Herman Bavinck on the Dutch Secession of 1834

[Reformed Covenanter]

In addition, the king had, in 1816, without a semblance of right or of necessity, forced upon the Dutch Reformed Church an organization and a government which were utterly at variance with the Presbyterian system. Complaints and protestations of grievance were not lacking; but not until 1834 was courage mustered for action. ...

For more, see Herman Bavinck on the Dutch Secession of 1834.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Curious about the N.B. on the blog post. What might you take issue with in Bavinck's words? It seems pretty standard Reformed thinking, at least from where I'm sitting.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Curious about the N.B. on the blog post. What might you take issue with in Bavinck's words? It seems pretty standard Reformed thinking, at least from where I'm sitting.

He asserts that the Dutch Reformed Church was no longer a true church of Christ, which is not something that I would want to concur with - at least without knowing more information.

 

[Guido's Brother]

He asserts that the Dutch Reformed Church was no longer a true church of Christ, which is not something that I would want to concur with - at least without knowing more information.

That became a huge issue in the discussions leading up to the Union of 1892. The Secession churches (Christelijke Gereformeerde) insisted that the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk was a false church and that's why they had to leave. The Doleantie churches (Nederduitse Gereformeerde) refused to make that judgment about the NHK. Which led the Secession people to say: well, then why did you leave? Eventually the Union happened, but with the understanding that no one was bound to any judgment about whether the NHK was a true or false church. But it was also with the understanding that there had to be a full separation from the NHK -- the United churches would have nothing to do with them.