were unfounded’ is based on insufficient grounds and did not do justice to the complaints of the Church at Neerlandia.”

DEFEATED

The following motion, duly seconded. is moved:

  • “To overrule the chair which ruled that the original proposal of Committee Ill could not be re-introduced.”

DEFEATED

The following motion, duly seconded, is moved:

  • “To appoint a new Committee of Synod to study the appeal of the Church at Neerlandia.”

DEFEATED

The following motion, duly seconded, is moved:

  • 1. “The Church at Neerlandia has not submitted proof that the views of Rev. D. DeJong regarding the Church and the Communion of Saints are against Scripture and Confession;
  • 2. There is reason for the Church at Neerlandia to consider these views, as expressed in the sermon published on Lord’s Day 21, confusing and contradictive.”

ADOPTED

Print page