Calvin Theological Seminary

Partial Requirement for 5584O: Christian Reformed Church History

CRCpedia Assignment: Infallibility Controversy

Jason Blunt

April 24th, 2026

The Controversy

One of the significant controversies in The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) during the 1950s and 1960s was on the topic of the Inspiration and Infallibility of Scripture. The Synods of 1959, 1960, and 1961 address this controversy in detail, addressing three areas of concern: scripture’s inspiration and the concept of infallibility, and how these two relate.

Groundwork/Background for the Controversy

In 1958, Classis Pella submitted an overture to Synod. The overture requested an investigation regarding statements made by a Dr. Ridderbos concerning Scripture’s inspiration and infallibility. Dr. Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) was a Dutch theologian in the Netherlands who in 1958 made a publication called Heils Geschiedenis en Heilige Schrift (Redemptive History of Holy Scripture). In this publication, Ridderbos made comments that were discomforting to members of Classis Pella.

This brought the topic of Scripture’s inspiration and infallibility into relevance and potentially set the stage for the foundation of the debate that came the following Synod. Even though Dr. Ridderbos was in Europe, the discussion of this topic began in the United States as well.

Beginning of Controversy

Following the 1958 Synod meeting, there was an article submitted by a student at Calvin Seminary that questioned the limit of Scripture’s infallibility regarding scientific and historic matters. The student’s article sparked debate which drew the Seminary’s president into the controversy. Dr. John Kromminga made statements regarding the article, which caused another professor at the seminary, Dr. Martin J. Wyngaarden, to submit a protest to Synod in 1959.

Dr. Wyngaarden was particularly troubled by a statement made by President Kromminga in his paper “How Shall we Understand Infallibility?” in which he questioned infallibility in "peripheral” matters of scripture. The accusation interpreted these remarks to mean that the President believed the infallibility of Scripture was limited only to the larger meaning of the passage of scripture.

The protest was submitted to Synod in 1959, in the protest, Dr Wyngaarden stated that he believed President Kromminga “violated the principle of church government by assuming to himself the prerogative of committing the Seminary in its policies to a drastic reinterpretation of Articles III to VII inclusive of the Belgic Confession”. Dr. Wyngaarden stated that this action is a power that belongs to Synod alone.

The 1959 Synod determined that the charge from Dr. Wyngaarden against President Kromminga was based on inferences made by Dr. Wyngaarden regarding the President’s words. Synod found difficulty with the charges based on comments and clarification from President Kromminga himself. He stated that he believed in the historic doctrine of infallibility. After others reviewed the papers and articles in question, as well as the President's clarifications, Synod determined that the matter should be deferred to a study committee.

The Controversy in Committee

The members of the study committee were Dr. John Bratt, Dr. P. G. Schrotenboer, Dr. J. T. Hoogstra, Rev. John Stek, Dr. L. Praamsna, Rev. C. Vos, and Dr. Gordon Spykman.

The committee defined their question of study as “What is the relationship between the doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration and the doctrine of infallibility in the light of Scripture and the Creeds?”

The Study committee met from the Synod of 1959 to the Synod of 1961. During that time, they sought to answer the question that had been posed by the controversy in 1959. The study committee reviewed and studied scripture passages related to this issue, as well as studied the creedal and confessional statements made regarding this topic. They also spent time considering past synodical pronouncements and overtures. Finally, they considered the question and concern brought up by Dr. Wyngaarden regarding President Kromminga’s use of the word “peripheral” parts of scripture and infallibility.

During their study, the committee in 1960 submitted a supplement to the 1960 Synod stating that they were continuing to study the matter and would return to the 1961 Synod with a conclusion and answer to their study.

During the 1960 Synod meeting, there were less mentions of the subject due to it being in committee; however, there was an overture submitted by Classis Muskegon that called for the process of the study committee to conclude quickly.

The Controversy at Synod of 1961

The study committee came to the 1961 Synod with a final report of their findings in the time spent studying this controversy. Their conclusion was that the doctrine of inspiration infers infallibility, and because all Scripture is inspired, all Scripture is secured as infallible. However, the Synod added some other statements to its conclusion.

The declaration states that the word infallible can only be applied to Scripture itself, and that this divine inspiration frees Scripture from all falsehood, error, or deceit. Thus, making Scripture suitable and authoritative for all the Christian life. Through the study of scripture and other church documents, Scripture declares its own authority and trustworthiness.

The study committee and Synod established that the study report should have cleared up misconceptions regarding the topic, and that the report be the basis or framework for which all other future study would take place.

Finally, Synod addressed the charges that Dr. Wyngaarden made against President Kromminga, declaring them to be “unsubstantiated.” They support this by stating that President Kromminga clarified saying that his use of the word “peripheral” was not meant to limit the scope of infallibility of Scripture, and that his views were not inconsistent with the creeds and confessions as Dr. Wyngaarden claimed. Affirming that what President Kromminga believes is consistent with the creeds and confessions. Therefore, the Synod declared that President Kromminga did not reinterpret Articles III and VII of the Belgic Confession, and that this claim from Dr. Wyngaarden was also unsubstantiated. They ended by indicating that they desired to affirm the faith of the Church in the infallibility of Scripture and called for humility when coming to study the word of God.

The Controversy Continued

This controversy, while officially ended at the Synod of 1961, the ripples of this decision remained with the CRCNA for many years. In 1972, there was another report that again addressed the topic of Biblical infallibility, Report 44: The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority. This study committee was formed at the Synod of 1969 and sought to answer how much authority Scripture has in the lives of believers. When this report was presented, it further supported the findings and study of 1961 but further loosened the concept of Biblical authority according to critics.

Moving to the twenty-first century, the discussion was still being held in the CRCNA in different contexts other than synodical meetings. The discussion was still held in places like the publications of The Banner. A Banner article from 2011 discusses the topic of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy.

The author of the article, Rev. Clarence Vos, who was assigned to the study committee in 1959, indicated that the committee discussed at length the merits of the word inerrant to describe Scripture, and that the committee deemed the word to be too loaded and confusing to use. Therefore, the committee preferred the word infallible. Vos argued that the word inerrant came with too much theological and logical baggage to be useful.

Conclusion?

The CRCNA seems to have concluded that Scripture is indeed infallible; however, there is still much discussion on the topic. Time will tell if Synod makes more definitive statements concerning the Controversies theological topic of the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.

Personal Thoughts

The Controversy itself has many angles to consider, agree with, and disagree with. To start, it is good that the CRCNA is committed to professing the Infallibility of Scripture, that it is completely trustworthy. This has been the historic position of the Church throughout history. The 1961 declaration was good in that it stated to reaffirm this as orthodox doctrine for the CRCNA. It is also good that they chose to include that Scripture was divinely inspired, and also without falsehood, error, or deceit. It might seem that these words are just small clarifications; however, it is vital to include all of these when discussing Scripture.

The way that Synod chose to handle the personal side of the controversy is also worth mentioning as a positive. The Synod and study committee gave President Kromminga a lot of grace and patience to clarify himself and address his statements. It is important to not jump to negative conclusions regarding an individual's statements, so it was good that the study committee chose to study this further.

The struggle with the declaration, however, comes with some of the sub points of the declaration. The declaration regarding the scope of inspiration and infallibility was not clearly articulated. They state at the beginning of the declaration that Scripture is the divinely inspired infallible Word of God, but they also state in C.2. “There are in the Scriptures incidental and circumstantial data which have no independent revelational significance, but are dependent for their revelational significance upon the relationship they sustain to the central intent and purpose of a given passage. When viewed in this light, the term ‘periphery’ must be judged not inconsistent with the creedal teachings on infallibility.”

These two statements from the beginning and end of the declaration could be viewed as being in complete alignment, but they could also be viewed as quite the opposite. Point C.2. of the declaration seems to give indication that there is a possibility of parts of scripture that are not necessarily infallible by themselves, but only as they pertain to the larger context. Whether this is correct or not is still up to debate (1972 Report 44; modern articles); this makes this controversy incredibly interesting. The 1961 Synod opened the discussion of this topic and broadened the definition of what qualifies as orthodox teaching regarding the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, which has had a negative effect on the unity of believers, as well as caused some to take the lack of specificity to extremes. Scripture is either authoritative or it is not, while there is healthy debate of culture, grammar, genre, history, and biblical context, we must be cautious to not let ourselves be tricked by the temptation to say, “did God really say________?” After researching this controversy, it is good to see that this was and is important to the people who were a part of this controversy and those who study history.

Bibliography

CRCNA, "1959 Agenda and Acts of Synod" (1959). Agendas and Acts of Synod. 172. https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/crcna_synod-agendas/172

CRCNA, "1960 Agenda and Acts of Synod" (1960). Agendas and Acts of Synod. 174. https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/crcna_synod-agendas/174

CRCNA, "1961 Agenda and Acts of Synod" (1961). Agendas and Acts of Synod. 176. https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/crcna_synod-agendas/176

CRCNA, "1972 Agenda and Acts of Synod" (1972). Agendas and Acts of Synod. 198. https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/crcna_synod-agendas/198

“How Should We Read the Bible?” 2011. The Banner. December 9, 2011. https://www.thebanner.org/features/2011/09/how-should-we-read-the-bible.