So is it Arminian to insist on human responsibility?  If it is, then not only am I guilty, but so is Klaas Schilder.  Of course, the Protestant Reformed allege exactly that.  Followers of Herman Hoeksema, most notably David Engelsma, have insisted that we are essentially Arminians because we hold to the view that there are conditions in the covenant of grace.” – rev. Wes Bredenhof

The issue in the controversy of the PRC with the Canadian Reformed over the covenant is not responsibility.  Not whatever! The issue is conditionality.  Klaas Schilder taught, and the Canadian Reformed, including Wes Bredenhof, teach, a conditional covenant promise, a conditional covenantal salvation, and a conditional covenant. … The Canadian Reformed Churches and theologians not only are unable to condemn the federal vision but also defend the heresy, exactly because they recognize the federal vision as the legitimate development of their own covenant doctrine—the doctrine of a conditional covenant.  What the Canadian Reformed Churches will not admit, the federal vision has proved conclusively. The issue is conditionality.” – prof. David Engelsma

Ek plaas hier onder ‘n artikel (met die nodige toestemming, Standard Bearer, Sept. 2016) van prof. Engelsma, wat ‘n antwoord is op ds. Bredenhof se skrywe wat aanlyn hier beskikbaar is (lees eers hierdie artikel, en dan die een wat hier onder geplaas is): Personal responsibility

Conditionality, Not Responsibility

by David J. Engelsma

In a recent blog post, the Rev. Wes Bredenhof, a Canadian Reformed minister, contends that the Protestant Reformed objection to the covenant doctrine of the Canadian Reformed Churches is, in fact, a denial of personal responsibility.  By their criticism of the Canadian Reformed—and “liberated”—doctrine of the covenant, the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are guilty of denying human responsibility, particularly with regard to salvation in the covenant of grace.  The PRC are strong on divine sovereignty, if not obsessed with it, but derelict on human responsibility.

The title of Bredenhof’s piece is “Personal Responsibility.”

His charge is that the PRC condemn as Arminianism a covenant doctrine that is, in fact, a doctrine that does justice to “human responsibility”:

So is it Arminian to insist on human responsibility?…Of course, the Protestant Reformed allege exactly that.  Followers of Herman Hoeksema, most notably David Engelsma, have insisted that we are essentially Arminian because we hold to the view that there are conditions in the covenant of grace.

It is nothing less than deplorable that at this late date in the history of the controversy of the PRC with the “liberated” Reformed doctrine of the covenant such a learned theologian as Wes Bredenhof still does not grasp the nature of the controversy.  Either the PRC, and I in particular, have failed clearly to explain the nature of the controversy over the covenant, or Rev. Bredenhof  misrepresents the controversy.  Neither of the alternatives is pleasant to contemplate.

I will exert myself to be blunt and simple.

Let Bredenhof apply himself to understand the fundamental issue.

The issue is not human responsibility.  Every baptized child of believing parents is called, seriously, by God to believe on the covenant Jesus Christ and in this way to know and enjoy covenant salvation in Jesus Christ and to live the life of the covenant in obedience to the God of the covenant.  This is the responsibility of reprobate, profane Esau, as well as of elect, regenerated, holy Jacob.

Wes Bredenhof, the Canadian Reformed, and Klaas Schilder may hammer on this responsibility as strongly and endlessly as they think necessary, without objection from the PRC.

The issue is not responsibility!

The issue is not the responsibility of elect, regenerated Jacob to live the thankful life of covenant obedience.

Neither is the issue the responsibility of reprobate, unregenerated, but circumcised Esau to repent and believe and, thus, to live a life of covenant obedience.

We do remind Bredenhof and the Canadian Reformed that occasionally in their covenant theology they ought to do more with divine sovereignty than pay brief lip service to it, in order to commend their Reformed credentials.  Bredenhof does this in his blog post.  Having devoted the entire post to an enthusiastic advocacy of human responsibility, at the very end, in one brief line, he assures his readers that “I acknowledge God’s full and complete sovereignty.”

Mere acknowledgment is all there is about sovereignty.  There is no advocacy of it.  Especially, there is lacking an explanation of the relation of responsibility to God’s sovereignty in the covenant.  In this piece on the covenant of God with the children of believers, there is not so much as a reference to Romans nine, certainly the locus classicus on the subject of Bredenhof’s article:  the covenant of God with the children of believers, particularly the salvation of some of them in distinction from others.

Not only the Protestant Reformed readers of the blog, but also all Reformed Christians expect from Bredenhof recognition of Romans nine’s teaching that there are two kinds of offspring of believing parents, elect and reprobate, Jacobs and Esaus, children of the flesh, which are not the children of God, and children of the promise, who are counted for the seed.  Some are Israel; others are merely “of Israel.”

This is not a Protestant Reformed obsession with divine sovereignty in the treatment of the covenant promise and covenant salvation.  This is the treatment of the subject of Bredenhof’s blog by the apostle Paul.

It is no denial, or even weakening, of responsibility to observe, at the very least, that the only possibility of a child’s fulfilling his responsibility of loving and serving God is God’s work of sovereign grace, uniting him to Jesus Christ, regenerating him by the Spirit of Christ, and causing him to believe.  And that God works His saving grace in those children whom He has elected in eternal love.  “Jacob have I loved.”  God Himself declares, concerning His saving work of the covenant regarding the children of believers, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.”

Treating of responsibility on the part of covenant children, of which responsibility faith and obedience are surely the outstanding response, Bredenhof has nothing whatever to say about sovereign, covenantal grace.  About this, Bredenhof is silent.  Except for the bare acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty, which, in view of his doctrine of the conditionality of covenant grace and salvation, rings hollow.

This clear teaching about, and emphasis on, divine sovereignty—concerning the children of believers, with regard to covenant salvation!—are not the special interests of the PRC and Herman Hoeksema, who suffer from a weakness concerning responsibility.  But they are the gospel of Holy Scripture, which is concerned above all else to give the glory of the salvation of the children of believers to God.

The issue in the controversy of the PRC with the Canadian Reformed over the covenant is not responsibility.  Not whatever!

The issue is conditionality.

Klaas Schilder taught, and the Canadian Reformed, including Wes Bredenhof, teach, a conditional covenant promise, a conditional covenantal salvation, and a conditional covenant.

Suspicious, dubious, and even reprehensible as the term itself is, the issue is not merely the use of the term itself.  If one meant by the term “condition”—truly meant by it—only that in His covenantal salvation of elect children God requires faith as the means of justification and  obedience as the way of gratitude to God for His gracious salvation, that is, the responsibility of the regenerated child of the covenant, we would urge better, less misleading, terminology, but we would not, on the ground of the careless term itself, charge heresy.  Orthodox theologians in the past used the term, occasionally, to express responsibility.

What the PRC object to in the covenant theology of Schilder and Bredenhof is the teaching that God makes His gracious covenant promise, “I will be your God,” to all the children of believers alike.  Whether this promise is realized in the salvation of some children depends upon, or is conditioned by, the children’ faith.  Faith is a condition upon which the general, gracious promise of the covenant depends for its realization.  All the baptized children are the object alike of the gracious covenant promise.  Only in some is the promise realized.  What accounts for the realization of the covenant promise in some only is their performance of the condition of faith.

Further, it is the covenant doctrine of Wes Bredenhof and the Canadian Reformed that God actually establishes His covenant in some, important sense, usually described as “legally,” with all the baptized children alike.  Whether, however, the covenant comes to fruition in the salvation of children depends upon their fulfilling the condition of faith.  Covenant salvation is conditional in that it depends upon the child’s faith.  With all the baptized children alike does God establish His gracious covenant in an important sense.  What accounts for the continuation and further development of the covenant in some only is their performance of the condition of faith.

Since the baptized must keep the condition of the covenant as long as they live, it is the covenant doctrine of the Canadian Reformed that final covenant salvation is conditioned by the faith of the children.  Whereas God on His part graciously desires the salvation of all the baptized children alike, what accounts for the final, eternal salvation of some only is that they performed the conditions of faith and obedience to the very end.

It is to this conditionality of the covenant in “liberated” theology that the PRC object.  It makes no difference that, when pressed to the wall (and they must be pressed to the wall before they make the confession), the “liberated” Reformed confess that some children fulfill the condition with the help of God’s grace.  In fact, this changes nothing:  It remains the performance of the condition by the children that is decisive.  In “liberated” theology, the covenant and its salvation still depend upon the children’s performance of conditions.

Conditionality, not responsibility!

Even if churches and theologians are wholeheartedly in agreement with the covenant theology of the Canadian Reformed and violently in disagreement with the covenant theology of the PRC, let them honestly represent the issue as conditionality, not responsibility.

I do not here prove my analysis of the covenant doctrine of Schilder, the Canadian Reformed, and the “liberated” Reformed.  For one thing, I am confident that no one can challenge the accuracy of my analysis.  For another thing, I have painstakingly demonstrated the “liberated” Reformed doctrine of the covenant, from their own writings, in several books, including The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers:  Sovereign Grace in the Covenant; Covenant and Election in the Reformed Tradition; and Battle for Sovereign Grace in the Covenant.

I permit myself to demonstrate the grievous error of Schilder and of the “liberated” Reformed with one statement by Schilder himself, which I quoted originally in my The Covenant of God.  “It belongs to the contents of the promise that has to be embraced in faith, that the Holy Spirit desires to sanctify us, (indeed) imparting to us that which we have in Christ (in the promise by rights).”  This is Schilder’s explanation of the line in the Baptism Form that the infant children of believers, prior to their baptism, are “sanctified in Christ.”  According to Schilder, the Holy Ghost has a gracious attitude toward all the physical children of believers.  In this grace, the Holy Ghost “desires” the salvation of all the baptized children.  Carrying out this gracious desire, God the Holy Ghost actually “imparts” to all baptized children that which they have in Christ, which can only be salvation in some form or other.  But all of this gracious desire and gracious imparting are conditional, that is, depend for their saving efficacy and fruition upon the children’s act of believing.

This has nothing to do with (Reformed) responsibility.  It is Arminian conditionality:  The saving grace of God, which is wider than election, depends for the fulfillment of its purpose and for its efficacy upon the faith of the sinner.

The doctrine of the covenant of the “liberated” Reformed, which Wes Bredenhof promotes, is the denial of particular, sovereign grace, with regard to salvation in the covenant.  The covenant doctrine of the “liberated” Reformed is exposed by Romans 9 and condemned by the Canons of Dordt.

The doctrine of the covenant of Wes Bredenhof and the Canadian Reformed is the conditional theology of Arminianism, with specific reference to the gracious promise to the children of believers and with specific reference to the saving of the children of believers.  The gracious promise of salvation, the gracious desire of salvation, and even the beginning of gracious salvation are unavailing unless the children perform the condition upon which all depends.  Grace—baptismal grace—is not sovereign.  The Canons of Dordt in its entirety condemns this doctrine.

For Bredenhof, faith is not a God-given and God-worked gift to the elect children, by which means God bestows the grace of salvation.  But faith is a condition by which the child himself effects the fulfillment in himself of God’s desire concerning all the baptized children that they be saved.  Ignore the notion of merit, about which the “liberated” Reformed are loud in their claim that they deny it.  A condition upon which the saving work of God depends is as much a heresy as Roman Catholic merit.  Indeed, condition and merit are alike the offspring of Pelagius and Arminius.  Condition as much as merit sins against the gospel of grace.  The Canons of Dordt expressly deny that “faith…is…a condition of salvation” (Canons 1, Rejection of Errors/3).

The issue of the PRC with “liberated” and Canadian Reformed covenant theology is not responsibility.

The issue is conditionality.

I frankly confess that I am doubtful that this, or any other critique, will convince Bredenhof and his Canadian Reformed colleagues of the error of their covenantal ways.  The reason for my doubt is the recent rise of the heresy of the federal vision, which by its own forthright and very public acknowledgment is simply the further development of the doctrine of the covenant of Schilder and the “liberated” Reformed.  All the theological world recognizes that the federal vision is the open, bold denial of the gospel of grace, in all the “five points of Calvinism,” as confessed by Dordt.  If Bredenhof and the Canadian Reformed Churches will not recognize the essential heresy of their conditional covenant theology from the development of it in the federal vision, they will not acknowledge the false doctrine in response to anything that I write.

The Canadian Reformed Churches and theologians not only are unable to condemn the federal vision but also defend the heresy, exactly because they recognize the federal vision as the legitimate development of their own covenant doctrine—the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

What the Canadian Reformed Churches will not admit, the federal vision has proved conclusively.

The issue is conditionality.


Vir meer oor die debat vanuit ‘n Vrygemaakte oogpunt, sien hier:  The Stocking Is Finished Dr. Klaas Schilder and Rev. Herman Hoeksema

Vanuit ‘n PRCA oogpunt: Schilder/Hoeksema debate

Vir meer artikels oor die verbond op my blog, sien hier (daar is ook artikels wat verwys na die Vrymaking van 1944 in Nederland, en die onderlinge debat oor die verbond):


‘n Vriend van God – Artikels oor die Genadeverbond

Die verbond is die wese van die ware godsdiens – Herman Bavinck 



(Gebore: 23 Februarie 1952 – Oorlede: 13 Oktober 2016)


deur Bouwe van der Eems 

(Trustee: Pestalozzi Trust: ‘n Regsfonds vir tuis- en burgerlike onderwys)

(Nota: gelewer tydens die begrafnisgeleentheid in Pretoria: 24 Oktober 2016)

Leendert was ‘n vryheidsvegter in die ware sin van die woord. Baie wat hulleself beskou as vryheidsvegters gebruik geweld om die vryheid vir hulself te verwerf om ander te onderdruk. ‘n Ware vryheidsvegter offer homself egter op om vir ander vryheid te verwerf.

Leendert het sy lewe toegewy aan die vryheid van ouers om tuisonderwys te kan gee. Sy nalatenskap is dat daar ‘n veilige ruimte is waarbinne tienduisende gesinne met gemoedsrus tuisonderwys kan gee. Dis my skatting dat hierdie veilige ruimte ‘n verskil in meer as ‘n 100 000 kinders se lewens gemaak het.

Hy het nie net vryheid verwerf nie, maar ook organisasies gestig wat kan voortgaan om hierdie vryheid verder uit te bou. Die Vereniging vir Tuisonderwys, die Pestalozzi Trust en die Gauteng Vereniging vir Tuisonderwys.

Die wapen wat Leendert in sy stryd gebruik het was die woord. Hy het sy insigte versprei deur te praat, te skryf en te adviseer. Hy was ‘n mentor, aktivis, regskundige en skakelpersoon.


Deur middel van die tuisonderwys poslys, wat in 2000 geskep is, het hy jaar in jaar uit ouers onderrig, ondersteun en bemoedig. By die kantoor het die telefoon nooit ophou lui nie, en moes navrae beantwoord word en paniekerige ouers hanteer word. In werkswinkels is intens met ouers gewerk en is daar groot kopskuiwe gemaak.

Politieke aktivis

Om ‘n politieke veldtog te loods verg enorme hoeveelhede energie, aangesien baie mense gemotiveer moet word om briewe te skryf, oproepe te maak of ‘n demonstrasie by te woon. Ongeag hoeveel energie jy insit, daar is nooit ‘n waarborg dat daar ‘n goeie reaksie gaan wees nie. Leendert het verskeie politieke veldtogte van stapel gestuur. Die veldtog teen die nasionale kurrikulum, die demonstrasie by die Duitse skool, die veldtog teen CAPS en veldtog teen die Weskaapse tuisonderwysbeleid. In die proses het hy verskeie kere aabiedings gedoen  aan parlementere portfeulje komitees. Toe die Dept. van Basiese onderwys belanghebbers uitgenooi het vir vergaderings oor ‘n nuwe beleid, het Leendert die alliansie vir tuisonderwys gestig wat daarvoor gesorg het dat tuisskolers uit een mond gepraat het tydens die vergaderings.


Alhoewel die strategie van die Trust is om hofsake te vermy, is dit onvermydelik dat daar by tye hofsake is. Die Trust was betrokke by 4 hofsake in Kaapstad, Pretoria, Botswana en Pietermaritsburg. Vir elke hofsaak moet bekwame regslui gevind word, die regslui moet voorgelig word oor die tersaaklik wetgewing en astronomiese rekeninge moet betaal word. Weens die getransformeerde aard van ons howe is die uitslag nie voorspelbaar nie. Wanneer dit egter nodig was om onreg te herstel deur die hof het Leendert egter nie gehuiwer nie.

Media persoonlikheid

Leendert het op ‘n gereelde basis op TV verskyn, op radio gepraat en onderhoude gevoer met joernaliste. Wanneer ‘n joernalis ‘n onderhoud wil voer met ‘n tuisskoolgesin het Leendert georganiseer dat ‘n geskikte lid van die Pestalozzi Trust met die media praat.

Internasionale persoonlikheid

Leendert was nie slegs gewaardeerd in Suid-Afrika nie, maar oor die hele wereld. Sy artikels is gepubliseer in internasionale akademiese tydskrifte. Hy was lid van die organseringkomitee van die Global Home Education Conference wat suksesvolle konferensies in 2012 in Berlyn en 2016 in Rio de Janeiro aangebied het. By die konferensie was hy een van die hoofsprekers en sy insigte is deur almal hoog aangeslaan.

Leendert was ‘n unieke persoon met ‘n diepgaande kennis van onderwys, die reg, politiek en kommunikasie, alles in een persoon. Wie van ons sien kans om so baie energie in te sit om ‘n politieke veldtog van stapel te stuur as die resultate onvoorspelbaar en onmeetbaar is? Wie van ons sien kans vir die verantwoordelikheid vir ‘n hofsaak as die resultaat nie gewaarborg is nie en honderde duisende rande in ‘n oogwink opgebruik word? Wie van ons kan senior advokate voorlig oor die argumente wat  in ‘n saak gebruik moet word? Wie van ons sien kans om gereeld en onvoorsiens bevooroordeelde joernaliste en radio en TV aanbieders te hanteer?

Leendert kon hierdie gawes in die korporatiewe wêreld aangewend het om baie meer geld te verdien. Hy het egter sy gawes aangewend om die vryheid vir tuisonderwys te verwesenlik. Hierdie vryheid het ouers bemagtig om hulle kinders te beskerm van fisiese, emosionele en geestelike bedreigings, en het daarom nie slegs waarde vir hierdie lewe nie, maar ook ewigheidswaarde.

Die pad vorentoe

Die Here het besluit om Leendert van ons weg te neem. Baie het van harte gehoop dat hy nog langer vir ons gespaar kon bly, maar die Here het anders besluit. Die van ons wat agterbly het die roeping om die nalatenskap te bewaar en verder uit te bou, en ek vertrou dat die Here op die regte tyd die regte persone sal gee om die groot leemte op te vul.


Diens by die graf, waargeneem deur dr. Attie Bogaards: Hand.7:59

Troosdiens by die GK Oos-Moot, waargeneem deur ds. Cobus Rossouw: Psalm 23


deur prof. WJ Snyman

(Sien die inleiding [nommer 1] en die res van die reeks hier.)

Die gebruik van die woord “Kerk” in die Nuwe Testament[1]

Die Griekse woord ekklêsia, wat ons vertaal met kerk of gemeente,[2] kom 112 keer[3] voor in die Nuwe Testament. Drie keer word dit gebruik vir ‘n gewone volksvergadering, nl. by die oproer in Efese, Hand. 19, waar ons lees van die “vergadering” wat in die war was (vs. 32) van die “wettige vergadering” wat die stadsklerk in vooruitsig stel (vs. 39) waarmee hy die “vergadering” ontbind (vs. 40). Hier staan telkens ekklêsia. Dit herinner aan die oorspronklike betekenis van die woord, nl. “volksvergadering”, en meer bepaald die “wettige volksvergadering” van die Griekse stadstaat.

In die woord sit die gedagte van ‘n offisiële oproeping.

Dit het geskied deur ‘n herout, wanneer so ‘n volksvergadering moet byeenkom om een of ander beslissing te neem. Hierdie afkoms van die woord bring reeds ‘n belangrike trek van die Kerk na vore, soos dit sig onderskei enersyds van die Joodse Sinagoge, waartoe ‘n mens behoort kragtens afstamming,[4] en andersyds van die heidense (godsdienstige) verenigings wat gegrond is op onderlinge afspraak.[5]

Die Kerk is dus andersoortig as ‘n volksverband, waarin ‘n mens gebore word. ‘n Volkskerk is ‘n contradictio in terminis. Dit is egter ook iets anders as ‘n vereniging, wat deur ons self gevorm word en berus op vrye keuse. Die eiesoortigheid van Kerk kom daarin uit dat ‘n mens alleen daartoe kan behoort kragtens roeping,[6] en wel van Godsweë. As Paulus die gemeentes toespreek as “geroepe heiliges”,[7] dan gebruik hy ‘n woord wat in ekklêsia opgeslote sit.8

Verder word die woord ekklêsia nog twee keer gebruik vir die Ou-Testamentiese volk van God, Israel, wat sig juis hierin onderskei van al die nasies van die wêreld, dat hulle deur God in aansyn geroep is.9 Hulle is eintlik ‘n kerkvolk. Die een keer word dit vertaal met vergadering: “die vergadering in die woestyn” (Hand. 7:38), en die ander keer met gemeente: “Ek sal u Naam aan die broeders verkondig, in die gemeente sal ek U prys (Hebr. 2:12).

Hierdie laaste is ‘n aanhaling uit Ps. 22:23: “Ek wil u Naam aan my broers vertel, in die vergadering u prys”. In albei gevalle staan één woord nl. ekklêsia. As ons dit in gedagte hou, dan is sonder meer duidelik vir die leser: Die Kerk van die Nuwe Testament is die voortsetting van die Ou-Testamentiese volk van God, ‘n historiese eenheid, so oud as die mensheid self.[8][9][10]0

Wat betref die orige 107 keer, waar die woord dan gebruik word bepaald vir die N.T. Kerk, vind ons hierdie eienaardigheid: 91 keer word dit gebruik vir die plaaslike gemeente en 16 keer vir die Kerk in sy groot geheel. Hierby moet ons al dadelik die opmerking maak: Nie só, dat dit gemeentes omvat nie. Die woord kerk word in die Nuwe Testament nooit gebruik in die sin dat dit gemeentes omvat nie.[11] Kerk is altyd gemeenskap van gelowiges, hetsy dan:

(1) soos hulle verenig is, en georganiseer is in ‘n plaaslike gemeente, of

(2) soos hulle verspreid is oor die ganse aarde.

Daar is egter één plek in die N.T. wat skynbaar ‘n uitsondering maak op hierdie reël, nl. Hand. 9:31. Daar staan: “En die ekklêsia[12] deur die hele Judéa en Galiléa en Samaria het vrede gehad”. Ons sou hier dan ‘n geval hê waarin die woord kerk gebruik word vir ‘n groep gemeentes van één land of provinsie.[13]

Dan sou die woord kerk in die N.T. voorkom in vierderlei sin:

(1) vir alle gelowiges (universele kerk);

(2) in één land (nasionale kerk);

(3) in een provinsie (provinsiale kerk).[14]

Let wel, die hele konstruksie sou dan berus op een enkele Skriftuurplek.

Dit sou inderdaad genoeg wees om die gebou te dra.

Maar wat is die geval?

Die “ekklêsia deur die hele Judéa en Galiléa en Samaria” was inderdaad die universele Kerk. In Hand 9 was die Kerk nog nie verder verbrei nie. Hand. 9:31 maak dus geen uitsondering nie. Ons stelling moet dus bly staan. Ons kan daar byvoeg:

Nêrens in die N.T. word die woord kerk selfs gebruik vir gelowiges in een land of deel van die wêreld nie.[15]

As Paulus spreek met die gelowiges van die provinsie Achaje, dan heet dit: “aan die gemeente van God wat in Korinthe is met al die heiliges wat in die hele Achaje is” (2 Kor. 1:1). In hierdie verband moet nog gewys word op Hebr. 12:23 [16] waar die woord ekklêsia gebruik word vir die gesaligdes, die triomferende Kerk.

Uit die gegewens in die N.T. blyk dan dat die woord kerk in die N.T. gebruik word in tweërlei sin:

(1) lokaal: die gelowiges van één plek, en

(2) universeel: die gelowiges oor die hele aarde, en ook die in die hemel omvattend.[17]


[1] Rede gehou by die oordrag van die rektoraat aan die Teoligiese Skool, 29 November 1948.

Koers, v. 16, no. 4, 1948/1949, pp. 111-125

[2] Die woord “kerk” kom in ons Afrikaanse Bybel nie voor nie, wel in die Belydenis en K.O. Wat die gebruik betref, is daar geen verskil nie, vgl. Art. 4 K.O., waar “kerk” en “gemeente” albei gebruik word vir die plaaslike gemeente. In Ef. 1:22 word gemeente gebruik vir die Kerk in sy geheel.

[3] Vgl. O. Schmoller: Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, Gütersloh 1913 (4) S.V. ekklêsia.

[4] Matt. 3:9.

[5] F. W. Grosheide: Gedachten over de Kerk in het Nieuwe Testament, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift. Nov. 1930, p. 263.

[6] F. W. Grosheide, t.p.


[8] Kor. 1:2.

[9] klêtos. 9

O.a. Jes. 43:1.

[10] “Van die begin van die wêreld af tot aan die einde toe”. Heid. Kateg. So. XXI.

[11] Bv. Geref. Kerk van S.A., Ned. Geref. Kerk ens. Hierdie gebruik van die woord kerk ken die N.T. nie.

[12] Ons vertaling het “gemeentes” (mv.) volgens die Textus Receptus. Dan het ons hier geen uitsondering nie. Bostaande lesing (ekv.) word egter gesteun deur die beste handskrifte.

[13] “Al de gemeenten van Judéa, Galilea, Samaria onder dien éénen naam van ekklêsia in singulari samengevat”. Dr. H. Bavinck, Dogmatiek IV, p. 301.

[14] Vgl. Bavinck, a.w., p. 326.

[15] Vgl. dr. A. Kuyper: Dictaten Dogmatiek IV, Loc de Eccl., p. 15: “nooit of nimmer komt ekklêsia voor in de betekenis van Landskerk … Daarom is het spreken van een Volkskerk door het Nieuwe Testament geoordeeld. Het nationale begrip op de kerk over te brengen, is het loochenen van haar Catholiciteit, het wegcijferen van haar oecumenisch karakter”.

[16] Miskien moet dit hier nie vertaal word met kerk nie maar met plegtige vergadering. Vgl. dr. F. W. Grosheide: De Brief aan de Hebreën, opnieuw uit den Grondtekst vertaald en verklaard, J. H.

Kok, Kampen 1922, p. 175 v. [Hierdie voetnoot se plek word nie in die gedrukte teks aangedui nie. Aangesien dit verwys na Hebreërs word dit hier geplaas – Willem Swanepoel]

[17] “Dikwijls ook bedoelt de Schrift door den naam Kerk de geheele menigte der menschen, over de aarde verspreid, die belijdt dat zij éénen God en Christus vereert; die door den doop in zijn verbond wordt ingelijfd, door de gemeenschap des Avondmaals hare eenheid in de ware leer en liefde betuigt, met het Woord des Heeren instemt…” Johannes Calvyn’s Institutie. G. Baum, E. Cunitz en E. Reuss, Kampen 1868, p. 15 vlg.


Bron: Nuwe en Ou Dinge, prof. WJ Snyman

Volgende keer: Kerk in die plaaslike sin

Die reeks is hier beskikbaar: Die Kerk – prof. WJ Snyman


Skriflesing: Deut.7:1,2; 20:10-18; Josua 9 en Lukas 15:18-24

Preekteks: Josua 9

Preekopname (GK Carletonville, 2016-10-09):

Aflaai: Josua 9 (regs kliek en dan ‘save link as’)

Preeknotas (let wel, dit is net notas, die volledige preek is die opname hierbo):

Geliefdes in ons Here Jesus Christus,

As mens Josua 9 die eerste keer lees,

dan kan mens dalk vinnig net na eenkant sê:

die arme volk wat so mislei is deur hierdie bose Gibeoniete,

hoe durf hulle, ja, laat hul vervloek wees.

Maar dan vergeet ons van die skuld wat die Here se volk

ook in hierdie saak het, en belangrik:

dat selfs in die veroordeling van die Gibeoniete se optrede hier,

daar, ook genade is wat die sonde oorwin !

Ons teks bring ons by moeilike etiese sake uit, vrae soos:

– was die Gibeoniete heeltemal verkeerd in hul optrede,

was dit blote listigheid en misleiding of was dit wyse optrede van

hul kant soos met Ragab in hoofstuk 2, in ‘n oorlogsituasie ?

– was Israel heeltemal onskuldig in die saak, en moes hul

by die eed en verbond gebly het na die misleiding na vore gekom het ?

– en dan, is daar enigsins enige genade van die Here in hierdie moeilike

gedeelte, waaroor verklaarders deur die eeue baie verskil het ?

Geliefdes, ons wil vanoggend deur hierdie gedeelte leer

van die werklikheid en gevolge van die sonde aan die een kant,

maar ook van die Here se reddende genade en geduld met ons.

Ons doen dit onder die tema, wat regdeur die Skrif loop, naamlik:

Die werklikheid van die sonde,

en die groter werklikheid van die genade

Ons let op 3 sake in ons teks:

  1. Die sondige optrede van die volke wes van die Jordaan
  2. Die sondige optrede van Israel
  3. Die genade redding van die Here, ongeag ons sonde

Read More…

Posted by: proregno | October 17, 2016

PRCA verslag: sprekerstoer in Namibië en Suid-Afrika



Einde Mei begin Junie 2016 het proffs. Barry Gritters en Ron Cammenga van die PRCA Namibië en Suid-Afrika besoek.

Meer inligting daaroor, asook die lesings is hier beskikbaar:


Hier is prof. Gritters se verslag oor die besoeke, soos dit verskyn het in hul tydskrif, The Standard Bearer (September 15, 2016), dit word met nodige toestemming hier geplaas:ProfBGritters


For the issue of:  September 15, 2016

Prof. B. Gritters

Into Africa…  Again

In 2010, the Committee for Contact with other Churches (CC) sent Professors Dykstra and Gritters to visit Reformed believers in Namibia who requested a visit from the PRCA. The believers there were very displeased with their denomination—the Reformed Churches of South Africa—and hoped the Protestant Reformed Churches were of like mind with them.  What they had read of our churches gave them such hope. These saints in Namibia had heard of the PRCAthrough literature recommended to them by a minister in South Africa, Rev. Slabbert LeCornu.  One couple, the Duvenhages, had asked his advice for a good Reformed book to give to their hunting clients.  The Reformed minister recommended Rev. Ronald Hanko’s Doctrine According to Godliness.  That book began contact that resulted in an official request by six Namibian churches to visit them.

During that visit, we gave speeches introducing the PRCA:  PRC history; the unconditional covenant doctrine we embrace; the error of the doctrine of common grace; and Reformed worship.  We learned of the Namibians’ commitment to the Three Forms of Unity, Reformed worship including Psalm-singing, the Church Order of Dordt, and their determination to give church office only to men. To read more about that visit, see the Standard Bearer editorials of December 15, 2010, and January 1, 2011.  To learn a little about the family that made original contacts with us, Google “Kalahari Trophy Hunting.”  This will give you the Duvenhage’s family website that gives almost as much testimony to their faith as it does about hunting in Africa.

After our initial visit, the hope of official and formal contacts dimmed.  These saints and their six churches remained a part of their large denomination.  Communication between churches goes through denominational committees answerable to synod; and it was the decisions by their synod, which they believed were unbiblical, that motivated them to contact the PRCA.

But informal contacts continued.   A few Protestant Reformed members or families visited both in Namibia and their southern neighbor, South Africa.  Some of our ministers also maintained correspondence that resulted, late last year, in an invitation to speak in South Africa on the Protestant Reformed view of the covenant; specifically, for Prof. Cammenga to give lectures summarizing his thesis on Herman Hoeksema’s view of the covenant.

In the providence of God, as the Contact Committee was contemplating that invitation to visit South Africa, the churches in Namibia informed us that five of the six churches we visited in 2010 had now separated from their denomination and would like us to visit them again.  This made another delegation from the CC not only possible, but almost obligatory.  For the constitution of the Contact Committee speaks of our “sacred duty to manifest the true unity and catholicity of the church on earth in as far as that is possible.”

The Contact Committee asked Professors Cammenga and Gritters to visit in May and June of 2016.

* * * *

The first week we visited the churches in Namibia, this time limiting ourselves to the central part of the country near the capital, Windhoek, and the Kalahari Desert in the east near Botswana.  In 2010 the travel was more extensive, for we spent three weeks in Namibia, visiting all six churches.  These congregations are widely scattered—from the Namib coast on the Atlantic to the border of Botswana almost 500 miles east; and from the capital of Windhoek in the center of the country to a pair of churches about 250 miles north toward Angola.  None of the six churches is closer than an hour from another (only one) and most are at least three or four hours of travel from their nearest neighbor.   In 2016 we visited only two areas, and members from the other churches travelled to see us at an all-day Saturday conference.

Before the conference, of course, we had opportunity to spend many hours in informal discussions with leaders in the Namibian churches.  We answered many questions and set for the Protestant Reformed viewpoint on significant issues.

At the conference, this year the topics were of their choosing.  The saints wanted to know the PRCA’s viewpoints on four matters:  how properly to celebrate the Lord’s Supper; marriage, divorce and remarriage; the place and authority of the seminary professor; and the use of article 8 of the Church Order when ministers are in short supply.

It may be surprising that the Reformed Christians in Namibia are first of all interested whether the PRCA use a common cup or little individual cups (“kelkies) in celebrating communion.  But one of the signs of departure in their denomination was an apparent carelessness regarding the proper administration of the sacraments, the second mark of the true church.  Vitally important to the Namibians is the unity of believers in the supper, manifested by the one cup.  “The cup of blessing…” is Jesus’ own instruction for commemorating His death.  Not cups, many, but cup, one.  At the same time, they use one loaf of bread, from which each breaks a piece.  Symbolizing, of course, that the people of God as the family of faith are united in the body and blood of Jesus.  Most of history is on their side.  In the PRC in generations past, as our older members will recall, a common cup was used.  Unity!  We heard the brothers’ (and sisters’) plea that unity be expressed in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.  Even if a congregation is too large to use one cup, they urged, let the members sit at many tables and share one cup and one loaf at each.  We are one, as the Form for Administration of the Lord’s Supper emphasizes:  “Besides, that we by this same Spirit may also be united as members of one body in true brotherly love, as the holy Apostle saith, ‘For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread…. one meal is ground, and one bread baked, and out of many berries… one wine floweth… so shall we all.. be altogether one body, through brotherly love.”

We explained that the PRCA do not use the common cup and view this aspect of the administration of the supper to be a part of each congregation’s liberty to judge what is “most conducive to edification,” as the Church Order indicates (article 62).  Especially in large congregations there would not be room even to have many tables. In these case, we explained, unity may better be manifested by all partaking at the same time in their pews.  Because of their history, it was not only painful for them to hear of the PRCA’s practices in this regard, but they also would regard the one cup and one bread to be part of the “outward ceremonies as prescribed in God’s Word [that may] not be changed,” as the Church Order (article 62) also instructs.  No official decisions were made, of course, but it appears that these churches would not consider it a sin for us not to use the common cup, but would urge us to do so, if at all possible, in order to express unity in the way the church of the past did.

Then we explained further the PRCA’s view on remarriage of divorced persons.  Further, because some had heard us in 2010, and some had read PRCA literature.  But others heard for the first time, listening with great interest to our exposition of Matthew 19 and related passages.  By those who participated in the discussion widespread agreement was expressed.  What difficulty any had was not with the exegesis or theology of the position, much less with seeing the practical importance of maintaining marriages in a day of rampant divorce and remarriage.  Rather, they wondered how to treat the few members in their congregations who had already remarried.  We related the PRCA history on the issue—that those who were already remarried were allowed to remain, but no others were permitted to join, nor were present members allowed to remarry while their spouse was living.  We pray these explanations will be helpful for the new gathering of churches to come to one mind on the vitally important doctrine of marriage.

Their other questions related to church government.  The third mark of true churches is the proper exercise of Christian discipline, and since discipline is an aspect of church government, their questions relate to a vital aspect of Reformed church existence.  First, they asked the PRCA’s view of the ‘office’ of professor.  Seminary professors, in their judgment, had become too influential at their assemblies, wielding more authority than ministers and elders. Their professors, they believed, were leading the churches astray regarding the Lord’s Supper and women deacons, for example.  So the brothers wondered, “What is the PRCA view of the ‘office’ of professor of theology?”  We explained that the PRCA in 2000 had changed article 2 of the Church Order to read “the offices are of three kinds” instead of four, that the professor of theology was not a fourth office but a labor of the minister, and that in the PRCA, although professors are asked to attend and speak, they do not have a vote in the assemblies.

Finally, they asked our judgment about article 8 of the Church Order, and admitting men into the ministry who have not had full seminary training.  The five scattered churches have a shortage of ministers.  Only one minister serves the churches in a country twice the size of California.  Thankfully, they have possibilities of more:  one has accepted a call from South Africa and awaits emigration approval; another may return who was released under article 11 of the Church Order; a third could be ordained according to article 8.

Church government and the Church Order.  Because of misuse of the Church Order in their denomination, this new gathering of churches must work through how to deal with Dordt’s venerable Church Order.  As is often the case in movements of reform, as theirs is, a temptation comes to question the wisdom of Reformed and Presbyterian church government.  This will be an important part of our on-going discussions with the brothers.

After the conference, we gave away many dozens of RFPA books and PRC pamphlets.  Had we filled all our luggage with books, we could not have satisfied the desire for good literature.  If you want to travel to this beautiful country someday, please reserve a piece of luggage for books.  “Bring the books!”

* * * *

            For the second week we flew about 800 miles east/southeast to Pretoria, South Africa, with believers from the same denomination which the Namibians had departed.  Most of the contacts in Namibia and South Africa are of Dutch ancestry (many generations past) and speak Afrikaans as their first language, which is a great deal like Dutch.  But most are also able to speak English which is a great help.  We spent a week with a young family—the Oosthuizens—whose gracious hospitality paralleled their commitment to the Reformed traditions.

At the invitation of Rev. LeCornu (see above), we spoke for two afternoons at a small Reformed seminary, heretofore unknown to us:  two speeches on the theology of John Calvin and two speeches on preaching the Heidelberg Catechism. All of them were received with great appreciation.  At a small Reformed church Prof. Cammenga presented three lectures on the PRCA view of the covenant—an important topic because the covenant views of Schilder are common.  Prof. Gritters spoke one evening on the errors of neo-Calvinism and another evening on what makes a church Reformed.

What we found in South Africa was as encouraging as in Namibia.  Small groups of Reformed believers are determined to maintain the Reformed traditions, the old paths, and are very keen to hear more about the Protestant Reformed Churches.   Many are well-read and eager to read more of our literature.  What we saw of family life—daily family worship, singing the Psalms, antithetical living—was heartening.  Although the contacts in South Africa are not as long-standing as those in Namibia, we believe the prospects warrant continued contacts and further visits in the future.

God permitting, the Contact Committee will arrange more visits to Namibia and South Africa.  But just as important will be to extend an invitation to representatives of these churches to visit the PRCA in our country.  Perhaps as soon as next year.  Walking together requires agreement (Amos 3:2), and agreement comes only when both parties know one another.   What the Lord has determined for the future is known only to Him.  But our calling is clear.  We will work to manifest unity—a unity in the truth of the Reformed faith.

Posted by: proregno | October 10, 2016

Gedenk julle voorgangers: Kruger en Cromwell


deur dr. JD Du Toit (Totius)

Pres. Paul Kruger is vandag 191 jaar gelede gebore. Hy was die bekende staatspresident van die Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek (1825-1904).

Ons leef in tye waarin dit ‘n groot teleurstelling is wat die karakter van leierskap is.  Of dit nou Zuma of Trump of Clinton is, sien ons nie die vrese van die Here by enige van hulle nie.  So anders was dit met oom Paul.

Ek plaas hier met erkenning aan Totius, sy artikel oor Kruger, met verwysing na Cromwell, ook ‘n groot puriteinse minister van Engeland in die 1600’s. Totius se werke kan hier afgelaai word in sy geheel: Versamelde Werke

Sien die volgende boek van prof. AWG Raath oor Paul Kruger, spesifiek geskryf vir kinders: Ons Volksleiers – pres. Paul Kruger

Die kontras tussen oom Paul se beginsel-politiek, en vandag se humanistiese Afrikaner politiek en denke, word goed saamgevat in die woorde van Totius:

Maar daar is ‘n ander Kruger (hoewel daar wesenlik geen ander is nie!), en wat gekweek is, om dit nou so uit te druk, in die klimaat van die Bybel. Van hierdie Kruger se taal sê ons: „Uitgestorwe klanke.” Ons hoor dit ook in die raadsale van ons land nie meer nie. Ons hoor dit ook in die publieke lewe nie meer nie. By hom die geloof, by ons die berekening; by hom die karakter, by ons die verwagting; by hom die ideaal, by ons die verlorenheid.  … Ten derde het Kruger die Bybel bepaaldelik gelees om daarin leiding te vind as leier van die volk. Op ‘n eleksierekwisisie antwoord hy: „Ook op staatkundige terrein bely ek die ewige beginsels van die Woord van God”.

Die kontras tussen gelowige (gereformeerde) Afrikaners, en vandag se ‘moderne’ Afrikaners wat geen of min vrees vir God en sy gebod het nie, wat Jesus nie nodig het as Verlosser en Koning, en net wil ‘rock in Afrikaans’, lees ons in die volgende woorde van Totius:

In ons vorige artikel het ons daaraan herinner dat die Voortrekkers mense was wat hulle laat ken het as diegene wat deur God geroep en deur al die rampe heen deur Hom gelei is. Hierdie sielvolle oortuiging waardeur hulle gedra is, kom uit die Bybel. Daarom is ons volk sonder die Bybel eintlik niks, sonder roeping, sonder leiding, sonder hoër oortuiging, sommer laag by die grond. …. Die volk eis die mees moontlike maatskaplike vryheid; geen losbandige of roekelose vryheid nie maar gegrond op God se Woord.  Dit lê in daardie artikel opgesluit”. Dan word verwys na Moses, die wetgewer maar wat die wet op die bevel van God opgeskryf het.

Gaan in die toekoms ook ‘n paar ander artikels van Totius plaas oor die Afrikaners se siening aangaande wat hul kon leer by Israel, asook die wet van Moses se gebruik deur die regters van die ZAR.

Ek stel Totius nou self aan die woord:


„Uitgestorwe klanke!” so het ons gedink by die lees van enkele toesprake van wyle president Kruger.

En die skares wat juig as hulle die Krugernaam hoor . . sou hulle nog die taal van Kruger ken ?

Dat Kruger gegroei het uit ons grond, ‘n Afrikaner was uit die Afrikaners — dit is bekend.

Maar daar is ‘n ander Kruger (hoewel daar wesenlik geen ander is nie ! ), en wat gekweek is, om dit nou so uit te druk, in die klimaat van die Bybel. Van hierdie Kruger se taal sê ons: „Uitgestorwe klanke.” Ons hoor dit ook in die raadsale van ons land nie meer nie. Ons hoor dit ook in die publieke lewe nie meer nie. By hom die geloof, by ons die berekening; by hom die karakter, by ons die verwagting; by hom die ideaal, by ons die verlorenheid.

Desnieteenstaande moet ons Afrikanervolk hierdie Kruger weer hoor en sien; hierdie Kruger in sy ongedeeldheid: Afrikaner en geloofsman. Want as sodanig is hy niks anders as wat die Afrikanerdom van huis uit sou wees nie; hy was die hoogtepunt van die nasie waaruit hy gegroei het.

Kruger sonder die Bybel is gelyk aan sy standbeeld in Pretoria, maar sonder voetstuk, sommer plat op die grond neergesit. Desgelyks  die Afrikanerdom sonder die Bybel: ‘n gelykvloerse verskyning, gering, ongereken, onvergelykbaar by die ander groter nasies.

In ons vorige artikel het ons daaraan herinner dat die Voortrekkers mense was wat hulle Iaat ken het as diegene wat deur God geroep en deur al die rampe heen deur Hom gelei is. Hierdie sielvolle oortuiging waardeur hulle gedra is, kom uit die Bybel. Daarom is ons volk sonder die Bybel eintlik niks, sonder roeping, sonder leiding, sonder hoër oortuiging, sommer laag by die grond.

Laat ons nou terugkeer na Kruger. In die volle sin van die woord kan hy genoem word „’n man van een boek”. Die Bybel was sy lektuur, Hy het dit gelees:

Ten eerste, vir sy stigting, dit wil sê vir die opbouing van sy geestelike lewe. Daaroor handel ons nou nie.

Ten tweede het hy, al lesende in die Statebybel met kanttekeninge, ‘n skat van aardrykskundige, geskiedkundige en oudheidkundige kennis opgesamel. Dit is soos Allard Pierson sê: „Dit is vir die ongeletterdes onmoontlik om daagliks met die Bybel om te gaan sonder om in ‘n baie ruim kring rondgelei te word. Watter volke almal, waarvan ‘n ander nooit verneem nie, trek sy aandag! Die Egiptiese, die Assiriese, die Babiloniese, die Persiese beskawing, selfs die Romeinse, almal lig by beurt iets op van die sluier wat die verlede vir ander heeltemal bedek . . . so vind die Bybelvaste Christene ‘n vorming, ‘n opleiding, ‘n prikkel, in sonderheid ‘n wêreld van gedagte wat ver bo die alledaagse verhewe is”. Dit lyk of Pierson dit van Kruger skrywe. Maar nee, hy het dit oor die Godvrugtige Wormser, medestander van Groen van Prinsterer.

En laat ons dit dadelik daarby voeg: Kruger het nie die Bybel geleer in ‘n ondogmatiese skool nie! O, die vrees vir dogmas, die vrees wat ons volk van sy voetstuk afgelig het! Ons haal Pierson, in hierdie opsig ‘n onverdagte getuie, weer aan: „Dat ‘n kragtige dogmatiese geloof die gees sou verstomp, verlaag; dat dit niks as letterknegtery sou kweek nie, eentonigheid, eenvormigheid, is in stryd met alle ervaring . . . Ons (so kom hy op homself terug), ons, vriende erl tot op sekere hoogte martelaars van die rustelose ondersoek, dra dikwels almal eenselfde kleurlose ordekleed“.

Ons het bietjie uitgewei om duidelik te laat verstaan dat Kruger geen ondogmatiese Bybel geken het nie en dat die geroep: „Meer godsdiens op die skool !” niks beduie nie as ‘n ondogmatiese Bybel deur die skoolwet geëis word.

Ten derde het Kruger die Bybel bepaaldelik gelees om daarin leiding te vind as leier van die volk. Op ‘n eleksierekwisisie antwoord hy: „Ook op staatkundige terrein bely ek die ewige beginsels van die Woord van God”.

By die bespreking van die beginsels wat Kruger in sy staatspraktyk gelei het, moet opgemerk word dat ons veel moet ontleen aan die redevoeringe wat deur hom gehou is. Maar dit was dikwels vrye toesprake wat in Nederlands gerapporteer en aan ons in dié vorm oorgelewer is. Van die President het ons eiehandig niks ontvang nie. En om Kruger te rapporteer was seker geen maklike taak nie.

‘n Ander moeilikheid is dat ons van Kruger, man van geringe skoolgeleerdheid, geen sistematiese uiteensetting van sy staatkundige beginsels kon verwag nie. By hom was dit nie die vasstaande skrif nie maar die lewende, beweeglike woord wat hom telkens by die drang van die oomblik aangepas het.

Dit sou die moeite loon veral uit die toesprake van die President die beginsels op te diep wat vir hom as riglyne by sy staatsaktiwiteite gedien het. Ons doel is alleen om met enkele voorbeelde te bevestig wat ons gesê het

(1) dat die President (saam met die Voortrekkers) oortuig daarvan was dat hulle as volk met ‘n besondere roeping geroep is, en

(2) dat die President (saam met baie van sy volgelinge) aan die roeping getrou gebly het.

Niemand het seker die leiding en bevryding van ons volk deur die Here sterker aangevoel en skerper uitgedruk as hy nie. Aan Israel se uitleiding en bevryding uit Egipte het hy gedink. Daarom spreek hy voortdurend van niks minder as „mirakels en wonders” nie. Ons lees in Kruger se telegram aan die krygsoffisiere gedateer 20 Junie 1900 heel veel van Israel se wonderbare uitreddinge. En dan volg hierdie regstreekse toepassing: „Dieselfde God het ons uitgelei en met wonders en mirakels aan ons ons vryheid gegee”. Daaruit word die gevolgtrekking gemaak (wat ons die President van harte kan nasê): „En dink u dat God sy saak, wat Hy eenmaal begin het, sal laat vaar? Nee, Hy sal dit nie laat vaar nie”.

Op grond van hierdie oortuiging kon hy na Ps. 83 verwys en dan konstateer: „Daar kom dieselfde woorde van Salisbury voor, want hy sê ook: ,Hierdie volk moet nie bestaannie nie’, en God sê: ,Hierdie volk sal bestaan’. Wie sal dit wen? Sekerlik die Here”.

Die vergelyking van die Voortrekkervolk met Israel is te menigvuldig in die redevoeringe om hier enigsins by benadering vermeld te kan word. Maar juis daarom (vanweë die vergelykinge) tree die President soos ‘n Israelitiese boeteprofeet op om die hele volk tot bekering op te roep. In sy redevoering van 7 Mei 1900 sê hy: „As God dit toelaat dat kastyding op ons kom, moet ons buk en ons verneder; ons sondes bely en tot die Here terugkeer”.

Van besondere betekenis is in hierdie samehang die toespraak wat die president gehou het by sy plegtige inswering op 12 Mei 1898. Daar tree hy op soos ‘n profeet vanouds. Hy skroom nie om voor die oor van almal, hoog en laag, ‘n lang vermaanpreek te hou nie.

Byvoorbeeld hy spreek die nuwe burgers aan met Bybelse terme: „Julle kan nie twee here dien nie, of julle sal die een aanhang en die ander verag” ens. Dan weer word die „vreemdelinge” bemoedig met woorde wat ons laat voel: die man wat so spreek, weet wat Moses aangaande die vreemdelinge gesê het. Jammer dat hulle die goeie woorde nie ter harte geneem het nie! Vervolgens word die regters vermaan, al weer op Bybelse manier: „Van u is daar geen appèl meer nie; daarom word u gode genoem, maar God staan in die midde van die goderaad en Hy oordeel oor goed en kwaad” (vgl. Ps. 82:1) .

Die vermaanwoord vir die krygsmag, vanaf die Kommandant-Generaal tot die gewone burger, word ontleen aan Esegiël. As gewaarsku is teen die aannaderende vyand en die wagte word uitgesit nie, dan sal „die vergote bloed” op die hoof van die skuldige wees.

As die kinders aan die orde kom, hoor ons die roepstem dat hulle „vas moet staan” by die Woord van God, en die President sal „met al sy kragte” trag om hulle „in die Christelike onderwys” te Iaat opvoed. Ons weet dat dié woorde in dié tyd inderdaad betekenis gehad het.

Waar vind ons Kruger se gelyke onder die bewindhebbers in Suid-Afrika?

‘n Man wat so suiwer die siel van die Groot Trek vertolk het.

Merkwaardig is ook Kruger se vertolking van art. 8 van die grondwet waarvan hy self ‘n medeopsteller was. Hy wat dit kon weet, lees daarin veel meer as wat daar staan. Jammer dat hy nie self die pen gehanteer het nie !

Art. 8 begin: „Die volk eis die mees moontlike vryheid” ens. Van God of sy Woord word nie gerep nie. Maar wat sê Kruger daarvan in sy toespraak van 12 Mei 1898? Dit: „Let nou op daardie artikel, waarheen dit ons wys. Dit wys ons na God se Woord. Die volk eis die mees moontlike maatskaplike vryheid; geen losbandige of roekelose vryheid nie maar gegrond op God se Woord. Dit lê in daardie artikel opgesluit”. Dan word verwys na Moses, die wetgewer maar wat die wet op die bevel van God opgeskryf het.

Ons kan dit daarom verstaan as in dieselfde toespraak gesê word dat hy die stem van die volk wat hom tot die presidentskap geroep het, gehoorsaam het omdat hy „meen die stem van God daarin te herken”. Dit is iets anders as wat die Franse Rewolusie geproklameer het en wat nog rondgebasuin word, naamlik „dat die gesag van die regering uit die volk en die volk alleen vloei”. Dit is anders as die gerœp oor die oppermagtige volkswil.

Maar ons kan met hierdie interessante onderwerp, wat ‘n opsetlike studie werd is, nie verder voortgaan nie.

Mag die Afrikanervolk maar leer om nie die Krugernaam van die Krugerdaad los te maak nie!

Bron: Die Kerkblad, no. 964, 5 Maart 1943.

Gedenk julle voorgangers: reeks

Posted by: proregno | October 6, 2016

Islam evangelisasie (8)

Ek plaas met erkenning aan die bron (RFPA) ‘n reeks wat gaan oor die verkondiging van die Evangelie van ons Here Jesus Christus aan ons Moslem bure. Hopelik kan dit ons toerus om die Groot Opdrag na te kom daar waar die Here ons elkeen geplaas het (Matt.28:16-20):


 by Rev. Martyn McGeown

“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (I Corinthians 1:23).

The message of the gospel—Christ crucified—was a stumbling block to the Jews because they could not accept a crucified Messiah. It is a stumbling block to Muslims for similar reasons.

Many Muslims believe that Jesus (Isa) did not die. Instead, He was honored and taken directly into heaven. Therefore, Muslims, in general, deny the crucifixion and death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Islam has no need for the cross and resurrection because Islam’s doctrine of salvation is based on human effort, not on the redemptive acts of God in Jesus Christ. Certainly, the Qur’an denies the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. On the death of Jesus, the Qur’an is less clear.

Some passages seem to suggest that Jesus did die, albeit not by crucifixion.

For example, the infant Jesus of the Qur’an speaks from the cradle with these words:

“Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute” (Surah 19:33-34).

Clearly, if peace was upon Jesus on the day that He died, He must have died; but if peace was upon Him, he did not die under the wrath and curse of God on the cross as the Christian gospel teaches.

Elsewhere, Allah makes the following promise:

“Behold, Allah said: O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute” (Surah 3:55).

To “take thee and raise thee” has, according to some scholars, the idea of death followed by exaltation.

Whether the Jesus of the Qur’an died or not, he was not crucified:

That they said (in boast). ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power. Wise” (Surah 4:157-158).

Surah 4:157 is decisive for the Muslim against the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ only appeared to be crucified, but, in fact, he was not crucified. The common explanation is the “substitution theory.” Someone was substituted for Jesus so that he died instead of Jesus, while the enemies of Jesus believed that they had killed Jesus. Powerful, wise Allah fooled the enemies of Jesus, and Jesus was exalted into heaven. Many Muslims believe that Judas Iscariot was the substitute. Judas was arrested, scourged, crucified, and died instead of Jesus.

Therefore, the Qur’an (written during the lifetime of Mohammed c. 570-632, and compiled shortly after his death) opposes the Bible, both the Old Testament, which prophesies the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, which records and interprets the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, the central message of the Bible, and certainly the centerpiece of Biblical salvation, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Consider these words of Jesus to His disciples after the resurrection:

These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me… Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things (Luke 24:44-48).

Christ teaches that His sufferings and death are (1) necessary and (2) prophesied in the Scriptures (the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms). Just one example from the prophets will suffice at this point:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:4-11).

The gospel narratives (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) contain very detailed descriptions of the arrest, trial, sufferings, and death of Jesus. If Islam is true, these accounts are almost entirely fabricated.

The denial of these explicit Old Testament and New Testament testimonies places Muslims in a difficult position. The Qur’an attributes the Law (Torah), the Psalms, and the Gospel (Injil) to Allah:

Before this: We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): “My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth” (Surah 21:105).

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went down before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong) (Surah 3:3).

And in their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute (Surah 5:46-49)
If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to Gardens of Bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil (Surah 5:65-66).
If Mohammed during his lifetime spoke to his Jewish and Christian contemporaries to judge out of the Torah and the Gospel (Injil), which books did he mean? He must have meant the Law and Gospel that existed in the 6th/7thcenturies (Mohammed lived from c. 570-632). There are many Old Testament and New Testament manuscripts from that time and all of them agree that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus is fully God in human flesh, Jesus was crucified, and that He was buried and rose again from the dead. None of the manuscripts deny the fundamental truths that Christians confess today. Had the Jews and Christians consulted the Torah and Gospel (Injil) available in their day, they would have found them to contradict Mohammed’s message in the Qur’an. Mohammed did not know this, of course, because (as most acknowledge) Mohammed was illiterate.

If the Muslim wants to answer that the Torah and Gospel (Injil) have been corrupted, we must ask when this alleged corruption took place. If it happened before Mohammed was born, how could Mohammed ask the Jews and Christians to judge out of such (allegedly) corrupted texts? If it occurred after Mohammed’s death, it is easy for the Christian church to reconstruct the original text of Scripture. Many manuscripts are very old and certainly predate the Qur’an by centuries. In fact, there is more textual material available for the New Testament than any other ancient Greek text.

Either Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of His people, and rose again from the dead, or all the Christians who testified to His death and resurrection are liars and false witnesses. One cannot honor the Injil as the Qur’an commands, and still deny the death and resurrection of Jesus:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures … Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable (I Corinthians 15:3-4, 12-19).

Next time, DV, we shall prove from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was crucified, that He died, and was buried, and that He rose again from the dead. And we will explain why this is necessary for our salvation.


This post was written by Rev. Martyn McGeown, missionary-pastor of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland stationed in Limerick, Republic of Ireland.

Die res van die reeks: Islam evangelisasie



deur prof. WJ Snyman

(Sien die inleiding [nommer 1] en die res van die reeks hier.)

(a) Sigbaar en Onsigbaar.

Onsigbaar is die kerk

(a) soos dit rus in Gods ewige verkiesing, en soos die “Here alleen ken die wat syne is” (2 Tim. 2:19).

(b) Soos dit sentraliseer om die hemelse heiligdom (Hebr. 12:22-24) waar Christus as Hoëpriester intree (Rom. 8:34).

(c) Soos dit tot stand kom deur die verborge werkinge van die Heilige Gees. Dit is die “onsigbare kant” van die kerk, wat ‘n beter uitdrukking is as “onsigbare kerk”.

Hiervan moet dan onderskei word die “sigbare kant” van die kerk, soos dit uitkom in die ampte en bedieninge: die instituut.

Wat is die verband tussen die twee?

Nie so dat die “sigbare kerk” die “onsigbare” voortbring nie. Dan word die sigbare kerk ‘n middel tot saligheid, en ons lidmaatskap noodsaaklik as voorwaarde tot saligheid. So wil die Roomse Kerk dit. Ons bely Christus as ons enigste Middelaar.

Egter ook nie so dat dit maar net daarop aankom om lidmaat te wees van die “onsigbare kerk”, asof die uitwendige kerk iets bykomstigs is, en ook wel só of anders ingerig kan wees na omstandighede, of desnoods geheel kon ontbreek (Lutherse menings).

Lidmaatskap van die sigbare kerk is noodsaaklik — nie as voorwaarde nie, maar as voorskrif vir die gelowiges. Christus het verordineer dat die gelowiges hulle sal saam voeg, sy dood sal gedenk, ens. Dit na te laat is ongehoorsaamheid, wat nie ‘n eienskap van die geloof is nie. Dit is noodsaaklik vir die welsyn van die geloof, om Christus hierin te gehoorsaam. Ook wat die inrigting van die sigbare kerk betref, moet gelet word op die voorskrifte van Christus.

(b) Organisasie (Instituut) en Organisme.

Organisme: Die sigbaarwording van die kerk in die wandel van die gelowiges.

Organisasie: die sigbaarmaking deur die instelling van kerklike ampte.

Met die laaste, die instelling van die ampte en deur hom te voeg by die kerk waar dit bestaan, het die gelowige nog nie sy roeping vervul nie. Dit lê ook buite homself in die samehange van die lewe. Hier is ook organisasie nodig. So kan groepe van gelowiges hulle organiseer na leeftyd, geslag, of ook, met die oog op ‘n bepaalde doel buite hulle self: Christelike onderwys, wetenskap, politiek, ens.

Hiervan moet onderskei word kerklike organisasie, waar die gelowiges doel het in hulself, eie versterking, toerusting, ens.

(c) “Algemeen” en “plaaslik”.

Dit mag nie saamval met die van organisme-instituut nie, asof die enigste manier waarop die algemene kerk sigbaar word, net in die wandel van die gelowiges bestaan. Dit mag veral ook nie saamval met die eerste onderskeiding, asof die algemene kerk onsigbaar bly nie.

In Matt. 16:18 spreek Christus van die kerk in die algemeen, maar dan as georganiseer op die fondament van die Apostels. Die kerk het sy universele organisasie in die apostoliese woord. Dit bind alle gelowiges saam oor die ganse aarde. So ‘n band is ook gegee in die doop, wat erken moet word, deur watter kerk dit ook al, op wettige wyse, bedien is.

In Matt. 18:17 spreek Christus van kerk as ‘n plaaslike organisasie.

Die één “apostoliese kerk” kan alleen saamkom en saamleef in plaaslike verband. Die eerste is blywend geïnstitueer deur Christus self vir alle tye. Die laaste word geïnstitueer deur die gelowiges self volgens voorskrif van Christus.

(d) “Waar” en “suiwer”.

Daar is net één ware kerk: die liggaam van Christus, gebou op die apostoliese fondament (vgl. Kol. 2:7: “gewortel en opgebou”). Maar gelowiges kan nooit sê dat hulle die enige ware kerk ter plaatse is nie, om die eenvoudige rede dat die kerk nog strydend is, en die volmaakte nog nie gekom het nie.

Daarom is daar plek vir meer kerke op een plek in verskillende kerkverband, in die verhouding: suiwerder — minder suiwer.

Die amp van die gelowige is om hom te voeg by die suiwerste, en dit nog meer te suiwer. Waar hierdie amp van die gelowige onderdruk word, is die kerk op valse spoor.


Bron: Nuwe en Ou Dinge, prof. WJ Snyman

Volgende keer: Die gebruik van die woord ‘kerk’ in die Nuwe Testament 

Die reeks is hier beskikbaar: Die Kerk – prof. WJ Snyman

Posted by: proregno | September 29, 2016

Die Kerk (3): Die kentekens van die kerk – prof. WJ Snyman


deur prof. WJ Snyman

(Sien die inleiding (nommer 1) en die res van die reeks hier.)

Die kentekens van die kerk.

Die eienskappe sê wat die ware kerk is, die kenmerke waar die ware kerk is.

Hier moet onderskeid gemaak word tussen die dinge waaraan die kerk gemerk en die dinge waaraan hy geken kan word.

Na die “merktekens om die ware kerk te ken” handel die Ned. Geloofsbelydenis (Art. 29) ook oor die “merktekens van die Christene”. Dit is die wandel van die gelowiges. Die bestaan van die kerk word gemerk in die kragte en invloede wat daar uitgaan van die gelowiges op elke gebied. Hierdie kragte en invloede moet ook georganiseer word om elke lewensgebied vir Christus te verower. So word die kerk sigbaar in die (georganiseerde) aksie van die gelowiges. Die kerk laat hom merk as strydende kerk. Daar is egter “nog groot swakheid” in die gelowiges, waarteen hulle ook moet stry. Daarom is die “merktekens van die Christene” nie genoeg om die ware kerk te ken nie.

Die ware kerk is:

(a) waar die evangelie suiwer gepredik word.

Die kerk kom alleen tot openbaring waar die Woord van God is. Die kerk kom alleen suiwer tot openbaring waar die Woord van God suiwer bedien word. Daarom is suiwere bediening van die evangelie die eerste en vernaamste kenmerk van die ware kerk.

Die Woord van God is vir ons onfeilbaar gegee in die Skrifte van die O. en N. Testament.

Die woord van God soos dit tot afsluiting gekom het in die apostoliese prediking sal uitmaak wat geglo moet word en wat nie, en wie gelowiges is en wie nie (Matt. 16:19; Joh. 20:23; Matt. 28:19). Hierop sal Christus sy gemeente bou (Matt. 16:18).

Om suiwer te wees is alle verdere prediking aan hierdie geopenbaarde Woord van God gebonde.

So is die gelowiges nie oorgelewer aan die amp (Rooms); die prediker is ook nie net mondstuk van die gemeente nie (Independentisme). Ook is die prediker en gelowiges nie onderling van mekaar afhanklik nie (Luthers), maar albei, prediker en gelowiges, is saam afhanklik van die Woord van God. Die prediker bring die Woord van God. Die gemeente het die mag om te oordeel of die prediking “eenvoudig volgens Gods Woord” is.

(b) Waar die sakramente suiwer bedien word.

Die sakramente word suiwer bedien as dit bedien word in Naam van die Insteller. Verder, as dit bedien word aan diegene vir wie dit ingestel is. Eindelik, as alleen die sakramente bedien word wat inderdaad ingestel is.

Die insteller is Christus. Dit word in die naam van Christus bedien, wanneer dit amptelik bedien word deur sy kerk, aan wie Christus dit toevertrou het, en daarom ook in die kerk.

Dit is ingestel alleen vir die gelowiges (Mark. 16:16).

Daar is net twee sakramente deur Christus ingestel: die Doop en die Nagmaal.

So teken die sakrament nie net die geestelike daad waardeur God die kerk in aansyn bring (Doop) en dit bewaar (Nagmaal) nie, maar bekragtig dit ook vir die gelowige.

Die Doop beseël die wedergeboorte, waardeur die kerk geestelik ontstaan.

Die Doop onderskei hom ook deur sy omvattendheid. Soos die volk van God deur Johannes die Doper afgesonder is van Israel na die vlees, so moet die apostels deur hul prediking en doop ook die volk van God afsonder uit alle volke (Matt. 16:16; Matt. 28:19): Die Doop teken die kerk af in sy wêreldwye omvang en omvat die gelowiges ook in hul geslagte (Hand. 2:39).

So vergader Christus sy kerk uit alle geslagte, volke, tale en nasies (Openb. 5:9; 7:9). Die Doop kenmerk die kerk as “algemene kerk”.

Die Nagmaal kenmerk die kerk as liggaam van Christus in sy geestelike eenheid.

Met die instelling van die Nagmaal het Christus sy wil uitgespreek dat daar ‘n onderlinge samelewing en ‘n gereelde samekoms van gelowiges sal wees. Die Nagmaal bepaal die kerk in sy plaaslike afgrensing.

In verband met die Nagmaal ontstaan die plaaslike ampte van ouderlingskap, omdat die Nagmaal nie anders as onder toesig met stigting gevier kon word nie; en ook van die diakenskap, omdat die geestelike eenheid ook uiting moes vind in onderlinge steun.

Hierby kom die bediening van die Woord as plaaslike amp in noue samehang met die ouderlingskap (1 Tim. 5:17), as die apostoliese amp verdwyn. Al drie hierdie ampte is oorspronklik opgeslote in die apostoliese: die predikamp (Hand. 6:4), die ouderlingamp (1 Petr. 5:1) en die diakenamp (Hand. 6:2).

(c) Waar die kerklike tug bedien word.

Hoewel geen vereniging sonder dissipline kan bestaan nie, is die eienaardige van die kerklike tug dat dit ‘n daad van Christus is deur die gemeente (Matt. 18:18). Hier is dan ook net sprake van die bediening daarvan. Dit kan alleen suiwer bedien word in samehang met die apostoliese woord (1 Kor. 5:3 vv.).

Hierdeur word die kerk gehandhaaf as ‘n vergadering van ware gelowiges, en as sodanig gaan die toesig nie alleen oor die wandel van die gelowiges nie, maar ook oor die bediening van die Woord.

Ook dit is ‘n uitdruklike verordening van Christus tot plaaslike organisasie (Matt. 18:17). Hierin wortel die amp van die ouderlingskap, en deur hierdie instelling is die suiwere bediening van Woord en sakramente enersyds, en die kerk as vergadering van gelowiges die beste gewaarborg.

Uit die suiwere bediening van die evangelie, die suiwere bediening van die sakramente en die kerklike tug kan “met sekerheid die ware kerk geken word, waarvan niemand hom mag afskei nie” (Art. 29, Ned. Geloofsb.) en waarby “iedereen skuldig is om hom te voeg” (Art. 28).

Dit is die kentekens deur Christus self ingestel.


Bron: Nuwe en Ou Dinge, prof. WJ Snyman

Volgende keer: Verskillende aspekte van die kerk

Die reeks is hier beskikbaar: Die Kerk – prof. WJ Snyman



Skriflesing: Deut.27:1-26; Josua 8:30-35 en 1 Kor.16:22-24

Preekteks: Josua 8:30-35

Preekopname (GK Carletonville, 2016-09-25):

Aflaai: Josua 8:30-35 (regs kliek en dan ‘save as’)

Preeknotas (let wel, dit is net notas, die volledige preek is die opname hierbo):

Geliefdes in ons Here Jesus Christus,

In v.30 tot 35 leer ons daar is baie belangriker dinge is as om fisiese oorlog te voer,

as om die land in besit te neem, as om grond te besit,

om die land van melk en heuning te ontvan,

spesifiek ook Ai wat ingeneem is en waarvan ons geleer het in v.1-29 ‘n vorige keer.

Ons sien dat die verbondslewe self,

‘n lewe totaal oorgegee aan die Here,

in aanbidding en dankbare gehoorsaamheid,

wesentlik is en moet wees vir die Here se volk.

Om dit anders te stel: die bevestiging van die verbondslewe met die Here,

is die belangrikste aspek van die volk se lewe,

vir die kerk se lewe vandag.

Ons wil dit dan leer, onder tema:

Die doel van die Here se verbond,

die doel van sy redding,

is dat ons Hom sal aanbid in oorgawe,

en in dankbaarheid sal lewe volgens sy wet/bevele. 

Ons let op 2 sake,

  1. die Here in sy verbondstrou verlos ons om Hom te aanbid, v.30-31, en
  2. die Here in sy verbondstrou verlos ons om Hom dankbaar te gehoorsaam volgens sy bevele, v.32-35

Read More…

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »