Response to Christo Benadé reactions to the complaints of the Strand Congregation of the Calvinistic Dutch Reform Church in South Africa

Source: https://namibie.ngkerk.net/dolering-strand-gemeente-se-7-punte-en-die-reaksie-daarop-gesteun-deur-die-moderatuur/

Some serious events happened in the Calvinistic Church of South Africa in the Dutch Reform Church the past decade or longer.

Those who studied at their seminaries will witness that the sola scriptura and sola fide roles were squashed causing a suffocating of members of that church, not necessarily by the general synod always, but sometimes, as will be indicated below.

First one must say that nearly all the seminaries think it is "progressive" to break free from Synod insistences on Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidei, Sola Christi and Sola Gratia. It is the four solas.

When you read the General Synod (AS = Algemene Sinode) writing on aspects of Satan, Creation, Virgin birth of Christ, role of the authority of the Scripture, acknowledging only man and woman as married, as late as 2006/2007 and 2019 and now 2023 here brought together by Christo Benadé of Namibie, it is clear that they seem to be in good standing. The leadership of the pastoral core. Not the professors at the seminaries because that is another ball-game.

But, something happened over the years that brought a deep rift between members and their pastors, students and their professors, Professors and professors, Churchboards and their Rings or Rings and the Synod or Synod and General Synod.

The newspapers and Kerkbode had a lot to say about these matters.

Whereas dr. Benadé could defend nicely nearly all the points raised by the Strand congregation as their objection for dolating = "mourning" in the words of Abraham Kyuper in 1886 starting with this genre of "crying over the state of the church", some points he could not defend that clear.

When the role of the Scripture was explained and two words were connected by Benadé: Scripture Utilization and Scriptural Authority there entered a fine-print extra that is disturbing:

"Daarom bely ons steeds gelowig dat dié waarheid bo alles is.

1. Soos nog altyd vir die Gereformeerde tradisie, beteken hierdie belydenis vir ons nié:

* dat die Bybel vereis dat ons ons denkvermoë, wat ’n gawe van God is, moet opoffer nie;

* dat die Bybel gesien kan word as ’n eksakte handboek vir historiese of wetenskaplike kennis nie;

* dat die hele Bybel so maklik is om te verstaan dat enige mens selfstandig en onmiddellik alles daarin kan begryp nie;

* dat die Bybel vir ons die volle kennis oor alle aspekte van die werklikheid gee, sodat geen verdere menslike nadenke of navorsing nodig is nie.

What these sub-rules added are the things that the Bible does not expect us to do:

1. give up our sense of reason. Reason is a gift of God and should not be sacrificed.

My comment: Yes, but pure reason does not exist. It should be "laundromat washed" by the Holy Spirit, with humble faith and submission to everything else written in the Bible and guarding not to create bumps or dodging texts to uphold self-created ideas.

If one text is against the reason's concept, the concept cannot stand. There is unfortunately in the final points of Benadé such an example and I think the Strand Congregation got it right here. We will look at it below.

2. The second star above, that the Bible should not be seen as an "exact, precise" report for history or science. What! This is a very dangerous statement in faith. No one can accept this position. There is only one reason why Christianity is existing and that is because the Word of God is true and really happened. Benadé introduces here the "dodge-ball principle" in religion.

3. That the Bible is a difficult book that is not so easily understood and that laymen cannot easily get to a full picture.

Benadé shot himself in the foot here. The Holy Spirit led many laymen to very deep understandings that surpassed the findings of any scientist or theologian or linguist. I am a theologian and linguist and there are laymen through the ages that got things right that surprised me. Benadé introduces here the principle of the Bible as an "Ivory tower object for the initiated small click" but not for the masses out there. This is not correct.

4. That the Bible is not full knowledge and that other knowledge will be found outside the Bible. He claimed that the Synod decided that the Bible is not enough to understand everything in more afterthought or more investigations outside the Bible. The principles in science and technology are all already in Scripture why? Maths, engineering, Chemistry, Physics were in every generation in the past, in biblical times also. There are surprising correct principles to be found in the Bible that will make scientists wonder.

Then after these slips, Benadé did not explain the main objection of these dolating churches very well.

He tries to explain that the General Synod apologized that they had anti-homophobic statements and thoughts in the past and that they now want to recognize that many were hurt by that.

What he needs to understand is that those who expressed these words were expressing what the Bible taught them.

He claims that the statements in the Bible is only about living a loose life not about transsexuals and LGBTQH communities. The clarity of the anti- in the Bible cannot be covered with Benadé's poor formulations here.

Did the AS or General Synod made a mistake to apologize? Answer. They did. Did they break one of their rules on Sola Scripture? They did.

They let Culture be superimposed upon the Scripture and threw out proper exegesis.