Digibron cookies

Voor optimale prestaties van de website gebruiken wij cookies. Overeenstemmig met de EU GDPR kunt u kiezen welke cookies u wilt toestaan.

Noodzakelijke en wettelijk toegestane cookies

Noodzakelijke en wettelijk toegestane cookies zijn verplicht om de basisfunctionaliteit van Digibron te kunnen gebruiken.

Optionele cookies

Onderstaande cookies zijn optioneel, maar verbeteren uw ervaring van Digibron.

Bekijk het origineel

Separating Preaching (5)

Bekijk het origineel

+ Meer informatie

Separating Preaching (5)

9 minuten leestijd Arcering uitzetten

Objections to separating preaching

We have now arrived at the point of discussing a few objections which have been lodged against separating preaching over the course of time. We have seen what separating preaching is; we attempted to show that its roots lie in Scripture and Confession; we pointed out that this preaching is still found in our country [The Netherlands], where the influence of the Nearer Reformation can still be detected. Now we want to give the floor to a few opponents and attempt to answer them. The difficulty is, however, that the opponents are countless, and the objections vary greatly. Therefore we have attempted to reduce the objections to three main ones.

The first objection: Separating preaching is unscriptural.

This is not a minor objection! If it were true, we would have to distance ourselves from separating preaching, no matter how dear it may be to us. But is it true? When we listen to those who put forth this objection, we hear pronouncements such as these: “Faith and unbelief are pictured in Scripture as the reactions to preaching of God’s salvation, and they are pictured in their ethical behaviors and consequences, in their struggle and growth, but nowhere do we find a definite phasing of both into a number of stages or stations or periods which a person has to pass one after the other and which must be displayed or analyzed in the sermon” (Dr. T. Brienen, De prediking van de Nadere Reformatie, p. 297). Dr. C. Graafland wanted to say the same thing in different words when he pointed out that, in his circle, people lamented that so little “distinguishing” preaching was done. He (in 1965) dealt with this complaint as follows: “The customary division into established, concerned, and unconverted people is not heard anymore, nor is the analyzing of what is the common and special work of the Spirit. It is true, one can no more maintain this preaching if God’s covenant and God’s promises are taken seriously” (Verschuivingen in de Gerefortneerde Bondsprediking [Shifts in the Preaching of the Reformed Fellowship], p. 54) .

The background of these pronouncements, which could be multiplied by many more, is this: people no longer want to see preaching as the explanation and application of God’s Word. Dr. Brienen is very bold when he even says, “The description mentioned before can easily bring us into the murky waters of the view of Scripture and preaching of the Nearer Reformation” (p. 306). One should note the words I have italicized! He then also proposes a different definition of preaching, which is: “The living proclamation of the Word of God for His covenant-congregation with the appeal to faith and repentance and with spiritual guidance for those who believe, in the situations of their time.” Whoever is not a stranger in ecclesiastical Jerusalem beholds here plainly the consequences of the three-covenant doctrine. We hope that Dr. Brienen does not take it ill of us if we stay with the old, classic formulation of our fathers: preaching is the explaining and applying of God’s Word.

People do not oppose the explaining so much as they oppose the applying. Of course, they say, the Word has to be explained. That explanation should even receive a very large place. But for the rest, the preacher has to direct himself to the congregation with the call to faith. He must sharply emphasize the opposite side of faith, the sin of unbelief. But, so they say, the preacher should especially not address his congregation in terms such as God’s children, concerned, unconverted, and so forth. Then, we ask, how should he address his congregation? To this question our opponents supply various answers, but one thing becomes very clear: the address to the congregation, yes, the entire preaching, is strongly determined by the covenant view which they hold.

Later, perhaps, we hope to find some opportunity to deal in a few articles with the connection between covenant and preaching. For the present, here are just a few quotations to illustrate the foregoing. Dr. Brienen proposes to address the congregation “as the covenant congregation for whom the promises are valid from the greatest to the least and who are called to faith in the Lord Jesus” (p. 297). Dr. Graafland laments, “That on the basis of God’s promises we may see our baptized children as God’s children, to whom the promise of forgiveness of sins is granted, is considered by many as a rejectable heresy” (Verschuivingen, p. 50). And, finally, this dumbfounding pronouncement of Dr. Brienen, which shows to what consequences such opinions lead: “The separation of explanation and application also fosters that one is going to separate between a so-called historical faith, that is, a mere agreeing with the truth of the explained text with the mind, and a saving faith, which is found where one can come along feelingly, touched, in one of the stages on the way of the experience of salvation which are dealt with in the application” (p. 299). Comment seems to be superfluous here. Such covenant views as have been mentioned are not ours. The close bond between election and covenant has been lost here. Meanwhile it is really clear that the covenant view of the minister of the Word is of decisive influence upon the manner in which he addresses the congregation.

This critical approach regarding separating and distinguishing preaching generally requires a criticism of the old writers with whom, after all, we find this way of preaching so clearly. They do give some credit to the first representatives of the Nearer Reformation, such as Taffin and Teellinck, but later representatives such as Schortinghuis are considered to have slidden far from the trail of the Reformation. Comrie and Holtius usually have to bear the brunt of this criticism. Supposedly they have elevated scholasticism to the throne in the church of the Reformation. Supposedly they have made the way of conversion into a system and preaching into a scheme. These are revilings which sound quite familiar in our ears today!

I fear that our opponents quite often forget that our old writers were generally very able exegetes, eminent scholars of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; that they possessed a knowledge of the writings of the Reformers, especially those of Calvin, compared to which our knowledge most often sinks away into nothingness; that they oftentimes radiated a godliness which nowadays has become scarce; that, generally speaking, they considered with great certainty the covenant of grace as determined by God’s election; that finally, they, too, had extensively researched the question of how the apostles addressed their congregations.

After all, this question is a cardinal and continually recurring one: How did the apostles view their congregations? Where, our opponents ask, did they separate between God’s children, concerned, and unconverted people? Where do they make such a separation between the different standings in the life of grace as takes place in separating preaching? And indeed, after a superficial examination, the apostles seem not to be doing this. Consequently, the opponents then brand separating preaching with the worst possible label that one can think of unscriptural! Is this correct? We think not. Did then the apostles not draw the great line of separation between death and life right through their congregations? Did they really imagine that this line of separation ran alongside the church wall, thus between the church person and the worldling?

Earlier we already pointed to a text such as 1 John 3:10, but many more places can be mentioned. Just look at 1 Corinthians 10:1-12, Hebrews 6:4-8, James 2:14-26. These, and many other places, deal with matters within the congregations. Now, even not considering the fact that in the apostolic letters we have not sermons, but epistles before us (preaching a sermon and writing a letter are not the same thing!), for us it is not a doubtful matter that in their preaching the apostles have already drawn the great line of separation, and that they have acknowledged and taught the standings in spiritual life. Whoever wants to delve further into the manner in which the apostles viewed their congregations should delve into the “Voorrede” [Preface] to the well-known Keurstojfen [Choice Sermons] of Smytegelt. That “Voorrede” deals with “De noodzakelijkheid van een emstige en onderscheidene predikwijze” [The necessity of a serious and distinguishing manner of preaching] and was written by Johannes van Diesbach, “member of the Reformed Congregation of ‘s-Gravenhage.”

A single quotation makes Van Diesbach’s intention clear: “Verily, it can hardly be understood or believed how among the orthodox they can favor as apostolic a general manner of preaching, wherein all the hearers are considered, addressed, and dealt with as good Christians, and on the contrary they can condemn as unsuitable and oppose a distinguishing and serious manner of preaching, wherein all the hearers are regarded, and thus also addressed and dealt with, as converted and unconverted, as dead and living, as children of God and children of the devil.” Van Diesbach also deals with the question which occupies us at this moment: “They say that a distinguishing manner of preaching is contrary to the manner of the apostles in their letters, wherein they address and deal with the congregations generally as true Christians....”

Then Van Diesbach attempts to show with five arguments that the apostles did, indeed, thoroughly preach in a distinguishing manner. Here is not the place to follow his line of argument step by step. Most of our readers will probably own Smytegelt’s Keurstoffen [Choice Sermons]; people should make the effort to search out Van Diesbach’s plea for a separating preaching. He also refutes the charge that a separating sermon would run counter to the character of love (which, after all, does not condemn one’s neighbor). Van Diesbach finishes his argument by rejecting the (still) often heard objection that separating preaching would supposedly make people despair.

Taken all together, we have to conclude that the objection that separating preaching is not scriptural must yet be proved.

— to be continued —

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Bekijk de hele uitgave van vrijdag 1 december 1995

The Banner of Truth | 28 Pagina's

Separating Preaching (5)

Bekijk de hele uitgave van vrijdag 1 december 1995

The Banner of Truth | 28 Pagina's