Hi mfonda,
Here a brief summary from a fellow immigrant (I live in the Grand Rapids, MI area):
As you perhaps know, two different groups of Dutch Reformed Churches had been united, more or less, in 1892. Theologian-politician Abraham Kuyper had been their leader. Although officially united, there were large theological differences within the large denomination. There had been challenges, such as the famous Geelkerken case in 1926.
It is not surprising, then, that after Kuyper's death his successors tried to reinforce the unity of the churches by officially adopting some explicit theological statements. The synod of 1942 (I believe) made some binding statements about the theology of regeneration and baptism, in an attempt, no doubt, to clear up discussion and get everyone on the same page.
These proceedings were opposed by several members of the churches, including Rev. Klaas Schilder. Procedurally, they objected to the synod taken the initiative of adopting such statements; in Reformed church policy, the synod's task is limited to resolving cases brought to them by congregations. Theologically, they objected to the Kuyperian view of regeneration which was canonized at the synod.
Schilder protested but was essentially told to shut up. He left the denomination and started his own church in 1944. (Indeed, amazing considering that he had been in hiding from the Germans during much of this period.)
The Kuyperian view was that baptism is based on the regeneration of the believer. Infant baptism was acceptable for Kuyper because even the elect children who had not been regenerated at least have a "germ" of regeneration. Schilder found this too speculative; he also observed that in this view, the baptism of children who will not believe is meaningless and merely spilling of water. The Kuyperians acknowledged this latter problem, but said that one must presuppose regeneration in children of believers until they clear show themselves to be unbelievers.
Schilder, first of all, did not wish to bind the churches to this particular view, but leave room for different views and debate. He also developed his own view of baptism, in which it does not seal the regeneration of the child (subjectively), but rather the covenant promises of God to that child (objectively).
Although this discussion is not alive anymore in the Netherlands (I think), it is still at the heart of the disagreement between the North-American Protestant Reformed Churches (with a modified Kuyperian view) and the Canadian Reformed Churches (with a Schilderian heritage). In the relatively new United Reformed Churches (URCNA), there is room for both views.
