Along with the frictions between Pietists and Neo-Calvinists, other controversies arose which all parties viewed as more threatening to the Reformed orthodoxy they shared. The first of these was the case of Rev. Harry Bultema, who published his views on the interpretation of prophecy in a book entitled, Maranatha. Bultema propounded positions consistent with the dispensational, premillenial evangelicalism which was coming in vogue among many protestants, and his book was judged to compromise the unity of the church in all ages and could be read as promoting a separate way of salvation for the Jewish people. Bultema's case was referred by the synod of 1918 to his own consistory for discipline, but because the consistory failed to discipline their pastor, his classis deposed him. Most of his congregation proceeded to leave the CRC to found the Berean Church. A feature of this case is its having been judged strictly in terms of comparing Bultema's views with the statements of the confessions (Forms of Unity), e.g., Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 54 and Belgic Confession Article 37.

A second and much more important controversy was the "Janssen Case" of 1920-1924. While in hindsight many judge that Janssen was a careful scholar trying honestly to deal with newly arising data for biblical criticism (not necessarily the "higher" criticism), he was judged by some of his colleagues at Calvin Seminary (where he taught O.T.) and by the synod of 1924 as having gone too far in his teaching by placing so much weight on the so-called human factors in the production of the Scriptures that the divine factors of inspiration and illumination by the Spirit all but vanished. Janssen emphasized archeological data, spoke of the authors of the "books of Moses" as having borrowed much of their literature and the forms they used (e.g., the covenant/treaty structure) from surrounding cultures, and consented to some form of a documentary hypothesis. Janssen's opponents used student notes to charge him with subjectivizing the divine revelation and undercutting its authority by imposing "private interpretations," contrary to the Reformed positions on inspiration, infallibility and the organic unity of God's Word.

Herman Hoeksema, author of the "Our Doctrine" column of the Banner and Janssen's pastor at Eastern Avenue CRC, and colleague Henry Danhof were among Janssen's prosecutors. They themselves were confessionalists who claimed that Janssen's teachings were the predictable result of the abuse of the doctrine of common grace. Lines between general and special revelation were erased by this "false doctrine," they argued, and it was time for the CRC to state clearly the preeminence of the Word written and cease its flirtations with the rationalism which that doctrine encouraged. Hoeksema and company also took offense to Janssen's predilection for giving "scientific" (naturalistic) explanations for the miraculous events recorded in the Scriptures. Janssen countered that there was no contradiction between the idea of divine intervention and God's use of means to accomplish his ends.

It must be remembered that this controversy took place at the height of the wave of Americanization which was creating a great deal of unease among the churches. The challenge posed by Janssen was viewed by some as another unacceptable incursion of the American predilection for science and pragmatism as over against the traditional Reformed insistence on confessional subscription, if even at the expense of intellectual integrity. At any rate, Janssen took such offense at what he viewed as improprieties in the prosecution of his person that he refused to appear before synod to defend his views. Synod in 1922 responded by deposing him, underscoring the confessionalistic character of the CRC and drawing a bold line against modernistic approaches to Scripture, even as in the Bultema case they had rejected dispensationalistic literalism.

The third major controversy of this early period came just two years later, almost as a pendulum reaction to the Janssen case. It involved the persons of Hoeksema and Danhof, two of Janssen's most vigorous prosecutors, and focused upon the doctrine of common grace, which these two vigorously denied. Hoeksema in his position as columnist for the Banner used his position somewhat presumptuously to promote his own theological agenda (a common problem among Banner editors and columnists) and spoke in extreme terms against the idea that God might be kindly inclined towards the reprobate in any sense that might be called "gracious." Abraham Kuyper's views had been promoted and accepted already by many in the CRC, and in response to Hoeksema's writings many requests were sent to synod that it should clarify what was the CRC's official position on this matter. Synod of 1924 issued the judgment that God was indeed graciously inclined toward all men, not the elect only, that God's Spirit did act to restrain sin in the life of individuals and society, and that the unregenerate could indeed perform acts of so-called "civic righteousness." Synod's decision, which came to be known as the "three points of 1924," said that this was the official teaching of the CRC (a binding interpretation of the confessions) and that Hoeksema and Danhof were not in harmony with this teaching. Synod therefore admonished the two brothers to bring their thinking into line with this teaching. Having refused to do so, these two were faced with discipline by their classes, and they proceeded to secede from the denomination and to form the Protestant Reformed Churches, a denomination which some consider hyper-Calvinistic and reactionary.

Other characteristic "controversies" of the 20's and 30's concern the "worldly amusements" of theater attendance, card- playing and dancing, as well as the issues of women's suffrage and prohibition. The issue of Sabbath-observance also came up occasionally. The pietistic tone of the CRC comes through very clearly in almost all of these matters. In regards to suffrage, most in the CRC felt it inappropriate for women to have a vote or even a voice in affairs like business and government. Kuyper's view that heads of household should be the only voters was held by some, but generally speaking, it was simply against the sensibilities of most to see women involved in politics at any level. Needless to say, women did not vote at congregational meetings either! The CRC was quite definitely for prohibition and against licentiousness of any kind. The triple evils (theater, gambling, dancing) became the canon to judge worldliness for many years.