Rome, die Teks en NGB art.36

1. Rome

“Richard Bennett of Berean Beacon Ministries has an update on the Evangelical Response and Protest to Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United Kingdom starting tomorrow, September 16, 2010. The update is here:

Please pray for the evangelizing being done, that many would be called out from among Mystery Babylon.”

2. Die Teks

“The Preservation of the Text of Scripture”, by dr. David Allen

“… a special lecture from the Trinitarian Bible Society on God’s preservation of the text of Scripture. Many had not heard this significant material previously, which explained the difference between the biblical and Reformed doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, and the false doctrine that was formulated by the likes of B.B. Warfield. These men began to teach that only the first manuscripts actually penned by the very writers of Scripture were infallible, and denied the authority of the copies – instead claiming that some hypothetical end result of new methods of textual criticism would reproduce the infallible text. This was in response to certain professing textual critics who denounced the received text, in favour of incorporating the vastly different Alexandrian manuscripts into the text of Scripture which had been in use for hundreds of years. John Owen was quoted mightily condemning these anomalous texts against those who had desired to corrupt Scripture in his time too.”

Hier verkrygbaar:

of hier:

Sien die hele 2010 konferensie se lesings (The Word for our Generation) van die BRF hier:

3. NGB artikel 36

In gereformeerd-presbiteriaanse kringe in die VSA is ‘n groot debat aangaande hoe gelowiges die verhouding tussen ‘kerk en staat’ moet raaksien.

Hier is Kuyper se besware teen NGB art.36:

Ek het daarop gereageer op ‘n oorsese blog, in Engels, wat na die saak verwys het, en waar ‘n debat aan die gang is oor bogenoemde saak. Hier is my skrywe:

In reply to #232, the reference to Kuyper’s view on BC art.36:

1. Kuyper writes: “That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice.”

In the article itself I do not find any ‘principal’ arguments from Scripture and the Confessions on why the original BC art.36 is ‘monstrous’. What I do find is a lot of emotionalism against the ‘scaffold for the heretic’, as Kuyper calls it.

2. Kuyper were at his best preaching and teaching ‘particular grace’, but at his worst with his development of the ‘common grace’ theory. Therefore his emotional reaction is a result of his times (end of 19th, beginning of 20th century), wherein the Enlightenment ideas fleshed out in the French revolution’s ‘Freedom, equality and brothership’ for all, has conquered or dilluted in some sense many good reformed folks view of ‘church and state’.

3. Kuyper’s ‘common grace’ theory resulted in his dualism: the church is in service of special grace, the state should be in service of common grace, contra Ps.2. Ironically, this view developed together with Kuyper’s aspirations to become prime minister of the Netherlands, and in seeking ‘common ground’ with Rome, article 36 had to be changed to accomodate the votes of Rome and other sectarians.

4. Therefore, I think Kuyper and his views were the results of his socio-political times, and not biblical, confessional principles.

5. But, in saying this, it seems that Kuyper’s modern day followers has taken his views a step further, even too far: the radical 2k’s. Please correct me, but even Kuyper’s still believed in 2K, without the ‘radical’. He believed civil magistrate must apply the second table (5-9), and ‘some’ aspects of the first table (3,4), but not 1 and 2. But he did believe in a ‘christian magistrate’, even according to the revised art.36 BC. R2K are pleading for a ‘neutral state’ based on natural law, and is therefore a new movement which does not have any historical foundation in the mainline historic reformed faith, confessions and worldview.

6. A question to R2K’s: please show me from Scripture and the Confessions why it is morally acceptable to have ‘in the name of the Lord a scaffold for murderers’, and have ‘the blood of murderers’ on our hands (to use Kuyper’s rhetoric), but it is morally objectionable to have death penalty for hardened revolutionary blasphemers ? Maybe the answer is: man’s rights must be protected at all costs (our times demands it), but not God’s Name. We live in Prov.29:25 times.

7. About the original wording of BC art.36: I read in the original nothing about ‘death to all heretics’, i.e. against persons as such. It says “… with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist …” (French: pour oster et ruiner toute Idolatrie et faux service de l’antechrist; Latin: submoveant et evertant, regnum Antichristi diruant). I am not saying that the Reformers (Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Beza, etc.) did not believe in capital punishment for heretics in specific cases, but that the wording of the original must not be re-interpret according to the emotionalism of our times (as it seem Kuyper and his modern day followers do). There are therefore different ways to deal with this issue than only capital punishment to ‘remove idolatry and false religion’ from a Christian Reformed Republic (banishment, fines, etc.). The the best way of course to fight idolatry is the proclamation of the true Gospel by the Church under the protecting of the civil magistrate , which art.36 also teach. But, where a heretic or blasphemer try to destroy the Christian order, purposefully trying to lead the nation away from the one true Lord and His good laws, then as a final restraint, capital punishment could be applied after a just trail: “So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you. .” (Deut.13:11)

8. BTW, if R2K’s worst nightmare comes true (no, not an Islamic or satanistic humanist civil magistrate), but a 2k christian civil magistrate applying both tables of the Law in righteousness and love for God and man, would they then teach openly against it and even be disobedient against such a legitimate christian state, because ‘freedom of idolatry expression’ is such an absolute natural law right for them for all people ?

Vir die konteks van die debat waarin my skrywe geplaas is, sien:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: