Bøger udgivet af Pantocrator Press

"Then Jesus said to them, 'O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself" (Luke 24: 25-27). So spoke Jesus to the travellers to Emmaus. The incident was captured by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), in the painting gracing the cover of this book. What was Jesus' message? The entire Old Testament speaks of Him and to Him. As Paul wrote in Galatians ch. 3, Abraham's seed - not seeds, seed - is Christ, and it is to Christ that the promises to Abraham accrue (v. 16). Therefore, it is the church - the body of that Christ - to which the Abrahamic covenant refers.Is this a species of so-called "replacement theology"? By no means. The church existed just as well in the Old Testament as in the New; it was not, as is too often asserted, founded at Pentecost, replacing Israel. In the Old Testament, fleshly Israel harbored spiritual Israel; in the New, the church has expanded, gone into all the nations. Paul gives the rationale: "hardness in part to Israel has happened until the fullness of the nations may come in" (Romans 11: 25, Literal Standard Version). This and more are unfolded in this marvellous introduction to full-orbed covenant theology as envisioned by the great spokesman of the Dutch Reformed church, P. J. Hoedemaker.

Radical Two-Kingdom theology would have us believe that God has created a divided world. This world is bifurcated into two realms, one of "nature" and the other of "grace," whereby the things common to believer and unbeliever are understood to occupy a distinct and autonomous realm, "nature," while the things particular to believers are located in a separate, "higher," "spiritual" realm, the realm of "grace." Supposedly, the latter is to be kept unsoiled by contact with the natural realm, which then goes by the name of "the world." The Christian as Christian is therefore only responsible for the realm of grace; but as human being, undistinguished from unbelievers, he is responsible to act in the realm of nature. By what criterion? Something that goes under the name of natural law. The crux of the issue is, the two realms have nothing in common, the better to preserve the spiritual realm from contamination from below. This may sound pious and spiritually pure, but it is in fact a recipe for human autonomy and nothing less than a betrayal of the Christian's calling to pursue the kingdom of Christ in and through the work of everyday, "natural" life. For one day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is King of Kings, Lord of Lords; and the glory and honor of the nations will be brought into His kingdom. This includes culture and politics, for there are no such Two Kingdoms. "Woe unto the preacher who does not sound the alarm when the Good News is attacked from within the church, when the Law is pitted against the Gospel, and when Christ's Crown Rights over all of life is disputed. Especially in this day and age when unity is elevated far above purity and when virtue signaling seems to be the order of the day, I am most grateful for this excellent contribution by Rev. Bret McAtee. This work robs the serious reader of every excuse not to stand up against a false and dangerous doctrine - one that is by no means a minor issue, but an assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. I am most thankful that McAtee has answered the call and dealt with the assailants, not with cheap rhetoric, but by biblically interacting with their own words."Rev. Sacha Walicord

Philippus Hoedemaker and Abraham Kuyper shared a dream: to establish a university on the foundation of the Reformed faith. They were among the three or four men in the entire nation who, by Philippus van Ronkel's count, could pull off such a thing. Hoedemaker was not deterred by the smallness of the beginnings, for God could accomplish great things through such a Gideon's band. The church needed it and the nation needed it. Unbelief would not prevail.They will not have itThe old NetherlandsIt remains, despite its miseryThe property of God and the fathers!So they sang with Isaac da Costa.Hoedemaker's efforts to pursue science on the Reformed basis, in which the Bible and theology play a central role, is chronicled in the addresses included here. The Dedication given at the founding of the university explains the intention in broad strokes. A thorough justification of the Reformed basis of the university is provided in "The Antirevolutionary Principle and Higher Education." From there Hoedemaker proceeds to a historical investigation of the Reformed principle vis-à-vis its main antagonists in the Dutch university context - Cartesianism and rationalism, Roman Catholicism, and Lutheranism. In "Church and School" he once again justifies the existence of the Free University and its Reformed principle, but acknowledges some dissension in the ranks, as the university begins to feel the effect of the church struggle. And in the provocatively titled " Why Study Theology at the Free University?" he confronts his students with the question, are you simply seeking a paying position somewhere, or is your heart committed to pursuing the truth, to putting science on its proper basis, regardless of the cost? The question was anything but academic, as the university was not accredited and its graduates could count on employment neither in the national church nor in civil government.Then came the church split and Hoedemaker's departure from the Free University. But he could still speak of the love he bore for that institution, despite its departure from the Reformed principle as he formulated it. "All the church and all the people" had become his motto, something which Kuyper and the Free University left far behind.

Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer"Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer. I heard that you don't know who Stahl is. And I could not help wondering - please pardon my incivility, but ... what rock have you been hiding under? Never heard of Stahl? Why, he is simply one of the greatest statesmen and legal scholars that Germany ever produced."Everyone knows Stahl - usually without wanting to. For he has many opponents, who execrated what he stood for. They had a host of names for him: 'a friend of compulsion, of princely absolutism, of medieval prejudices and misconceptions, a thoughtless fanatic, attached to obsolete forms, who foolishly mixes politics with religion; an ultra-Lutheran, Puseyite, head of the Junker party, proponent of feudal abuses, sophist in scientific outfit, dreamer about whose metaphysical speculations one reluctantly racks one's brains.' When he died, they were happy to see him go: 'Every sane person gladly sends such wicked men as this crusader chasing the holy cross, when heaven pleases to call them.' Crusader! And they say that of someone who is Jewish! That's right, Stahl was a convert to Christianity. And then, about his legacy - they are certain it will not follow after him: 'It does not look as if Stahl will rise from the dead anymore.'"But it will. I - we - will make sure that it does. Stahl was a voice crying in the wilderness, but his message is timeless. The kingdom of God and of His Christ will be recognized, on earth as it is in heaven. Here and now, among the rulers and powers, among the nations. 'Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.' That is Stahl's message, not only in private, among the congregation and around the dinner table, but in public, in the halls of power, the groves of academia, the popular consciousness, the public's opinion. The gospel is an affair of public interest, it is a message to the nations. It concerns their weal and woe, their destiny. Such is by no means a matter of indifference to the kingdom of God."That has been my message as well. Believe me, it is not a popular one in this day and age. The entire Zeitgeist is running against it. No one wants to hear of 'the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth' - not even His followers! But does that mean that we are to be silenced? Or worse yet, to silence ourselves? Forbid it, Almighty God!"It is time men like Stahl were recognized for their work, their achievement, and their vision for the church, the nations, and the kingdom of God. It is past time to embrace and build upon their legacies, especially Stahl's, which is so rich, profitable, rewarding. Read this memorial and acquaint yourself with someone who well deserves your undivided attention."

On August 1st, 1901, a new government was installed in the Netherlands, formed by Antirevolutionary Party (ARP) leader Abraham Kuyper. The culmination of decades of relentless effort, it represented a new departure in Dutch politics: a government explicitly invoking the Christian revelation as the basis for its policy. "Revelation over Reason!" had been the battle cry of the campaign, and the majority-Christian Dutch electorate had answered the call.But would the policy results of this Christian coalition government answer to such a high ideal? This was the question posed by P. J. Hoedemaker shortly after the coalition's accession to power. In a series of lectures entitled A State with the Bible, he began to weigh the coalition in the balance, setting forth criteria to determine whether the result would answer to the promise.A second series of articles published just prior to the election campaign of 1905 had Hoedemaker drawing up the balance sheet. The conclusion was not encouraging: The coalition had fallen short precisely in the areas where a "state with the Bible" should have stood strong. For Hoedemaker, it had become clear that the question was not one of right or left in terms of party politics. No, it was Neither Right nor Left but the Royal Road, the way of a Christian public policy that transcends party politics.This conclusion was hammered home in a third publication promulgated after the election defeat for Kuyper in 1905. The title speaks volumes: The Birthright for a Mess of Pottage, an allusion to Esau's contemptible bargain with Jacob. This was what came of a Christian coalition pursuing the "politics of antithesis," and Hoedemaker's assessment hits home not only with regard to the politics of Abraham Kuyper but with the politics of today. For it is the same set of issues with which we still struggle, revolving as they do around the presupposition of the neutral state.The three titles translated here are set in their proper context and as such are allowed to disgorge the wealth of vision contained in them to a generation far downstream from these events, but still feeling their effects. The bottom line: electoral politics in their current configuration are a failure and cannot help but be a failure. The approach needs to be rethought from top to bottom. Hoedemaker offers us a place to start.

What is the place of "organization" in the church? To what degree does the church need to be "organized"? At bottom, that was the question addressed by the famed Lutheran legal scholar and church historian Rudolph Sohm (1841-1917). His conclusion was radical: organization was anathema to the church as a spiritual body, and was only tolerable as a concession to the necessities of temporal life.While this conclusion sounds radical, it is actually, in practical terms, the baseline position of the denominational framework as we experience it in our day. Denominationalism treats outward organization as a matter of indifference, so that any number of options are available, all of them equally legitimate. The rationale behind this indifference lies in the notion that each individual Christian is the source of authority in the church, the framework of which depends upon consent and choice. It is not a question of what God says about it, but what man says. For to think otherwise is to impose upon our wills, our choice, and that is not something moderns can tolerate.Sohm and the moderns meet at the point of departure: the church in terms of outward, external order is the product of man's decision, not God's command. The two authors included in this book beg to differ. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930), distinguished church historian, argued that the church developed an organizational structure early on, and it did so in obedience to its Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Organization and law are indeed spiritual values, not just earthly constructs. Josef Bohatec (1876-1954) similarly argued that John Calvin's opposition to Lutheran indifference in matters of organization and law was a matter of obedience to the Word of God. Their positions are presented here, in their own words.The issue is anything but academic. A proper doctrine of the visible church is the prerequisite for a recovery of Christian culture and politics, indeed for the extension of Christ's kingdom on earth. Indifference in this is in fact supremely dangerous, because it betrays Christ's lordship. The arguments presented, taken together, lead to the inescapable conclusion that Sohm's concept of the church and of law are crippling to a proper ecclesiology. They provide aid and comfort to the notion that the visible, organized church is the problem, when in fact it is the solution.

Once upon a time, the state shared the public square with the church. The central location of the church building in every European town is mute testimony to this state of affairs. But those days are long gone. Nowadays there is an implicit or explicit consensus regarding the proper place of the church: out of sight and out of mind.How has this sea change come about? Through a complete metanoia ("change of mind") regarding the public square. Church and state used to be in agreement about ultimate reality, but then came the wars of religion and the desire for a neutral state. This gave us the agnostic state, incapable of making any judgement regarding truth or falsehood regarding religion. Freedom of religion has been the result. But this freedom has come with a price - the loss of a grip on ultimate reality, on transcendent standards and values. It is every person for him- or herself, the triumph of congeries of opinion over truth.Under these conditions, the church has itself experienced a transformation. It has been fragmented into myriad churches, none of which may claim ultimacy, all of which claim to proclaim the truth. We no longer have the body of Christ visibly expressed; instead we have denominations, private-legal constructs expressive of various consumer-oriented flavors of faith orientation.Has unity then been abandoned? No; for it is not a question of unity or no unity, it is a question of what kind of unity. In the modern world, the churches have exchanged unity in terms of confession, with unity in terms of politics. Political parties are the vehicles through which Christians express a joint conviction. And this has brought the church down to the level of the interest group and the lobbyist, the inevitable result of an age of denominationalism.Over 100 years ago, P. J. Hoedemaker already delineated and analyzed this state of affairs. The abysmal condition of the Dutch Reformed church formed the historical backdrop for his analysis, but the principles he developed during the course of his critique of the national church are applicable across the board in the modern world. Hoedemaker excavates the biblical and Reformational foundations of ecclesiology, the basics apart from which the church cannot escape from its current abasement.

To this day, Abraham Kuyper stands as a shining example of responsible and effective Christian action in all areas of life. A leading journalist, theologian, churchman, and politician in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Kuyper effectuated, during a career spanning 50 years, an astonishing metamorphosis of the Dutch political and ecclesiastical landscape. Lifting high the banner of the universal lordship of Christ, he managed to revitalize a moribund political party and mobilize the so-called kleyne luyden, the "little guys," into a social, ecclesiastical, educational, and political force to be reckoned with. And he did all of this while proclaiming, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!"What is less well understood is the degree to which Kuyper spoke out of two sides of his mouth. In fact, Kuyper shortchanged his trumpeted Christocratic agenda in the interest of political expediency. From early on he redefined theological categories in order to implement a dualism between church and state that could allow him to harness the church as a political action committee in the secularized democratic environment, all the while posturing as a champion of historic Christian theopolitical civilization.The epicenter of this revaluation of Christian values was Article 36 of the Belgic Confession, which mandated that the civil magistrate "remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-christ may be thus destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted." This, in the view of Kuyper and his movement, was a denial of true Calvinism, which championed freedom of conscience and religion.Hoedemaker disputed this, arguing that Kuyper had set up a straw man. Did Article 36 really entail violation of conscience and the elimination of religious freedom? No - this was a smokescreen. In fact, Kuyper's solution was the problem, as it did not take the Bible seriously. Hoedemaker returned to the Reformed fathers to recover a sound Reformed political theology, capable of being defended and advanced in the modern world.Hoedemaker had once stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Kuyper to advance the very same agenda of Christ's lordship over every area of life. But he came to realize that Kuyper's practical agenda deviated fundamentally from this proclaimed agenda, starting with the separation from the national church and culminating in Kuyper's "mutilation" (A. A. van Ruler) of Article 36.

At the dawn of the modern age a debate took place that would determine the further course of Western and thus world civilization. This debate did not take place in any assembly or debating chamber. It took place in the hearts and minds of the trend-setting intelligentsia of the day.Two figures engaged in this debate, acting as signposts at the crossroads which materialized in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, when a decision loomed and a path had not yet irrevocably been embarked upon. They functioned at the time and place destined to be the stage upon which this decision would become apparent: in and around the Dutch Republic in its struggle for freedom from the Spanish monarchy. They shared the same inheritance, constraints, and influences; the one fashioned it in a way that proved a resounding success which would be received as orthodoxy, the framework of right-thinking people for centuries to come; the other in a way that, although offering a coherent and constructive alternative, languished in obscurity, only in our day receiving renewed interest from the scattered flock of academics and churchmen (and women) who either make the knowledge of such things their business, or share a wistfulness for and inkling of this world we have lost.The one is Hugo Grotius, world renowned, the so-called "Father of International Law." Although the appropriateness of such an appellation has been drawn into well-deserved doubt in our time, what should not be in doubt is the paradigmatic role his work played in the course of our civilization. Grotius fashioned the synthesis of the socio-political-legal-constitutional materials, the harvest of centuries of scholarship, into the familiar modern shape, which this book will explore in extenso. It is his path that was chosen, his seed that has now reached harvest time.The other is Johannes Althusius, forgotten by the Enlightenment but restored to honor in the 19th century by the German "revivalist" of associationalism Otto von Gierke. Althusius drew on the same source materials as Grotius to fashion his own synthesis of political, legal, and constitutional thought, a synthesis which then fell into abeyance as its competitor synthesis triumphed, but which in our day has enjoyed a renaissance that promises a theoretical renewal of our understanding of constitutionalism and the rule of law.These two men encapsulate the conflict of Western civilization. The path of the one was taken, the path of the other eschewed. For at the crossroads of Western civilization the eventful, fateful choice was made to go down the path of rationalist individualism instead of the path of communitarian associationalism, the path of Grotius instead of the path of Althusius. It is their achievements which are elucidated in this book.

There are many forms of liturgy in the contemporary church, but they are not always critically assessed. Liturgy can be viewed as a sealed encounter in which behind closed doors heaven and earth meet and participate in each other. But it can also be viewed as an exercise in acceptance of the world outside, where critical assessment is neglected in favor of socio-political engagement for what passes as "ethical" on the world stage. But true liturgy, writes Dr. Noordmans, is accomplished in the full consciousness of sin, and the sacrifice by which that sin is dealt with. There can then be no unquestioned acceptance of the world; by the same token, there is no turning away from the world in an otherworldly flight to transcendence. There is only the critical confrontation with ourselves and the world around us, in the liturgy which, as the apostle Paul emphasizes, takes place not behind church walls so much as in the "field of the world" (Matthew 13: 38). The liturgy is restrained by the eschatological realizations of original sin and the death and resurrection of the Savior, as contained in the sacraments. And the Word can then operate in the field of the world as it ought to. Reformed liturgy as it has come down through the ages is, Dr. Noordmans is convinced, a reflection of these realities. And only such a liturgy can do justice to the gospel.