First Stirrings of a Reveil⤒🔗

The reaction to the new Church Order imposed on the Church by King William I was swift and considerable. Several classes sent letters of protest against the imposition of what was seen as a basically hierarchical system of church government. These protests went largely unheeded. In fact, those classes who had dared to complain were simply disbanded and declared illegal. This left open the possibility of individual petitions on the part of ministers and other concerned members of the Reformed Church. But this method did not yield much more success. True, some minor changes were made in the Church Order, but those who sought to return to doctrinal purity and a stricter adherence to the creeds were informed by the Synod that as an administrative body it had no jurisdiction in the interpretation of the creeds, since this was a purely theological matter! This, of course, was begging the question. Synod insisted that the interpretation of creeds was a matter of individual conscience and that it could not very well impose any doctrinal view upon a national church which comprised all Reformed Christians in the realm. One of the early "Protestants" against existing abuses in the Reformed Church was Rev. Nicolaas Schotsman (1754-1822). He has been called the precursor or forerunner of the Reveil in The Netherlands. In 1819, at the occasion of the second centennial of the Synod of Dort, Schotsman preached two commemorative sermons which he later published under the title, Erezuil ter gedachtenis van de voor twee honderd jaar te Dordrecht gehouden Nationale Synode, opgericht door Nicolaas Schotsman (Memorial Pillar in honor of the Synod of Dort held two hundred years ago, erected by Nicolaas Schotsman).

Schotsman's Memorial created a great stir and evoked many bitter and sarcastic replies in the form of pamphlets and brochures. His Pillar of Honor was soon dubbed a Pillar of Shame (Schandzuil). On the other hand, there were also many who read his brochure with approval and were inspired by it. Thus Schotsman's Pillar of Honor became the means whereby the old Reformed spirit was awakened again in many who had almost gone to sleep.

Some Leading Representatives of the Dutch Reveil←⤒🔗

a) Willem Bilderdijk (1756-1831)←↰⤒🔗

When a second edition of Schotsman's Pillar of Honor appeared, there was a foreword in it by Willem Bilderdijk. If Schotsman was the forerunner of the Dutch Reveil, it was Bilderdijk who may well be called the icebreaker of the movement.

Born into a rather well-to-do family, young Bilderdijk grew up in a strong Calvinist and monarchist environment. A deformity in his feet as well as poor health generally, contributed to his becoming a solitary man who devoted his whole life to serious study. Bilderdijk studied law at Leiden and received his doctorate in 1782, after which he became an advocate at the Hague until 1795, when he was exiled because he refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the Batavian Republic. Returning to Holland in 1806, he pros­pered for a time, became state librarian under the patronage of King Louis Napoleon, but after the accession of King William I he lost this position and suffered considerable privation. This was due to his strong and outspoken views on politics and religion. Bilderdijk was a monarchist of the old school, which meant that he was opposed to the idea of a constitutional monarch and the sovereignty of the people.

Both these ideas, he felt, were fruits of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and for that reason he spoke out against these popular notions whenever he could. This did not endear him very much to the King and other government officials, who regarded him as dangerous and therefore prevented him from attaining a position of influence. His strong Calvinistic views also brought upon him the contempt and suspicion of liberal church leaders and other members of the intellectual community. Although for years he coveted a professorship at the University of Leiden, this dream was never realized. Time and again he was refused, not because he was unqualified – Bilderdijk was perhaps the most learned man in The Netherlands at the time – but simply because of his conservative views.

Bilderdijk made a great contribution to the Reveil because of the influence he had on several young men who were to be the leaders of the movement. Although he was barred from holding a public, official teaching position, he was eventually allowed to set up a private lectureship in Leiden. Beginning in 1817, Bilderdijk gathered around him some of the brightest and most promising young men, all of whom were to play a significant role in the Reveil. For ten years he shared with these men his vast knowledge, especially in philosophy, political science and history. His view of history was truly Christian and firmly rooted in Scripture. History was for Bilderdijk the unfolding of the divine program in time. Earlier in his life he had been quite optimistic in that he expected a return to the Golden Age of the Netherlands. Bilderdijk believed that any such return of Holland's greatness could only be accomplished by making Dutchmen aware of their glorious history and by bringing them to a greater appreciation of what God had done for their country in the past. For him to be a Hollander was to be a Calvinist. God, Holland and the House of Orange, was the triad that was the secret of the nation's greatness.

Bilderdijk hated the French Revolution and everything it stood for and he warned against its two main products: unbelief and revolution. How disappointed he was when he realized that both King and country appeared to be con­tinuing the course set by the Batavian Republic, a course that was leading the nation away from God and His Word. He watched in dismay how many, many preachers, no longer bound to the Reformed creeds, openly proclaimed heretical views and extolled the virtue of tolerance. How glad he was, therefore, when he read Schotsman's Memorial to Dort! Here was one lone voice of a faithful minister who dared to call the nation back to the great principles of the Reformation.

Bilderdijk's influence was limited. During the ten years of his private lectureship, he taught no more than a total of forty students. But most of these men became ardent disciples of their master and zealously disseminated his ideas. Dr Rullman gives us a taste of what went on in this 'university within the university' at Leiden:

With enthusiastic admiration these disciples sat at the feet of their brilliant master who with the power of his enormous knowledge, the wealth of his imagination, the originality of his ideas and the impetuousness of his passion, attacked the spirit of the age in every realm. The new-fashioned constitution, the anti-monarchist parties, the 'enlightened' ideas in the Church and State, Reason, philosophical virtue, the will of the people, liberty, etc. None of the idols of the age were spared.

The students who so admired Bilderdijk were among the brightest young men in Holland, and most of them would become men of great stature. This was no secret in intellec­tual circles and therefore the men of science, the recognized scholars, were very upset about what they considered to be the bad influence Bilderdijk was having on these promising students. They were afraid – and not altogether without justification – that Bilderdijk was too extreme in his views, especially in his defence of the divine origin of the monarchy and his total rejection of any democratic ideas. Also, it was felt by many that his knowledge of history, though vast, was not always carefully researched and that it reflected a tendency to glorify and romanticize the past, especially where it concerned the activities of the House of Orange.

Among Bilderdijk's most loyal and brilliant students were Isaac Da Costa, Abraham Capadosa, the brothers Willem and Dirk van Hogeterp, Willem De Clerq and Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer.

b) Isaac Da Costa (1798-1860)←↰⤒🔗

This Portuguese Jew, converted to Christianity, may rightly be called the hero of the Dutch Reveil. It was Bilderdijk who led him to faith in the true Messiah and who also influenced him to become the most ardent and eloquent champion of orthodoxy. In 1823 he published the sensational pamphlet, referred to earlier, entitled Objections against the Spirit of the Age. L. Oostendorp sums up the reaction to Da Costa's brochure this way:

The whole of Holland was disturbed by this blast against modern enlightenment. Da Costa was attacked. The King was angry, the Minister of Justice thought he could find reason for prosecution. Satires appeared in the popular magazines, ministers were condemned and barbers discussed the 'theological cookbook'. In short, such a hot battle of words arose as only the Hollanders can wage.

One can appreciate the disturbance Da Costa caused when one examines the charges he hurled at the liberal establishment. Da Costa attacked the Spirit of the Age in ten brief chapters. In his view things had gone wrong in the following areas:

1.  Religion. In the name of enlightenment, a false rationalism had denied salvation by sovereign grace, the divine nature of Christ, the Biblical revelation and every fundamental truth of Christianity.
2. Morality. From Voltaire and Rousseau, a morality without law had arisen, yielding moral decay.
3. Toleration and humanity. There is a true tolerance, but the evil of indifference as to truth and error, doctrinal purity of the Church, etc., is a tragic mistake.
4. Art has lost its inspiration and high theme with the denial of Christianity.
5. Science, with increased information, lacks understanding, and has led the heart away from God.
6. The Constitution. This is based on a false, social contract conception. It should be discarded in favour of a simple monarchy by divine right of the House of Orange. The King should ignore the constitution if it interferes with his idea of the good of the nation.
7. Birth is not an accident, hence, it grants from God a certain privilege and duty. Nobility, therefore, must be in the sense of the word.
8. Public opinion is not often right and certainly is no standard of truth.
9. Education has been corrupted and methods are used that stimulate pride rather than principle, producing ill-taught dabblers.
10. Freedom and Enlightenment. The boasted freedom which only subjects to tyranny of the masses and of a glorified state is an illusion. So too, enlightenment is more appearance than reality, since superstition, mammon worship, and ignorance of basic Christianity prevail.

With these ten shots Da Costa  attacked the bastion of liberal thinking and evoked a furious counter-attack. Some of the criticism was warranted. Da Costa had written as an angry young man, an ardent disciple of Bilderdijk, who not only took over his master's ideas uncritically, but carried them to extremes which perhaps even his mentor would hesitate to do. Elisabeth Kluit writes: "Da Costa had not yet ripened into a reflective thinker. He saw the faults of his time and saw the past wrapped in a romantic, Christian haze … There was a deficiency in him of constructive ideas."

Still, there is much sound, Christian and antithetical thinking here. Da Costa's Objections was keenly aware of the great gulf that separates Christianity from modern thought.

Whatever the merits or demerits of the Objections, the pamphlet caused a tremendous stir in all levels of Dutch society. A violent reaction set in, which showed that Da Costa had indeed touched a raw nerve somewhere. The Dutch people were a contented lot in those days. They believed in tolerance and virtue, and moderation in all things. King William had done a good job with his reforms in Church and State. So they sat quietly in their easy chairs, smoking their long Gouda pipes. Who would dare to disturb them in their peace and tranquillity? The convert Isaac Da Costa! The fanatic disciple of Bilderdijk!

What was it that made Da Costa so unpopular in Holland? His radical views on just about everything. Like his master, Bilderdijk, he believed that a constitutional government was wrong. Bilderdijk had taught that authority has its origin in God ad in a secondary way in human nature. The most basic example of human authority is found in the family, where the father bears all the authority. Life in society under the civil government is nothing else than an extension of life in the family under the authority of the father. The government is the family "writ large". The King is the Father of the people. He is bound in his conscience to God's Law, not to the will of the people. Bilderdijk loathed the idea of people's sovereignty and constitutional monarchy. This, he rightly saw, was the fruit of the social contract idea of Rousseau and other Enlightenment thinkers. The Dutch intellectuals, however, accepted the basic tenets of the Enlightenment, including the idea of a constitutional government, in this case a constitutional monarchy. Hence they regarded anyone who attacked these ideas as an obscurantist not only but also a traitor to the King. His other statements, regarding the Bible as the only authority, as well as other fundamentals of the Faith, also highly displeased the relativistic minded liberals in the nation.

Da Costa's clarion call for a return to those fundamentals, however, aroused many others in the Netherlands who had been slumbering and waiting for someone to take the lead. Thousands of ordinary believers studied his ten theses and were encouraged, especially by the closing paragraphs of his Objections:

But out of this darkness light will emerge again … The Word of the Lord assures us of this. We know that the more dismal the prospects are and the more helpless the situation according to the ways of shortsighted men, the more assured we may be of the nearness of the help of Him who will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against His Church … And let us all be Chris­tians! Let us pray for faith, for love, for humbleness, self-denial, sanctification, zeal, courage, steadfast­ness, trust, and for the Holy Spirit! It is especially in times like these that believers are challenged by these words of the prophet: "He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily." Nahum 2:1

The Objections became a manifesto, a program for the reformation of both Church and State, according to the teachings of Holy Scripture. It was, however, first of all a call to repentance. This was the essence of Da Costa's message to the nation. It was a call to personal repentance, and a challenge to discover or rediscover the Gospel, "the glad tidings or reconciliation and redemption through faith in the regenerative powers of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, given by God's infinite grace."

Da Costa thus became the prophet of the Dutch Reveil, "the apologist of the old, simple faith and orthodoxy, and not alone in his prose works but also in his poems, which are warm with the spirit of the old singer of the Bible."

His influence on Dutch religious society was considerable. Especially his Sunday evening Bible studies at Amsterdam had a great impact on many. Among those who regularly attended these studies were Willem de Clerq, Abraham Capadosa, Willem Messchert, Mrs. Koenen, and H.P. Scholte, one of the leaders of the Secession.

Later, similar meetings were held in the Hague and Rotterdam with such men and women as the brothers Willem and Dirk van Hogendorp, Jacob van Lennep, the famous Dutch novelist, Baron van Zuylen van Nijevelt, Rev. J.C.I. Secretan, and Mr. and Mrs. Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer in attendance. From these centres, Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam, the Reveil spread throughout many parts of the Netherlands and for many years Da Costa remained its chief spokesman and inspiration.

c) Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer←↰⤒🔗

H. Algra, in his book Het Wonder van de 19e Eeuw, (The Miracle of the 19^th Century), calls Bilderdijk the Father of the Dutch Reveil, while Da Costa and Groen Van Prinsterer, he says, were its two witnesses. Groen was raised in an atmosphere of moderate and somewhat enlightened Protestantism. A brilliant student, he graduated from the University of Leiden with a degree in classical philosophy and law. While at Leiden, he attended the private lectures of Bilderdijk and was influenced especially by the latter's views on Dutch history. Later in life he wrote, "I also heard the lessons of Bilderdijk. How much I owe to them! By him especially I was led to an unprejudiced examination of the history of our people and brought to question the merits of liberalism." In 1829 Groen was appointed by King William as secretary of the cabinet. Since Belgium at that time was part of the Netherlands, the government resided alternately in The Hague and Brussels. This meant Groen spent considerable time in the Belgian capital, where he came under the influence of Merle d'Aubigne who was court preacher there. The powerful preaching of this product of the Swiss Reveil, together with the gentle nudging of Groen's wife who had been an evangelical Christian for some time already, led to his wholehearted acceptance of Christ and the principles of the Reveil.

Groen became a formidable spokesman for evangelical Christianity in the Netherlands, especially in the area of politics and law. Whereas Bilderdijk, and to a lesser degree, Da Costa too, had been reactionaries, tearing down the structures of infidelity without really putting something better in its place, Groen set out to give more positive direction. He became the father of the "anti-revolutionary party", and ably set forth his views in his Ongeloof en Revolutie (Unbelief and Revolution) in 1847. Elected in 1840 to the "Double Chamber" which had been convened for the purpose of revising the constitution, Groen defended his anti-revolutionary principles with great power and conviction. In 1849 he became a member of Parliament and there he stood alone against the dominant liberal party, led by the very able Thorbecke.

Groen believed that the French Revolution was the most dangerous political and social event that had occurred in modern history. He saw it as unique in the sense that never before had a revolution embodied so much hatred against Christianity. "It is a revolution of beliefs; it is the emergence of a new sect, of a new religion; of a religion which is nothing but irreligion itself, atheism, the hatred of Christianity raised into a system." There had been revolutions before, but none had been as far-reaching as the one that erupted in France in 1789. It was a revolution directed against every form of government and every type of religion, undermining and destroying morality based on God's Law. The French Revolution, Groen concluded, was "an anti-Christian revolution whose chief idea develops itself in systematic rebellion against the God of revelation."

It is interesting to read what Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones has to say about Groen van Prinsterer and his contribution to understanding the implications of the French Revolution. Calling him a fascinating and most important and remarkable man, Lloyd-Jones makes this comment on his book Unbelief and Revolution:

It is a book of fifteen chapters only one of which has so far been translated into English, namely chapter 11. I am glad to be informed … that two further chapters are on the verge of being published in English, and I do hope that eventually the whole of this great book is published in English … I wish I had time to go into all this thoroughly; but time only allows to merely mention this most extraordinary and striking opposition to the whole principle of the French Revolution which took place in Holland. It did not take place in England; it did not take place in the United States of America; but in that little country it did. And there it stands as a great monument to the only real opposition to the whole notion behind the French Revolution.

Groen also made major contributions in the area of Christian education. The same problems that existed in the Church and State were also found in the schools. Since the establishment of the Dutch Republic the public schools had borne a distinctively Christian and Reformed character. But this had begun to change during the period of the Enlightenment. Bratt sums up the situation this way:

The Batavian Republic (established in 1795 and based on the ideas of the Enlightenment) did not regard its task to be that of protecting and supporting a particu­lar religious group, but rather that of encouraging and cultivating morals among all the people, so that they might be good citizens. The school was to serve the common good by educating for citizenship; it was to prepare men for the pursuit of individual happiness, a good and useful life. Accordingly, only the most uni­versal religious ideals were to be inculcated at the schools and all that was particularistic or sectarian was to be avoided. These ideals continued to dominate the liberal attitude toward public education after the fall of the Batavian Republic in 1813, and constituted one of the greatest threats to the continued existence of Dutch Calvinism.

The situation had not changed by Groen's time. In fact, it had gotten worse. While serving in the Second Chamber, he vigorously opposed a bill advocating the emancipation of the school from the church, and when it passed, he resigned in protest.

Relentlessly Groen pursued his goal of reforming all of society. His aim was "to restore orthodox Christianity within the national church and within the public school." In this he was not to succeed. All attempts to put the schools on a Reformed foundation again were doomed to failure in the enlightened, liberal climate of his day. There was only one alternative left: the establishment of separate "schools with the Bible". But even this idea was opposed by the liberals in power, on the grounds that the public school was a national institution and that education was not the responsibility of the parent but of the state.

But in the end the idea of parentally controlled Christian schools prevailed. At first the entire cost of building and maintaining such schools was borne by the parents, most of whom belonged to the so-called "kleine luiden" (common folk). But after a long struggle which lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, the Christian schools, both Protestant and Catholic, were put on an equal footing with the public schools, the cost of education being met almost completely by the government.

Much of the credit for this remarkable achievement belongs to Groen van Prinsterer. It was he who gave the impulse to the organization of the "Association for Christian-National Instruction in Schools" (1861), and for many years he provided the leadership. He remained optimistic to the end, believing that his ideas would prevail in spite of all the opposition from the liberals. S.D. van Veen sums up the contribution of this great man this way:

Groen was a faithful Christian, a Calvinist and a Netherlander who knew and understood the history of his people. These circumstances explain his principles and actions. Faith and subjection to God were to him the highest ideals. Without them, he held, there is no salvation for a people. God's sovereignty must be acknowledged in the political sphere as well. Reason is corrupted by sin. Whoever enthrones the principle of reason is 'revolutionary'. The 'revolutionary' principle in Church and State, school and science, must be opposed by the Gospel. He stood upon the ground of Christian history, and in church matters advocated the confessional tendency, being a decided opponent of the liberty of doctrine as it was advocated by the school of Groningen.

d) Otto Gerhart Heldring (1804-1876)←↰⤒🔗

The Reveil has sometimes been accused of being exclusively interested in the reformation of doctrine and the salvation of souls. This may have been the primary concern of to Reveil, especially during the early years of the movement, but it is unfair to say that it lacked social concern. Right from the start there was an awareness of the material as well as spiritual needs of the poor and the disadvantaged in society. True, most of these early attempts to alleviate suffering took the form of individual and incidental acts of charity. Many of the leaders of the Reveil, being aristocrats, were in a position to alleviate the plight of the poor and needy in their environment.

In later years however, attempts were made to organize the work of Christian philanthropy. For example, Mrs. Groen Van Prinsterer, together with other lady members of the Reveil, was active in starting many "sewing schools", where poor women and girls were taught homemaking skills. Also several diaconal and kindergarten schools were opened for the benefit of the unchurched, many of whom were illiterate as well as poor. But the work of Christian charity received its main impetus from the inspiration of Otto Gerhart Heldring, the founder of the Inner Mission in The Netherlands. Heldring was a minister in the Reformed Church. As a young pastor in his first congregation at Hemmen, a tiny village in Gelderland, he became immediately concerned about the material needs of his parishioners. "The life of the peasantry attracted him; the causes and problems of poverty with its effect on the physical and moral well-being of the com­munity were made the subjects of careful investigation, the results of which he published with the object of arousing a general interest that might lead to the initiation of remedies."

In 1841 he embarked on a journey through the Veluwe, a rural district near Utrecht, and came by chance to the little village of Hoenderloo, whose inhabitants lived in a state of material and spiritual privation that aroused his pity. The village lacked a church and a school, and even a well for drinking water. Through Heldring's tireless efforts Hoenderloo was soon supplied with a well and a school, and sometime later with a church as well. Funds for these and other projects were supplied by readers of Heldring's books and articles on social subjects.

Via Groen van Prinsterer, with whom he started a correspondence which lasted from 1840 till 1876, the year when both died, as well as Da Costa, whom he visited in the Hague and Amsterdam, Heldring was introduced to the Reveil. It was from these men that he came to a deeper understanding of Reformed doctrine, a doctrine which he now realized more clearly than before, was "not from man but from God."

While Heldring was indebted to the Reveil for this new insight into the Reformed faith as well as the spiritual growth which he experienced as a result, he was not blind for the weaknesses of the Reveil, especially its lack of organized social outreach. In a circular letter dated May 15, 1845, he wrote to all his "friends in the Lord", urging them to meet together for the purpose of forming a society dedicated to the promotion of church, school and relief of the poor.

The first meeting of the "Assembly of Christian Friends" was held on August 26, 1845, and thereafter at irregular intervals until 1854. These meetings, held usually twice a year at Amsterdam, were attended by people from various denominations. There were, in addition to members of the Reformed Church, Evangelical Lutherans, Reformed Luther­ans, Baptists, English Episcopalians, as well as some Seces­sionists – hence quite an ecumenical gathering! The meet­ings were usually preceded by devotions the evening before. This was followed by the business meeting proper, which started with reports on the various activities in the area of Christian-social agencies throughout the land. Thorough discussions took place and viewpoints were exchanged, as well as recommendations made regarding new projects for the betterment of society. At the end of the meeting an offering was taken which usually yielded large sums by which many projects could be funded and maintained.

The main mover behind these meetings and the activities it produced was Heldring, whose vision continued to inspire many. Every branch of Christian charity received his attention. In addition to his great work at Hoenderloo, he is also remembered for his efforts to combat the evils of alcoholism and prostitution. An asylum for the recovery of fallen women was established at Steenbeek in 1847, mainly through his fund-raising campaigns. Heldring would travel throughout the country, preaching the Gospel of faith working through love. More institutions followed, for instance one for the protection of young women and girls, and a seminary for the training of Christian social workers.

Heldring's work proved to be of lasting value and influence. Even today his name is mentioned whenever Christian social work is discussed. The "Hoenderloo Stichting" still exists in The Netherlands as a reminder that the Reveil was more than a merely spiritual awakening, but that it also concerned itself with the social needs of the nation.

It has to be admitted, however, that the main emphasis of the Reveil was on the spiritual needs of sinners. The Dutch Reveil in that respect was closely related to similar move­ments in Western Europe and North America, all of which were influenced to a great extent by Pietism and Methodism. The leaders of the Dutch Reveil too were concerned first and foremost with the practice of godliness, which they felt, had almost vanished from religious life in The Netherlands. They firmly believed that the essence of Christianity is to be found in the personally meaningful relationship of the individual to God. The Reveil men and women were for the most part devout Christians who spent much time in prayer and Bible study and sincerely tried to live a holy life. In fact, it was their strong emphasis on sanctification that drew much criticism from quite a different direction. H.F. Kohlbrugge (1803­-1875) had been an early sympathizer of the Reveil but he became increasingly uneasy with what he considered an unscriptural emphasis on sanctification at the expense of justification, especially in the writings of Da Costa. At issue was the place of good works in the life of believers. Da Costa taught that since believers are new creatures in Christ, they are able to perform good works and live a holy life though not without sin. Kohlbrugge was much more pessimistic with respect to a Christian's ability. Especially after his "dis­covery" of the comma behind the word "carnal" in Rom. 7:14, he became convinced Da Costa was wrong. That verse meant, as far as he was concerned, that even the regenerated Paul knew that he was flesh, sold under sin. The Law, however, is spiritual and could therefore only be fulfilled by Christ. For Kohlbrugge this meant that Christ not only declared the believer righteous but also holy and that all striving to be holy on the part of believers amounted to robbing Christ of His Mediatorial work.

"Throw those holiness crutches," he warned Da Costa, "you will never climb Mount Zion" (Ps. 24) this way!" Kohlbrugge firmly believed that the only hope a Christian has is Christ's righteousness, and he viewed with suspicion any tendency to give undue attention to works, even if they were works performed by believers. Da Costa, however, was just as convinced that Christians must do good works as evidence of their being justified. He did not agree with Kohlbrugge's interpretation of Rom. 7:14 and accused him of antinomianism. A long and spirited exchange of letters followed between these two great men but neither could convince the other. According to Elisabeth Kluit who wrote extensively on the Dutch Reveil, Da Costa and the other spokesmen of the Reveil were closer to eighteenth century Methodism in their doctrine of sanctification than to the classic Reformed theology of the sixteenth century as held by Kohlbrugge. The Reveil wanted to reform man and make him a disciple of Christ. Its goal was the consecrated life, guided by the Holy Spirit before God's face. The Reveil, according to Kluit, posted regeneration as the inception and starting point of sanctification, whereas for Kohlbrugge, regeneration meant entering into Christ's righteousness and the end of all works' righteousness. The Christians is perfect in Christ, because He is both the believer's justification and sanctification.

Though Kluit's assessment is in the main correct, there is still reason to question whether Kohlbrugge did not go too far in his criticism of Da Costa, and whether the latter was fair in his accusing the former of antinomianism. Perhaps both were guilty of overstating their case somewhat during the course of their heated debate – a debate which, by the way, is far from over today.