# Split of 1924

The Split of 1924 marked a significant turning point in the history of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA). The controversy began with the Janssen Case, involving Ralph Janssen, a professor at Calvin Theological Seminary, who used the doctrine of common grace to support his views on the inspiration of Scripture. Although common grace was not the primary focus of the case, it underpinned Janssen's teachings.
Rev. Herman Hoeksema, a young minister, closely followed the case and identified common grace as its core issue. When the Christian Reformed Synod of 1922 did not reject common grace, Hoeksema anticipated its resurgence. Despite being in the minority, he and Rev. Henry Danhof became prominent figures in the ensuing pamphlet debate.
The controversy intensified, culminating in the Synod of 1924. While the Synod did not explicitly address the protesting ministers, by March 1925, Hoeksema had been expelled from the church. Although the split is commonly referred to as the Split of 1924, there was no precise moment when the Protestant Reformed Churches of America formally separated from the Christian Reformed Church.

## The Janssen case

The history of common grace within the Christian Reformed Churches traces back to the Janssen case. Dr. Ralph Janssen, a professor of Old Testament Theology at Calvin Seminary, began using the concept of common grace to support his views on the inspiration of Scripture. This prompted four seminary professors to express concern and bring the matter before the board of trustees. The board instructed the professors to first address their concerns directly with Dr. Janssen, which they had not yet done. Unsatisfied with this response, the professors appealed to the Synod of 1920.
At the synod, the professors presented their grounds for an investigation, while Dr. Janssen was given the opportunity to defend his teachings. The synod ultimately decided that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into Janssen's views. Rev. Herman Hoeksema, a young minister and former student of Janssen, had been closely following the case. Although he disagreed with the professors' approach, he was also critical of the synod's decision. Hoeksema began his own investigation, speaking with students and collecting their notes. In the spring of 1921, he was appointed to a committee tasked with a thorough investigation of the issue. The committee, however, was divided, producing separate reports.
The central issues in the Janssen case were not directly related to common grace but rather focused on the "infallibility of Scripture, higher criticism, and a liberal view of doctrine and life". Nevertheless, Hoeksema, along with Rev. Henry Danhof, another committee member, identified common grace as a key underlying issue and opposed Janssen's teachings on this basis. The four professors critical of Janssen did not share this perspective on common grace, leading Hoeksema to argue that their stance was inconsistent. Both Janssen and Hoeksema agreed that if one accepted common grace, they should also accept Janssen's logical and consistent approach. Ultimately, the Synod of 1922 ruled against Janssen's teachings but did not reject common grace.

## Pamphlet war

Supporters of Dr. Janssen soon turned against Herman Hoeksema due to his involvement in the case against Janssen. At that time, Hoeksema and Rev. Henry Danhof were a distinct minority within the Christian Reformed Church. This division led to a pamphlet war, primarily between Danhof and Hoeksema on one side, and Rev. Jan Karel Van Baalen from Munster, Indiana, on the other. The conflict saw articles in periodicals, numerous pamphlets, and vigorous debates.
During this period, Hoeksema and Danhof published Van Zonde en Genade (in English: Of Sin and Grace), a significant pamphlet that was frequently used against them in the ongoing controversy.

## Trouble in Eastern Ave. CRC

On January 19, 1924, three members of the Eastern Avenue congregation—Herman Hoeksema's church—visited his home to present a protest against some of his views. As Hoeksema began reading the letter, he quickly realized it was intended for the consistory rather than for him personally. He informed the men that they should address their concerns to the consistory instead.
The men agreed to this adjustment and took their protest to the consistory of Eastern Avenue CRC, framing it as a matter of public sin. The consistory acknowledged that the issue was public but disagreed that it constituted sin. Consequently, the consistory placed the three men under discipline.
The next protest came from Rev. J. VanderMey, a minister without a congregation. The Eastern Avenue consistory instructed him to first address his concerns with Hoeksema directly before escalating the matter. Instead, VanderMey chose to make the issue public and submitted his protest to the May meeting of Classis Grand Rapids East. As a result, VanderMey was also placed under discipline for "making secret and false propaganda against his pastor".

## More protests

Two additional protests were filed: one by Rev. Van Baalen and another in the form of an overture from Rev. M. Schans of Kellogsville. Rev. Van Baalen submitted his protest to Classis Grand Rapids West, targeting Rev. Danhof. However, Van Baalen was not a member of either classis and had not approached either the consistory or the minister beforehand. Similarly, Rev. Schans bypassed both the consistory and the minister by publishing his overture without the approval of his own consistory.

## Classis Grand Rapids East 1924

Classis Grand Rapids East convened a contentious three-day meeting on May 21, 1924, at Eastern Avenue CRC. The classis declared all four protests valid, prompting Rev. Hoeksema and Elder O. Van Ellen (a member of Eastern Avenue's consistory) to walk out in protest. In response, the Classis decided to relocate its meeting to Sherman Street CRC for further discussion.
After extensive deliberation, the Classis concluded that they had never formally agreed to address the protests and requested Hoeksema's return. Following additional discussion, they determined that the protests were not valid and thus sent them back to the Eastern Avenue CRC consistory. However, the Classis also decided that the three who had accused Hoeksema of public sin should be removed from church discipline. Hoeksema rejected this resolution, asserting that "further conflict between the classis and the consistory was inevitable".

## Classis Grand Rapids West 1924

Rev. Van Baalen's protest against Rev. Danhof, submitted to Classis Grand Rapids West, was handled differently. He was instructed to first discuss the matter privately with Danhof. If the issue was not resolved through this private discussion, Van Baalen was then required to bring the matter before the consistory of Kalamazoo First CRC. Should the issue remain unresolved, he could call a special meeting of Classis Grand Rapids West, scheduled for June 10, 1924.
This decision by the classis was unusual: the special meeting was set to occur only eight days before the synod, and Rev. Van Baalen, who was not a member of Classis Grand Rapids West, was granted the authority to call this special meeting.

## Synod of 1924

The Synod of 1924 convened on Wednesday, June 18, 1924. The issue of common grace was addressed thirteen days later, during the eighteenth session of the synod on July 1. At this session, the advisory committee presented a twenty four page report. The committee's advice defended both Hoeksema and Danhof, as well as the doctrine of common grace. They argued that criticisms against Hoeksema and Danhof for being one-sided were invalid, noting that similar expressions had been used by supralapsarians without church discipline and affirming that Hoeksema and Danhof did not assert that God is the author of sin.
The committee also advised that Hoeksema's one-sided emphasis on God's counsel could not be judged harshly, as similar views had been expressed historically by supralapsarians without disciplinary action. The committee found no grounds for criticizing Hoeksema's preaching, noting a lack of sufficient evidence, no complaints from the consistory, and that his teachings were consistent with what had been preached in Reformed churches before.
The committee recommended that the synod make a formal declaration on the three points of common grace due to the ongoing strife within the church over this doctrine. They devoted many pages to discussing various viewpoints from theologians and examining relevant Scriptural passages. Their overall conclusion was that while the synod should address the three points, no definitive conclusion could be reached at that time. They suggested that the issue be studied further by a broad group of ministers and professors, rather than being resolved by a committee as a matter of dogma, which should evolve over time through extensive discussion.
Throughout the synod, proceedings were somewhat disorganized and confused. Hoeksema was denied the opportunity to speak for several days before finally pleading for just one opportunity to address the synod. He spoke for two hours in an attempt to persuade some and provoke thought among others. His arguments led some ministers, including Rev. Manni, to question common grace and suggest deferring the decision until the next synod for further study. Despite these efforts, the synod proceeded to formulate the three points of common grace. Although the three points were established, neither Hoeksema nor Danhof faced disciplinary action or were required to subscribe to these doctrines. According to Hoeksema, the advisory committee had initially provided recommendations for the discipline of the two ministers. If these recommendations were indeed removed, it would suggest that the synod chose not to pursue disciplinary measures against them.

## The formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches

Since Hoeksema had not been disciplined by the synod, the consistory requested that the censured members withdraw their protest against him. When this was denied, the consistory appealed to the Classis Grand Rapids East to reverse its decision to lift the discipline from the three members. After discussing the matter in August meetings, Classis refused to change its decision. In response, the consistory convened a congregational meeting on September 2, 1924, to provide information about the situation and allow the congregation to protest Classis's decision. The congregation was divided on the issue.
Classis Grand Rapids East reconvened from November 19 to December 12, but neither side was willing to compromise. Classis insisted that Hoeksema and his consistory "subscribe to the Three Points and promise to abide by them". Hoeksema refused, and it soon became clear that Classis intended to depose him and his consistory for their refusal. The church was once again in turmoil, with Hoeksema and the majority of the congregation (all but ninety-two members) continuing to worship on the same property.
In January 1925, the courts ruled that the majority of the congregation would "remain in possession of the property" until the conflict was resolved. Meanwhile, Hoeksema, Danhof, Rev. George Martin Ophoff, and their consistories signed an Act of Agreement, forming a new denomination named 'The Protesting Christian Reformed Churches'. Over the following months, numerous court cases ensued, culminating in a Supreme Court of Michigan decision awarding the Eastern Avenue church property to the ninety-two members who had remained loyal to the Christian Reformed Church. However, before this final ruling, Hoeksema was officially expelled from the church in March 1925.