Our Covenant Conception with Father Hoeksema (1): Historical Background

Ulrum and Amsterdam

Our spiritual father in the faith, Herman Hoeksema, was born on March 12, 1886. The next day his unbelieving, drunkard father, Tiele Hoeksema, registered the baby under the name Harm. Tiele neglected his children and left them without a father. So Harm was brought up by his devout, Dutch Reformed mother, Johanna Bakema. Alone in the city of Groningen without a husband to support the family, she sewed clothing to support herself and her four children.

Johanna was a devout, godly woman, imbued with the deep Reformed piety of the Afscheiding (Separation or Secession). She belonged to the Afscheiding church in Groningen and brought Harm to church and to catechism classes there. Occasionally, Harm went to the Doleantie (Grieving or Aggrieved) church with his best friend.

Hoeksema later recounted his membership in an Afscheiding church (A-Church) and his affinity with a Doleantie church (B-Church) as follows:

I was at that time member of the A-Church, but attended and was member of what was virtually a B-Young Men’s Society. And it is not at all difficult for me to recall the tenseness of the situation on those days.¹

Hoeksema had more affinity with the Doleantie churches. For this reason Dr. Abraham Kuyper influenced Hoeksema’s theology, especially regarding the emphasis on sovereign, particular grace and on the inseparable relationship of election to the covenant of grace. However, the theology of the Afscheiding movement safeguarded Hoeksema from leaning toward the rationalistic tendencies of the Doleantie. Moreover, the Afscheiding’s emphasis on God’s relationship with his elect people seemed to have helped Hoeksema develop his covenant conception that the covenant is a bond of friendship and fellowship between Jehovah and his elect people in Jesus Christ.

Hoeksema immigrated to the United States in 1904. Great poverty was one of the reasons that led him to leave the Netherlands, but the most distressing reason was the many ecclesiastical conflicts between some of the Afscheiding churches (specifically the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland [CGK]) and the Doleantie churches, which had merged in 1892 as a new denomination, the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (Reformed Churches in the Netherlands [GKN]). As a federation of 700 congregations and composed of 370,000 members, the union was massive, but that new denomination continued to be fraught with doctrinal controversies. For instance, those of the Afscheiding and the Doleantie viewed their mother church differently.

Concerning those reformatory perspectives, Prof. Russell Dykstra wrote,

The Secession [Afscheiding] repudiated the state church and labeled it the false church. They viewed the Secession as a work of reformation, where the true church of Christ was re-formed, that is, formed again. On the other hand, the Doleantie viewed itself as the continuing Hervormde Kerk [state church (NHK)] in the Netherlands. They insisted that all the members of the NHK were members legally under the consistories of the Doleantie. They hesitated calling the NHK a false church. They desired to continue reforming the local churches.²

The union of 1892 had dissenters who were dissatisfied with the union, especially because of their distaste of Abraham Kuyper, who had driven the union into fruition. Rev. Frederik P. L. C. van Lingen, Rev. Philippus J. Wessels, and Rev. Jacobus Wisse led the dissenters. The ministers and their respective churches did not join the GKN and retained the name of the Afscheiding churches, CGK.³

The Afscheiding’s emphasis on God’s relationship with his elect people seemed to have helped Hoeksema develop his covenant conception that the covenant is a bond of friendship and fellowship between Jehovah and his elect people in Jesus Christ.

The quotation below conveys succinctly not only the key doctrinal differences between the CGK and Abraham Kuyper but also the covenant conceptions of the CGK, around which all doctrinal questions center. Moreover, the quotation has contemporary implications concerning the character of the experience of covenant fellowship with God, that is, whether or not the believer cooperates with God in that aspect. One should also notice the close attention Kuyper gave to the idea that all the children of believers are presupposed to be regenerated, which idea Hoeksema later countered with his organic view of the covenant. The views of Kuyper and the CGK regarding the covenant are as follows:

In the churches dominated by the thinking of Kuyper, the doctrine of election is central and becomes the basis of a system of thinking which Rev. Henstra characterizes as the “covenant system.” The justification of the sinner takes place in eternity, for Kuyper, and it has nothing to do with man or his faith…Kuyper’s order was: justification, regeneration, calling, conversion, faith, sanctification. The dissenters of 1892 claim that the order, according to Scripture, is: calling, regeneration, conversion, faith, justification, sanctification…Kuyper subordinates the covenant of grace to the doctrine of election and therefore maintains that the covenant includes only the elect…Rev. Henstra writes that because Kuyper thinks of the covenant of grace as having been established with the elect, virtually all who are born within the covenant circle are elect. “This election takes place in Christ, which means that the elect stood before God eternally as recipients of grace and as justified. Therefore we may assume, when they come into the world, that regeneration has taken place at the time of their birth or before it. This regeneration, according to Kuyper, does not as a rule take place by means of the Word, which is also why he speaks of an ‘immediate regeneration’”…According to Rev. Henstra, the Christian Reformed Churches of the Netherlands maintain that the covenant “…is established in time, and not in eternity; it is established with Abraham and his seed, and later, in the New Testament terms, with believers and their seed. Thus it does not include the elect alone but believers and their natural seed. Ishmael, Esau, and others were also included in the covenant”…Such a covenant demands a human response, in the form of faith and conversion. The response that is needed represents a fulfillment of the covenant. That the covenant has indeed been fulfilled in the life of a particular believer is also a matter of experience (believing). Rev. Henstra writes: “The covenant thus asks for experience, and this is primarily the characteristic difference between the Reformed and Christian Reformed views of the covenant…we on our side believe that God gives His promise as a basis for our plea; it is on this basis that we beseech Him for what He has promised, namely, salvation and blessing…” The difficulty with the Reformed (as opposed to Christian Reformed) view of this matter is that “we have and possess all of this; we already are justified before God, and therefore also regenerated. Faith is only a becoming aware that one is justified”…Rev. Henstra writes that disagreements regarding this area of doctrine were also the cause…of the liberation of 1944…indeed the events of 1944 are to be regarded as “a justification of our ecclesiastical standpoint.” (Plantinga 1995:218–219).⁴

However, within the GKN doctrinal issues constantly resurfaced, which frequently resulted in distrust among the churches. Hoeksema described the strange situation within the GKN, which reflected ecclesiastical disunity rather than unity:

That they were called A and B was not simply reminiscent of the past. It meant that in many places the churches of the two groups did not have fellowship together, stood sharply opposed to each other. In the city of Groningen, where undersigned lived till 1904, the Reformed Churches A and B congregated on the sabbath in four different meeting places. Normally, according to the system in vogue in the Netherlands, the entire group would have been one congregation. The different ministers would, alternately, have preached in all the churches. However, the actual situation was that the one B-minister never preached in the A-churches, and the ministers of the A-churches never appeared in the pulpit of the B-church. Nor was this situation due merely to ministerial antagonism. The people themselves were deeply interested. They listened closely to the preaching to detect any trace of deviation from the truth as they saw it.⁵

Rev. Joshua Engelsma succinctly laid out the doctrinal differences between the Afscheiding and Doleantie churches in the GKN this way:

There were especially four areas of doctrinal difference remaining between them. First, regarding justification, the Afscheiding generally maintained justification in time by faith while the Doleantie tended to emphasize eternal justification. Second, regarding regeneration, the Afscheiding taught mediate regeneration while the Doleantie argued for immediate regeneration. Third, regarding the ground of baptism, the Afscheiding said the ground for baptism is the promise of God while the Doleantie followed the thinking of Kuyper and said the ground for baptism is presupposed regeneration. Fourth, regarding the logical order of God’s eternal decrees, the Afscheiding tended to be infralapsarian while the Doleantie were more supralapsarian.⁶

After years of conflict a compromise was made at the Synod of Utrecht in 1905. Leaders from the two groups drew up the Conclusions of Utrecht to bring peace to the GKN. Hoeksema did not witness this meeting since a year prior he had left for America. The meeting at Utrecht and the Conclusions “still did not bring about a settled peace in the GKN. Finally, the issues would come to a head in the 1940s with the deposition of Klaas Schilder and the formation of the GKN ‘Liberated.’”⁷

Van Raalte and the Dutch Reformed Church in America

The Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in America (later the Reformed Church of America [RCA]) was established in 1628 in the United States in New Amsterdam, which is now New York City. The RCA was a daughter of the state church in the Netherlands (NHK).

Emigrants from the Netherlands were attracted to the RCA, which gave the denomination a steady growth. And after the separation of the faithful saints from the NHK and the formation of the Afscheiding in 1834 led by Hendrik de Cock, a stream of Dutch immigrants reached American soil. In November 1846 and 1847, respectively, Rev. Albertus Christiaan van Raalte and Rev. Hendrik Pieter Scholte led the immigrants to set foot in America. Scholte led about 850 immigrants to settle west of the Mississippi River in the town of Pella, Iowa. The immigrants had contemplated the name Pella while they were still in the Netherlands:

As early as 1835 Scholte had warned King William I, “My fellow believers might be forced to seek a place in the world to serve God according to the dictates of their consciences.” With continued persecution by the national clergy, the resolute Dutch pastor again warned “that God might yet prepare a Pella for his oppressed people, when the judgment of God shall come over our Fatherland.”⁸

Though Scholte had association with Van Raalte as a fellow Afscheiding minister, a brother-in-law, and a former member of the Scholte Club in the University of Leiden, in America Scholte wanted to establish an independent colony and a congregationalist congregation in a little town on the Iowa prairie.⁹

Prof. David Engelsma wrote that by the grace of God such an independent attitude was foreign to Herman Hoeksema:

He loved the church. He loved her above all in the PRC, but he loved Christ’s church. He worked in and for the church. He founded, guided, suffered for, and devoted himself to a denomination of churches. As a churchman—a Reformed churchman—he insisted on, and submitted to, the Church Order of Dordt, not only as regards the government of the local church by elders but also as regards the government of the churches by the major assemblies. No independent, he!¹⁰

Van Raalte and his fellow immigrants established a colony in Holland, Michigan. He led the immigrants to join the churches that in 1867 became the RCA. His settlement in western Michigan became the RCA Classis of Holland. His attraction to joining the RCA is a puzzle. The Afscheiding churches were known for their sharp condemnation of their mother, the NHK, because of her fierce state-sponsored laws concerning those who dissented from the state church and most of all because of her departure from the Reformed faith and religion.

Such condemnation of and separation from a false church are demanded by scripture and the Reformed creeds. 

Marvin Kamps held the same negative evaluation and condemnation of the NHK, and his evaluation also explains the character of a false church and what gospel she holds that makes her undeniably false:

The false gospel of the false church is very agreeable to the nonchristian world; it cannot hate that gospel or its promoters, for the false church is one with the world, shares its hopes and dreams, and uses the same methods of learning and education based on human discovery and imagination. Jesus told us in John 15:18–23 and John 16:1–3 that the world will hate and persecute us; but the false church is never persecuted. It need not pray for God’s keeping and protection, for it is the hater and the persecutor. The false church is the true church’s most bitter and hateful enemy. De Cock and the Secession people experienced this reality prior to 1834 and more specifically and concretely after 1834.¹¹

Rev. Andrew Lanning also described the condemnation of the NHK by the Afscheiding as something clear and public. Lanning emphasized the antithesis as well, which should be sharply maintained even today:

The Seceders publicly announced that the state church was apostate; and, while they submitted to the government in all things, they disobeyed the government’s antichristian rules. The division between the two peoples in the Netherlands that had been present before the Afscheiding was brought into stark relief by the Seceders’ separation from the state church.

The Afscheiding illustrates the truth that there is a real spiritual division between people. There is an unbridgeable antithesis between the children of light and the children of darkness. Christ has no concord with Belial, and the believer has no concord with an infidel. The antithesis manifests itself in the believer’s spiritual separation from the unbeliever.¹²

Such condemnation of and separation from a false church are demanded by scripture and the Reformed creeds. It is not foreign to seceding members to condemn their mother as false as soon as it becomes clear that she has become false. Such condemnation is necessary since no one has the right to live in a separate state from a true church and to remain in fellowship with those who do not belong to a true church of Jesus Christ. Alongside the condemnation of existing errors in a controversy, reforming saints must condemn the false church—an unequivocal calling of the Christian. That is Reformed, and that is one of the elements in church reformation. It would be impossible to pronounce whether a church is true or false if believers were not warranted to make judgments. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1), “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Because Van Raalte knew that the RCA was a daughter of the NHK, he should have avoided contact with the RCA. Considering that the RCA was no better than her sister in the Netherlands, one wonders why he was so attracted to the RCA. His joining the RCA was in principle like returning to the false NHK that persecuted the church of Jesus Christ in the Netherlands. To join the RCA was a repudiation not only of the reason that Van Raalte and his followers emigrated but also of their faith. Maybe it could be argued that Van Raalte became so attached to the RCA because the RCA helped the immigrants with great hospitality in a foreign land. From a carnal point of view, this is understandable since the Dutch authorities in their old homeland were not generous toward them.

Prof. Herman Hanko offered an explanation for why Van Raalte joined the RCA:

Van Raalte himself was not strong theologically. He was of the weak wing of the Secession, and he not only led the settlers into the RCA without any qualms, but remained in the RCA when many of the settlers left that denomination to form the CRC. He apparently did not share the concern of his followers to remain doctrinally faithful to the Reformed faith.¹³

Moreover, Van Raalte was among the liberals in the Secession. Together with his brother-in-law, Anthony Brummelkamp, he “defended a free church polity and liberal conscience,” a conviction that could easily find an abode in the RCA.¹⁴

“They agreed to join our Synod,” reported the Synod of the RCA in June 1849.¹⁵ This had long been planned by Van Raalte. In 1850 Van Raalte and his followers had joined the RCA, but within seven years of union, there was turmoil and unrest throughout the denomination. What a tragic union, another union that was not rooted in the unity of the truth of Jesus Christ. Unrest after unrest characterized the lives of many who had just joined the RCA, and that was primarily due to the gradual departure of the RCA from the Reformed faith and religion. The result of that union was also so tragic.

Hanko described the situation in the RCA this way:

Some churches there did not administer the sacraments in the divine worship services. Lodge membership was not at all uncommon. Hymns were sung in place of the Psalms. A certain spirit of worldliness and willingness to conform to American ways was common. It all added up to the conclusion on the part of many that they had made a serious mistake in joining the RCA.¹⁶

 

The Christian Reformed Church

Significant doctrinal differences in the RCA with Van Raalte and the members of his colony precipitated the 1857 secession that led to the formation of the Christian Reformed Church.

Rev. Henry Beets listed seven things that the seceders of 1857 objected to in the RCA:

1. Departure from the Calvinism of the standards—particularly as to the two points just mentioned, atonement and election.

2. Neglect of Catechism-preaching and teaching.

3. The use of 800 hymns contrary to the Church Order of Dordrecht.

4. The toleration of Free Masons as members in good standing.

5. Private baptisms taking the place of public administration of the sacrament in connection with preaching, according to the Reformed principle.

6. Admission of non-reformed people to the Communion table: open communion.

7. Neglect of family-visiting as required by the Church Order.¹⁷

The Christian Reformed Church’s first classical assembly convened in 1857 and was represented by five congregations: Grand Rapids, Vriesland, Noordelos, Graafschap, and Grand Haven. Originally the churches adopted the name Holland Reformed Church. After many name changes throughout the years, in 1904 the denomination adopted the name Christian Reformed Church.

In 1868 a congregation in Chicago was organized. This is probably the same church that was known as First Christian Reformed Church of Chicago. Herman Hoeksema joined this church, and after four years of membership, in the fall of 1908, he entered college in pursuance of his desire to enter seminary to train for the gospel ministry. The seminary that Hoeksema attended was established in 1876 as Calvin College and Preparatory School. Hoeksema graduated from Calvin in 1915 and became eligible for his first call.

God was not mocked. He had been raising a godly man whose ministry would be centered around the development of the doctrine of the covenant.

During Hoeksema’s tenure as a seminary student, William Heyns was a professor of practical theology at Calvin seminary. Heyns was an advocate of the conditional covenant. He taught that the covenant was essentially a promise that was unconditionally given, but the fulfillment of the promise was upon the conditions of faith and obedience. I hope to present more of Heyns’ conception of the covenant in the next installment of this series, the Lord willing. For now let it be known to the reader that Heyns promoted an Arminian view of the covenant, which he spoke of in terms of objective bequest and subjective application. No matter how conscious he was to avoid detection for Arminianism, his remarks betrayed him almost immediately. Succinctly evaluating Heyns’ conception of the covenant, Hoeksema wrote that “the presentation of Heyns is nothing else than the old Pelagian error applied to the doctrine of the covenant.”¹⁸

When Hoeksema was pastoring at Fourteenth Street Christian Reformed Church, he met Professor Heyns, who by that time had written a book titled Manual of Reformed Doctrine. Lois Kregel, Hoeksema’s daughter, recounted that encounter:

He [Heyns] asked Dad what he thought about the book. Dad thought briefly, then replied, “With your thought, Professor, you do not save one reprobate, and you don’t build up the elect. Under my preaching, the elect are instructed, and the reprobate are not deceived that they have an imaginary heaven.” Professor Heyns was angry, but Dad had finally spoken the words that he had been searching for, words that spelled out his feeling on the doctrine of the covenant. It was the beginning of a lifelong study that would be shadowed in controversy.¹⁹

The God of the covenant, Jehovah, had been preparing Hoeksema for this work, unbeknownst to Professor Heyns. The professor purposed to destroy the doctrine of the covenant, but God was not mocked. He had been raising a godly man whose ministry would be centered around the development of the doctrine of the covenant.

Heyns was angry; so are all the enemies of the gospel of God’s fellowship with his people.

We will see next time the covenant conception of Professor Heyns and how father Hoeksema refuted him with irrefutable proofs from Holy Writ and the Reformed confessions.