t2

REMEMBER,
BUTTERBALL TURKEY
IS NOT AFFILIATED
w/ GRANDPA's
BUTTERBALL FARMS
BUTTER, APART from the
fact that grandpa sold
the name “butterball”
many years ago to the
turkey company (as an
aside, grandpa dabbled
in the meat business as
well, & always hosted
big thanksgiving meals
at the butterball
mansion:

The Recipe Critic

Saturday, December 27, 2025

Leo Peters Discusses "God's Will or Man's Will" re Ordination of Women

AI GENERATED TRANSCRIPT
God's Will or man's will? *

Is the biblically-old ordination of males-only to the office of minister in Christ's church a ministry initiated and continued by God's Will or man's will? Is it just a man-made tradition or a God-made rule? All serious Bible-believing Christians will agree that this is the question that must be answered to determine whether or not females should also be ordained to the office of minister.

The ordination of females is a subject of growing concern throughout Christendom. To date no clear, unequivocal, biblically-referenced answer, either pro or con, has been forthcoming. The Bible is allegedly unable to supply such an answer, and so God's Will on this question is also allegedly unknowable and thus man's will is allegedly free to supply the answer.

In this allegedly uncertain exegetical climate many main-line Protestant Churches have helplessly succumbed to the pressures, and non-biblical rationalizations, of its pro-female groups.

By contrast, for twenty-years the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) tenaciously has held out for a definitive ruling from the Bible

** * This article uses the word man as a collective noun which embraces both male and female.**

-2-

before making a decision. In so doing, it has been spared the authority-debilitating effect of making a decision without clear biblical warrant.

But the hour of decision is fast approaching for the CRC. For the past 5-years its Synods have been under heavy pressure to produce an answer. CRC membership, both pro and con, has become increasingly confused, emotionally-polarized, and restless for a biblically-acceptable answer to our question.

To obtain such an answer, both God's Will and man's will should be examined more carefully than has been done heretofore. The following paragraphs briefly present such an examination and answer based on the two assumptions (1) that man reasons his will, and (2) that God simply reveals His Will.

Man reasons his will.

Whenever man does not have an explicit revelation from God to guide him, he may in good Christian conscience use his own reason to define and fulfill his will.

-3-

Committee for Women in the CRC (CW-CRC)." Among other things its avowed purpose is to have females ordained in church offices, particularly the office of minister.

Early in 1981 the CW published a six-page "Position Paper" with four topical headings containing thirty-seven items in support of its purpose. None of the items presented an explicit revelation of God's Will on the issue.

All of the items were based on a form of man's reasoning called analogy. This is an illegitimate form of logic because it proves nothing. It does not conform to the legitimate syllogism of logic.

A typical analogy of the CW goes like this: (premise) we "are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28) and therefore (conclusion) females should be as "one" with males in ministerial ordination. To exclude females is unjust.

The conclusion obviously does not follow from the premise. If it did then we also could say: (premise) we "are all one in Christ Jesus" and therefore (conclusion) the ordination (choosing) of Jesus' 12-apostles should also have included females. Since it didn't then Jesus was unjust to females Obviously we dare not say this.

All of the CW's biblical references were from Paul, except one. The one Gospel reference was from Matt. 20:25-28 and it has nothing to do with ministerial ordination. I mention the Gospels vs. Paul simply to show that Jesus Himself did not speak any recorded words on the subject of ministerial ordination.

Later in 1981 the CW added a new item (its 38th) in an effort to bolster its "Position." I shall examine its illegitimate reasoning here to illustrate more fully the fallacy of analogy that permeates the CW's "Position Paper."

The new item centers around the analogy that (premise) "since the Government and the Church are both biblically-approved ministries of God, therefore (conclusion) the politics practiced in each may also be considered as having biblical approval."

With that analogy the CW's membership is told that in good biblical conscience it may now turn on political pressures in the Church just as pressure groups do in Government. T members may now "lobby" and "make sure that their next minister has the right idea."

-5-

The members are told that the time is now tactically ripe to move ahead aggressively because the CRC is at an impasse in its efforts to find a biblically-authoritative answer to the question of female ordination to Church offices. It is said the CRC Synods have been playing politics by stalling just like Governments do when they can't find politically-palatable solutions for politically-sensitive problems.

The members are not told that politics in the ministry of the Church are repugnant to God. The biblical account is replete with examples of this. Consider these:

(1) God's terrible anger when Israel at Sinai put political pressure on Aaron for a golden calf.

(2) Jesus' adamant refusal to "play politics" with either the Roman or Jewish Governments, despite the fact that these Governments "played politics" to bring about His crucifixion.

(3) Jesus' adamant refusal to dialogue with the ministry of the Government on any matters concerning the ministry of His Church. He taught and practiced that while the sword is necessary for the ministry of the civil Government, it is lethally destructive for the ministry of the spiritual Church.

(4) And finally the CW should be reminded that:

-6-

(a) politics in our U.S. Government may be permissable and good because the objective reference is an amendable (changeable) Constitution, while

(b) politics in Christ's Church is prohibited and evil because the objective reference is a non-amendable (non-changeable) Bible. Man's reason may change man-made rules; but it may not change God-made rules.

In 1983 the CW's political type activities accelerated in the Grand Rapids area in preparation for Synod 1984. On November 7 a public panel discussion, and on November 18 and 19 a conference sponsored by eight CRC Churches, analyzed the past and future directions of the WC's progress on female ordination. Included in the conference was one important group discussion devoted specifically to CW's political-type activities entitled "Strategies and Brainstorming."

Are you biblically able to resist "brainstorming" from human rationalizations? If not, then read on.

Based on the preceding (and the succeeding) consideration it may be said in summary that the CW's reasoning by analogy in all 38 of its Position-items, and its political-type activities within the ministry of our Church, are simply illegitimate human attempts to substitute man's will for God's Will.

Let us now examine how --

2. God reveals His Will.

We must accept God's revealed Will as our guide in every area of life in which He has made His Will known.

But where has He done this with ministerial ordination?

In the Bible of course. The answer to our question, either pro or con, must of necessity come from the Bible.

It is incomprehensible that God, after Jesus' physical departure from earth would leave His precious "body of Christ" without any teaching or rule on who should guide its earthly fortunes and minister to its daily needs.

It violates our knowledge of God's nature to think He would approve of politicial methods and procedures emanating from man's will to make the rules under which ministers are ordained to administer the affairs of His Holy Church.out where in Holy Writ is the answer for such ordination? Where are the teachings that established the rule for ordination to the office of minister? The answer appears extremely difficult to find. But actually it isn't.

-8-

Since the Bible must have the answer to our question, why haven't we found it? Painstaking exegesis of words, texts, and their contexts, has not uncovered the sought-for answer. The search has centered almost exclusively on Words; on proof texts. We wanted Words, nothing but Words. It is Words only that are authoritative -- so we assumed. But is that assumption valid?

Are we making a pedagogical mistake?

In the pedagogical disciplines covering teaching and preaching, the two basic indispensible "tools of the trade" are the two media of Words and Works; variously described as preaching and practicing, precept and example, descript and demonstration, tell and show, etc. All objectively detectable communication of God to God, God to man, man to God, and man to man is conducted only via these two media: Words and Works. This excludes the third medium; i.e., th subjective non-detectable communication of the Holy Spirit.In teaching man, God uses three variations of the two objectively-detectable media: (1) sometimes only Words (e.g., 10-Commandments; Jesus saves the thief on the Cross); (2) sometimes both Words and Works (e.g., the flood; God sending His Son); (3) sometimes only Works (e.g. the works of (a) sudden confusion by diversifying speech at Babel and (b) sudden cooperation by diversifying speech at Pentecost). On the subject of ministerial ordination God uses just this third variation.

God taught His Will with Works.

In teaching His Will on the rule for the ordination of males to be ministers of His earthly Church He taught His rule with Works in a long, repeated, consistent, continuing stream stretching from the beginning to the end of the Bible. They span the five biblical milleniums starting at Creation; and cultures that passed from pastoral through agricultural into the present urban era starting with the Roman Empire.

During this latter era God's Will was evidenced by the obedience of His Son and the apostolic church, in adhering to the rule. During the following 19 centuries the rule remained unchallenged until the middle of our 20th century. Only now has man's will challenged the rule that God's Will established at Creation. The rule started when God created a male first and a female second. No Words. Just Works in choosing (ordaining) a male to be the ministerial head of the first family-church.

Then down through the biblical centuries:

First came the Works of first-born male progenitorship for His de facto theocracy with the early patriarchs; even signing and sealing the Covenant of Works with the first patriarchs by male circumcision.

Then came the long procession of Works with the formal theocracy of Israel for which God chose male prophets, priests, Judges, kings, and one notable exception with female Judge Deborah, to be the ministerial heads of His earthly Church-State.

This single exception made by God in choosing (ordaining) the prophetess Deborah to be the Judge of His theocracy for 50-years has been used by the CW to challenge the validity of the male rule.

But during the O.T. era God was operating a true theocracy on earth and He revealed His Will openly and clearly. He and He only chose the ministers for His Church. The will of man did not enter into these choices (ordinations).

-11-

The case of Deborah indicates that God judged an exception to His rule was necessary. The Bible records God's choice of Deborah evidently because she was the best qualified person at the particular time in Israel's history. God had already made her a prophetess and Judge during Israel's 20-year oppression by the Canaanite army commanded by Sisera.

The only other leader in Israel at that time was army commander Barak. He obviously did not have the spiritual strength of Deborah because he refused to go into battle without Deborah at his side (Judges 4:8). Because of this, God refused to give him the earthly "glory" for the victory over Sisera's army. God judged that it should go to Deborah (Judges 4:9). In this particular, and singular situation, God ordained a female instead of a male to be the minister for His earthly theocracy.

Later O.T. history attests to the fact that the exceptional case of Deborah did not change God's Will for keeping the rule on male ordination intact. Then in the N.T. God's Will on mal ordination continued to reveal itself; Jesus kept the rule intact, with no exceptions.

After God's termination of His earthly theocracy came the Works that established the ministerial format for the Church (Body) of Christ: (1) Sending His promised Son (why didn't He promise a son and daughter?) to be head of His Church;(2) Choosing for ministerial successors 12 male apostles (why not six males and six females?);(3) choosing to lead missionary expansion the male apostles along with Paul and associated males (why not husband-wife teams?); (4) Choosing all males as delegates to the first apostolic Synod (again, why not females too?). Finally, in the book of Revelation are revealed the cataclysmic Works which God entrusted to His Son (male title) for rescuing His Church from the Devil. From all of this, we are taught that: God preferred Works over Words to reveal His Will on ministerial ordination. Why did God rely on Works to reveal His Will on this matter? The answer is not as inscrutable as it may appear. Consider briefly: Some of the comparative values of Works vs. Words in both quantity and quality. In terms of quantity:

In the Bible Words predominate because it may take hundreds of Words to announce, describe, and explain just one Work; e.g., Jesus' Virgin birth -- one Work, hundreds of Words. But in God's general revelations, there are no audible Words at all. In nature it's all Works; uncountable numbers of them which the psalmist says "pours forth speech" with speechless Words (Ps. 19:1-4). The silent (no Words) visible display of disciplined and orderly Works in the natural order, encompassing the organic and inorganic worlds, stretch into universes uncountable. God's Words are limited to the Bible. But His Works and the wordless-speech uttered by them, are limitless; covering time and eternity, the natural and spiritual orders.

In terms of quality:

Both Works and Words are used to reveal God's Will. Who, but God, can say whether one is of a higher quality than the other for teaching man His Will. Certainly man needs both. But in the Bible: Words sometimes pale into insignificance compared with Works. Just look at some of the highlights: the flood, the ten plagues, parting the Red Sea, Jesus' Virgin birth, His death, resurrection, and ascension. And when Jesus wanted to teach with a finality that Words alone couldn't register on man's perception, He called on Works. With 39 great truths, Jesus made them unforgettable with 39 parables about Works.

-14-

Any of God's Words or Works alone may both affirm and confirm a position. But that is normally not true with man's Words and Works.

Man's Words may affirm a position; but man wants Works (sensory evidence from man) to confirm it. Thus when Jesus used Words affirming He was from God the Pharisees, not believing He was God-man, perversely refused to take Jesus at His Word. Instead, with keen human pedagogical discernment, they wanted to "test" His affirmation by having it confirmed with "a sign from heaven" (Works from God). Jesus refused to do so because they were an "evil and adulterous generation" (Matt. 16:4).

But now 2000-years later there are still many who are even more perverse, and much more lacking in pedagogical discern- ment, than the Pharisees. God has given us a super-abundance of Works confirming ministerial ordination. But now many will not accept His Works alone as teachings of His Will. They want a dual testimony. They want actual affirming Words too..

-15-

A few clear well-chosen Words in God's biblical Revelations would indeed have affirmed and confirmed His Will on male ordination. Why didn't He give us these Words? The answer to this question has not been revealed to man. It would be easy to speculate on the answer in the context of the Pharisees' perversity. But such speculation would only degenerate into illegitimate analogy.

With the sense and value given by His special revelations (the Bible) to His general revelations God displays massive evidence of the quality (value) of His Works. He does this both in the delicate definitiveness in the earthly sciences, and the breathtaking panoramic sweep and depth of His handi-work in the cosmic sciences (again Ps. 19:1-4).

God's Words and Works are both authoritative in teaching us His Will. We would be remiss in our response to His revelations if we refused creditability to either one.

Man's Words are usually just descriptive, while his Works are usually more normative. Thus: man's Words without Works can be empty; but Works without Words are seldom empty.

Man's Works by themselves are usually fulfillments of themselves; his Words usually are not. His Words can prophesy, but without Works they cannot redeem.

God redeems both His Words and Works. That being so, should we now listen to the reasoned will of man, or the revealed Will of God? Should we heed the Words of the WC, or the Works of God?

-16-

Man congenitally does not like to obey God's Will, but all earnest Christians know we must. An old Swedish hymn phrased it: "Trust and Obey, there is no other way."

Some might like to go behind simple trust and obedience, and ask: Why? Why did God establish a rule for male ministerial ordination?

Here again we could speculate on the answer but in the final analysis, we still must trust that God has a good answer for the "why" of His Works, even if we don't know it.

Until God reveals the answer, the least we can do by way of trusting and obeying is:

(a) As individual Christians

Be careful with Words we choose and use in criticizing the CRC over its struggles on ordination. Despite the opinions of some, the on-balance evidence shows that the CRC is striving carefully, painfully, sincerely, and without mixed motives, to be obedient to God's revealed Will. The CRC should be commended and not condemned for this kind of patient plodding effort; the voices demanding political pressures and quickie-change notwithstanding.

Instead of being guided by man's reason, the CW members would be better guided by the biblical reference that guides members of the Canadian Federation of CRC Women: "Thy Word (Lord) is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps. 119:105). Then let me add in the same context "... and I will meditate on thy wondrous Works" (Vs. 27).

(b) As a Church:

Openly acknowledge and always remember what we've already learned from day one; namely that one of the two pedagogical media used by God to teach His Will to man is His Works. Then use the knowledge we have of His Works to guide us away from those presumptuous desires to use man's will in the place of God's Will on the issue of ministerial ordination for females.

Leo Peters
750 Plymouth Rd. SE
Grand Rapids, MI. 49506

Friday, December 26, 2025

correspondence between Wallace E. Johnson & Leo Peters (Nov 1980)

anchor 
“Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.” — Proverbs 16:3

STRATEGIC INVITATION: WALLACE & JOHNSON

This is a letter dated November 7, 1980, from Wallace & Johnson inviting Mr. and Mrs. Leo Peters to a meeting to discuss the "Here's Life, World" endeavor.

  • Sender: Wallace & Johnson, Co-founder & Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus, Holiday Inns, Inc., and International Chairman, Here's Life (for Campus Crusade for Christ).
  • Recipients: Mr. and Mrs. Leo Peters.
  • Purpose: To invite the recipients to a special meeting to share successes and opportunities regarding the "Here's Life, World" plan.
  • Event Details: The meeting is scheduled for January 23-25, 1981, at the Doral Country Club in Miami.

Wallace E. Johnson (1902-1988)

Wallace E. Johnson was a prominent American real estate developer and businessman, best known as the co-founder of the Holiday Inn hotel chain. Born into poverty in rural Mississippi, he became a millionaire by pioneering mass-production techniques for inexpensive housing in the Memphis area following World War II.

Key Biographical Details

Early Life: Born in 1902 in Edinburg, Mississippi, Johnson started picking cotton at age seven. He worked as an itinerant carpenter and building supply salesman before starting his own construction business with a $250 loan.

Business Ventures: He was nicknamed the "Henry Ford of housing" for building low-cost, single-family homes efficiently. In 1952, he partnered with Kemmons Wilson to establish Holiday Inn, an idea sparked by Wilson's dissatisfaction with roadside motels during a family road trip.

Role in Holiday Inn: Wilson focused on production, while Johnson managed the financing and development aspects. They built the company into the world's largest hotel chain at the time, operating over 1,800 hotels globally by the time of his death. Johnson retired in 1979 as vice chairman emeritus of the board.

Philanthropy and Faith: Johnson was a deeply religious man who insisted every Holiday Inn room contain a Bible. He was involved in numerous Christian causes, including serving as the international chairman of "Here's Life, World", a campaign by Campus Crusade for Christ (now Cru).

Death: He died of a heart attack at age 86 in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 27, 1988.

re Wallace Johnson Holiday Inn 



Oct 20 1981: correspondence between Nelson Bunker Hunt & Leo Peters

 


“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” — Mark 8:36

STRATEGIC INVITATION: "HERE'S LIFE, WORLD"

The image is a letter from Nelson Bunker Hunt inviting Mr. and Mrs. Leo Peters to a strategic weekend meeting for "Here's Life, World" in Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting aimed to discuss spiritual answers to global crises and the organization's achievements.

  • Sender: N. Bunker Hunt, International Executive Committee, Here's Life, World.
  • Recipients: Mr. and Mrs. Leo Peters, Grand Rapids, MI.
  • Event Details: A complimentary weekend meeting with meals and accommodations from November 20-22, 1981, at the Hyatt Regency Atlanta.
  • Purpose: To explain why the Host Committee supports "Here's Life, World" and hear from distinguished leaders like Senator William Armstrong and Dr. Bill Bright.

Nelson Bunker Hunt (1926-2014)

Nelson Bunker Hunt (1926-2014) was a prominent American oil executive, billionaire, & thoroughbred horse breeder. He was a son of the legendary Texas oil tycoon H. L. Hunt and was once considered one of the wealthiest men in the world.

Career Highlights

Oil Tycoon: Hunt expanded his family's oil and gas holdings, most notably by discovering the massive Sarir oil field in Libya in the early 1960s, a venture that significantly contributed to his immense wealth before the fields were nationalized by Muammar Gaddafi's government in 1973.

Silver Market Speculation: He and his brothers, William Herbert and Lamar Hunt, attempted to corner the world silver market in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Their accumulation of a large portion of the world's silver supply caused prices to skyrocket to nearly $50 an ounce in January 1980.

"Silver Thursday" Collapse: Government intervention, new trading rules, and massive margin calls led to the market's collapse on March 27, 1980, known as "Silver Thursday". The resulting losses, estimated at over $1 billion for the brothers, forced Hunt to file for the largest personal bankruptcy in U.S. history at the time in 1988. They were later fined $10 million each and banned from commodity trading for market manipulation.

Horse Breeding: Beyond business, Hunt was a globally recognized thoroughbred horse breeder, winning numerous awards, including the U.S. Eclipse Award for Outstanding Breeder multiple times.

Philanthropy and Politics: He was a major sponsor of conservative political causes, a prominent member of the John Birch Society, and heavily involved in Christian evangelical work, notably as chairman of the "Here's Life" campaign for Campus Crusade for Christ International, which funded the "Jesus" film.


The "Jesus Film"

The "Jesus Film" (also known simply as Jesus) is a widely distributed 1979 American Biblical drama film that depicts the Life of Jesus Christ, using dialogue taken almost entirely from the Gospel of Luke. It was primarily financed by Campus Crusade for Christ (now Cru) supporters, including Nelson Bunker Hunt and his wife Caroline.

Key Aspects of the "Jesus Film"

  • Evangelistic Tool: The film was specifically created as an evangelistic tool to "show" the gospel to people around the world.
  • Most Translated Film: It holds the Guinness World Record for being the most translated film of all time, with translations into over 2,245 languages.
  • Global Reach: Since its release, the Jesus film has been viewed an estimated five billion times by people worldwide.
  • Production: The film was shot on location in Israel with attention to historical detail regarding clothing and props to realistically depict the first-century culture. The script was vetted by a team of 500 scholars for biblical accuracy.
  • Content: It covers Jesus' birth, ministry, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection, staying strictly within the narrative of the Gospel of Luke.
  • Adaptations: The Jesus Film Project ministry has also produced related films, including a children's adaptation (The Story of Jesus for Children) and Magdalena: Released from Shame, which focuses on Jesus' interactions with women.




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++








from Leo Peters, who argues that a person named John Bolt is promoting heresy within the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) by rejecting free will

 


The text is a letter from Leo Peters, who argues that a person named Bolt is promoting heresy within the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) by rejecting free will and making God responsible for all human actions. Peters contrasts Bolt's views with those of Calvin and Arminius, suggesting Bolt needs a refresher course in systematic theology.

Author's Stance: Leo Peters warns that "Bolt" is teaching heresy by rejecting free will.

Theological Contrast: The letter contrasts the views of Calvin (unconditional predestination, accepting paradoxes) and Arminius (conditional predestination, free will).

CRC Position: The author asserts that the CRC's Confessional Standards accept Calvin's theology and reject Bolt's.

Recommendation: Peters suggests Bolt take a CRC-monitored refresher course in theology before teaching students.

==================

THE BANNER

2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE Grand Rapids, Mich. 49560

FOR: VOICES Department

In VOICES 8-22-80 Rev. John Bolt, without supplying even a shred of biblical or doctrinal warrant, set himself up as a judicial authority on our Reformed Confessions when he stated that Richard DeVos's "attitude and philosophy of life reflects what the Reformed Confessions consider a serious heresy - the heresy of Arminianism." Bolt's statement was a criticism of DeVos's 5-2-80 article supporting the free enterprise system in the earthly sphere of economics.

Instead of being Confessionally authoritative, Bolt's theological criticism of DeVos is precisely the opposite. Biblically speaking, it is pure unadulterated theological bunk. By the Confessional Standards of our CRC Church his statement is doctrinal heresy of the highest order. It is shocking by itself. It is critically shocking because it comes from a man who is a newly appointed Professor in Calvin's Dept. of Religion and Theology with responsibility for teaching our students biblical and doctrinal truth.

Now read this:

In his criticism of DeVos, Bolt denies that "anyone who wills can be a (earthly) success." He denies that earthly "personal achievement (is) an effort of the human will."

Bolt thus denies that man is responsible for his earthly performance and so denies that man has free will on the earthly level. He clinches these denials by saying that it is God's "grace or gift" that is responsible for man's earthly performance. Bolt thus makes God the author of both good and evil; makes Him both God and Satan. This is the theology of the man who has the temerity to falsely charge DeVos with heresy.

All reason-mad theologians, incessantly driven to resolve the impenetrable mysteries of God's Revelations, destroy their biblical credentials when they become "authorities" on how to eliminate the "reasoned" conflicts between God's infinite reason and man's finite 

reason. Arminius tried it by rejecting unconditional predestination, and making man's free will responsible for all of man's acts and destinies, earthly and heavenly. Bolt now tries it by rejecting free will and making God responsible for all of man's acts and destinies; leaving only unconditional predestination at work. Calvin was humbled by, and not ashamed to accept at face value, the biblical mysteries; those man-reasoned biblical inconsistencies that have always existed between the temporal and eternal. Calvin took them for what they are: paradoxes, unresolvable by man's reason. On this point, the CRC's Confessional Standards solidly accept Calvin's theology, and solidly reject Bolt's theology.

I've said enough to alert Bolt, and the CRC, to his heresy. For everyone's good, Bolt would be well-advised to take an intensive CRC-monitored refresher course in systematic theology, with heavy emphasis on the Reformed doctrines of free will (accepted by both Calvin and Arminius) and predestination (Calvin's unconditional, and Arminius's conditional). He should do this before he starts teaching our students those purely personal doctrines for which he has no biblical or CRC Doctrinal warrant. (all parenthesis mine.)

Leo Peters.


Response from Andrew Kuyvenhoven


The image contains a handwritten letter from Andrew Kuyvenhoven to "Leo" regarding an edited letter for an upcoming publication issue.
  • Sender: Andrew Kuyvenhoven, from the Board of Publications.
  • Recipient: Leo.
  • Purpose: To inform Leo that his letter has been edited and will appear in the Sep. 29 issue.
  • Action Required: Leo should inform Andrew at the beginning of the week if the edited form is unacceptable.
FROM THE DESK OF ANDREW KUYVENHOVEN
Board of Publications • 2850 Kalamazoo Ave. S.E. • (616)241-1691
Recvd: 9-12-80*
Dear Leo:
                This is the edited form in which your letter will appear in Sep. 29 issue.
                If unacceptable, tell me in the beginning of the week.
                If you wish to correspond with Rev. John Bolt, his address is 1323 Griggs SE,
                Sorry for cutting. I believe it's part of my job. I'll give Bolt a chance to reply.
                                                           Sincerely, Andrew K.

Summary of the Article
  • Initial Criticism: The letter responds to an earlier article by Rev. Bolt in "Voices" where he accused Richard DeVos's philosophy of life and support for the free enterprise system of being the "heresy of Arminianism" [1.1].
  • Rebuttal: The author of the letter argues that Bolt's criticism is "pure unadulterated theological bunk" and, in fact, a "doctrinal heresy of the highest order" by the standards of the CRC Church [1.1].
  • Bolt's Stance: The author highlights that Bolt denies the concept of free will in earthly matters, stating that success and personal achievement are solely due to God's "grace or gift," not human effort [1.1].
  • Author's Conclusion: The author concludes that Bolt's theology makes God the author of both good and evil, a position they find highly concerning, especially given Bolt's new appointment as a Professor at Calvin's Department of Religion and Theology [1.1].
Arminianism is a Protestant theological tradition that emphasizes human free will and personal responsibility in the process of salvation, in contrast to the strict predestination of Calvinism. The debate between the two perspectives centers on how God's sovereignty interacts with human agency. 
Arminianism and Free Will
  • Libertarian Free Will: Arminianism is aligned with the concept of "libertarian free will," which asserts that human choices are genuinely free from predetermination, meaning individuals have the capacity to choose or refrain from an action. This freedom is considered essential for moral responsibility; a person can be justly praised or blamed for their actions.
  • Prevenient Grace: Arminians acknowledge that humans are totally depraved due to the Fall and cannot initiate their own salvation. However, they believe God extends "prevenient grace" to all people, which enables them to exercise their free will to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. This grace restores the ability to choose spiritual good, which was lost after Adam's sin.
  • Resistible Grace: Unlike the Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace," Arminianism teaches that God's grace can be resisted by individuals who choose to reject His call.
  • Conditional Election: God's choice of who will be saved (election) is based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to believe in Him, rather than an unconditional, sovereign decree.
  • Universal Atonement: Christ died for all people, making salvation available to everyone, though it is only effective for those who choose to place their faith in Him. 
Contrast with Bolt's View (Calvinism)
The letter in the image is a critique of a strict Calvinist perspective, which posits the opposite view on free will, holding that the human will is in bondage to sin and cannot choose good over evil in the spiritual realm without God's direct, irresistible intervention. 
  • Total Depravity: In this view, sin affects every part of human nature, including the will, rendering people incapable of seeking or choosing God on their own.
  • Irresistible Grace: When God chooses someone for salvation, His grace is irresistible, and the person will inevitably come to faith. God's action is decisive from beginning to end.
  • Sovereignty: This view emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty and predestination of all events, including individual salvation. Human free will, in the libertarian sense, does not exist because all things are determined by God's will. 
The conflict in the letter arises because the author believes Bolt's denial of human responsibility for earthly performance makes God the "author of both good and evil" [1.1], an outcome that Arminian theology seeks to avoid by emphasizing a genuine, God-given free will. 

Leo Peters: In VOICES (8/22/80) Rev. John Bolt stated that Richard De Vos's "attitude and philosophy of life reflects what the Reformed Confessions consider a serious heresy-the heresy of Arminianism."
In his criticism of De Vos, Bolt denies that "anyone who will can be a success." He denies that of the human will. Thus Bolt denies that man is responsible for his performance in this world, he denies that man has a free will on the earthly level. And he clinches these denials by saying that God's grace, or "gift" is responsible for man's earthly performance. Thus Bolt makes God the author of good and evil. This is the theology of the man who charges De Vos with heresy.
Theologians are always tempted to resolve the conflict between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Arminius tried it by rejecting unconditional predestination, making man's free will responsible for his eternal destiny as well as for his temporary acts. Bolt is now trying it by making God responsible for all of man's acts leaving only unconditional predestination at work. Rev. Bolt would be well-advised to take a refresher course in systematic theology, with heavy emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of the free will (accepted by Calvin and Arminius) and predestination (Calvin's unconditional and Arminius' conditional). Bolt should take this course before he starts teaching the Calvin students his personal doctrines.-Leo Peters, Grand Rapids, Mich.
Reply To Peters
I am grateful to Mr. Peters for alerting me to a possible serious misunderstanding of my comments on socioeconomic Arminianism. The point of comparison in my letter may not have been entirely clear.
In his interview, Mr. De Vos affirmed on the socioeconomic level what the Arminian (Pelagian) theologian affirms on the matter of eternal salvation from sin, namely that deliverance from poverty is in the final analysis reducible to personal, voluntary choices. It is this individualistic and voluntaristic view of man, held in Arminian theology and laissez faire capitalism, that has theologically and sociologically unacceptable. There is no necessary causal relation. The black slave on plantation did not choose to be and remain poor.
I hardly wish thereby to deny human responsibility. In fact I would insist that human socioeconomic responsibility extends beyond the realm of the individual and includes corporate and structural elements as well. A commitment to charity must be matched with a zeal for social justice. No amount of emphasis upon human responsibility, however, allows a Christian to say, "See the mighty (economic) empire I have built" or to boast of being a self-made person. With the Catechism the Christian confesses: "Prosperity and poverty-all things, in fact, come to us not by chance but from God's fatherly hand." Stewardship, therefore, not relentless striving for personal achievement and success, is the keynote of a proper Christian attitude to socioeconomic life.-John Bolt
------
The dispute between Leo Peters and John Bolt, as detailed in the "Voices" section of The Banner on September 26, 1980, centers on theological differences regarding free will, human responsibility, and God's sovereignty, particularly as applied to socioeconomic success.
John Bolt's Initial Position
Rev. Bolt initially criticized Richard De Vos's philosophy of life, which he claimed reflected the "heresy of Arminianism". Bolt argued against the idea that anyone who wills can be successful, essentially denying that humans have a free will on an "earthly level" and asserting that God's grace is responsible for human performance. 
Leo Peters' Rebuttal
Leo Peters responded by accusing Bolt of making God the author of both good and evil through his extreme view of divine responsibility, a theological stance Peters found problematic. Peters argued that theologians often try to reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility, suggesting that Arminius attempted to do so by emphasizing free will, while Bolt was attempting to do so by minimizing it. Peters advised Bolt to take a refresher course on the Reformed doctrine of free will before teaching his personal doctrines at Calvin College. 
John Bolt's Clarification
In a subsequent reply, John Bolt clarified his position, stating that his point of comparison was not entirely clear. He explained that his issue was with the "individualistic and voluntaristic" view, common to Arminian theology and laissez-faire capitalism, which suggests that deliverance from poverty is reducible to personal, voluntary choices. Bolt affirmed human responsibility but insisted it includes corporate and structural elements beyond individual choice, emphasizing stewardship over relentless striving for personal success.