Eureka Classis, Part Two Prepared for Trinity Covenant RCUS, Colorado Springs August 8, 2004
Kohlbruegge	I. Friedreich Kohlbruegge was born in Holland, was brought up in an orthodox Lutheran Church in Amsterdam, after being baptized in the Reformed state Church. He studied theology and began preaching. His preaching was rejected by the rationalist Lutheran pastors of Holland, and he was deposed. During his studies for a doctorate, he became convinced the Reformed teaching is biblical, and he sought acceptance in both Dutch and German Reformed Churches. He was refused because of his ardent attachment to the doctrine of predestination, which by then was out of favor. He finally became pastor of a tiny group in Elberfeld, Germany, where his ministry of preaching and writing gathered a great congregation of followers. He also had admirers in most Reformed areas of Europe. II. His theology was basically Reformed but included such an immense emphasis on justification through faith without works that he was almost unwilling to use the term “good works” as descriptive of what a Christian might do. He insisted that Christian “good works” were really God’s works since he held it impossible that any holiness might be attributed to a fallen human being. He was careful to claim that the Christian is holy in Christ, but never in himself. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that Kohlbruegge was antinomian. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism he says of the Fourth Commandment, “The Ten Commandments are not ceremonial but are given in order that our thoughts and lives may be governed by them,” and, “. . . anyone who neglects the Fourth Commandment and only acknowledges nine of God’s eternal Ten Commandments will inherit a curse for himself” (author’s translation). III. Among Kohlbruegge’s many followers and admirers some held strictly to his teachings, while others proceeded to a more antinomian position. These latter are called “Neokohlbrueggians.” One of the “Old Kohlbrueggians,” his son-in-law Dr. Edward Boehl, a became professor of theology at Vienna, Austria, and wrote a book entitled The Reformed Doctrine of Justification, a classic Reformed work.
Eureka Classis	It soon became apparent that these German-Russian churches were very conservative in a far from conservative denomination and that the neo-Kohlbrueggian theology of some was at odds with the teachings of the seminaries, particularly on the issue of forensic as opposed to progressive sanctification. a. As a result, the Eureka Classis (named not after the town in South Dakota, but after the Greek word for “I have found”) was formed on the same geographical area as the North and South Dakota Classes. b. This was possible because of the constitutional provision for separate classes with different languages to inhabit the same area. This provision was also used by Hungarian Reformed immigrants in the eastern areas of the RCUS. c. The Synod of the Northwest had granted permission for this organization in 1910 and Eureka Classis first met in June of 1911 at Scotland, SD. d. The founders of the Classis, however, were clear in their statements that their reason for existence was theological. e. The Eureka Classis organized with four charges containing 16 congregations and seven pastors, three not serving classis charges. f. By 1925 the Eureka Classis contained 29 congregations all in North and South Dakota.
Merger of 1934	I. ANTECEDENTS A. Ecumenical interests had long been a part of RCUS life and as the church became more in tune with modernist churches around it, it joined the modern ecumenical movement. B. The RCUS was a charter member of the Federal Council of Churches founded in 1908, which in 1950 became the National Council of Churches. C. Dr. George W. Richards, for many years the president of Lancaster Seminary played an important part in the founding of the World Council of Churches at Amsterdam in 1948. II. World War I created a crisis for America, but once it was past, especially modernist churches looked forward to moving their Christian vision (which by now in the RCUS included some distinctively socialist ideas among some leaders) across the world. A. The RCUS formed a “Forward Movement” in 1919 to advance the church on all fronts of endeavor. B. The Interchurch World Movement, of which the RCUS was a participant, sought to “overcome the overlooking and overlapping” that obtained in American Protestantism. C. A reawakened interest in Mercersburg liturgy also prepared the church for a merger with a Lutheran body. III. Constitutional preparation. A. Between 1908 and 1932 the RCUS general synod made a number of changes in its Constitution, some of which are benign, but others of which open the door for broader associations and more liberal practices. Among the latter are: B. 1) Transfer of members to “Protestant churches” as well as to “Reformed Churches, 2) less specific on numbers of times members are required to partake of the Lord’s Supper, 3) congregations were now required to report their “expenditures for congregational and benevolent purposes,” 4) synodical boards now take on the care of retired ministers, 5) “deaconesses” are added under “ministers of the Word” as officebearers in the church, 6) boards of Ministerial Relief and Christian Education are added to the General Synod’s organization, and 7) a minor weakening of discipline for those who leave the church without proper dismission. IV. Statistical view of the RCUS prior to the 1934 merger. A. Six synods: Eastern, Potomac, Pittsburgh, Ohio, Midwest and Northwest. B. 1675 congregations in 58 classes with 348,189 members.
The Plan of Union	I. By the early 1920s, voices were heard throughout the eastern wing of the denomination calling for union with any one of a variety of Protestant bodies, from Presbyterian to United Brethren to Reformed Church in America. II. By 1926 the General Synod had established a Commission on Closer Union which was in communication with several groups, particularly the United Brethren (the old Moravians) and the Evangelical Church (the product of a 1922 merger of Evangelical [Lutheran] churches). III. In 1928 the Commission on Closer Union prepared a Plan of Union for the uniting of the RCUS with the United Brethren. A. While this was passed by the General Synod of the RCUS in 1929, it was not received enthusiastically by the classes. B. And it was not approved by the synod of the United Brethren. IV. Negotiations were reopened with the Evangelical Synod of North America in February 1932 (it almost seems the men were determined to merge with somebody) and by the time of there respective general synods, a new Plan of Union was ready for consideration. A. The 1932 General Synod of the RCUS approved the plan. B. The 1933 Evangelical Synod of North America approved as well. C. This was an amazing plan of union for it did not solve doctrinal nor organizational differences. V. The Plan of Union operated in a less than direct fashion. Carl Schneider says, Without defining or establishing a consensus of beliefs or the extent of agreement or disagreement, a unity in spirit was affirmed as a sufficient basis for the steps now to be ventured. The Plan of Union thus lost the aspects of a contractual merger and was thrown into area of faith.” VI. By the time the Evangelical Synod had voted in 1933, the necessary majority of the 58 Classes of the RCUS had approved. VII. The union forming the Evangelical and Reformed Church was consummated in a meeting at Cleveland on the night of June 26, 1934.
The Eureka Classis	I. Prior to 1933 the Classis had voted, along with three others, to express opposition to any proposed merger with churches of non-Reformed character. II. Many local congregations across the U. S. also viewed the idea with dismay, but there was no way to stop approval of a measure that was planned by eastern leaders and approved by the vast majority of educators, board members and synodical leaders throughout the denomination. III. Eureka Classis consisted of little more than 1% of the churches of the RCUS and about one-half of one percent of the members.