That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.  —Ephesians 4:14–15
I  t is a sad sight, a shipwreck!
A total loss of the cargo. A few survivors plucked from the waters. Shipwreck in earthly life is devastating. Oftentimes, the result of negligence or incompetence on the part of the captain and the crew. But in things spiritual it is particularly sobering to behold a shipwreck. Did not the apostle warn about this in 1 Timothy 1:18–20? 18. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19. Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20. Of whom is  Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Who were Hymenaeus and Alexander?
Maybe the men were friends of the apostle Paul. Perhaps they were his former students. Surely, they were fellow ministers at one time and former church members.
Those men suffered shipwreck, and others followed. Yes, according to 2 Timothy 2:17, their words ate like a canker. Their words were false doctrine. The specific form of their false doctrine was that the resurrection was past.
But they erred concerning the truth, so they are examples of all who depart from the words of sound doctrine. And they overthrew the faith of some. Their false words and evil doctrines ate in the churches and devoured many, who with them also made shipwreck concerning the faith.
Sobering sight it was to behold.
A warning to the church.
So also in Ephesians 4 there is a warning. Church history is littered with the shipwrecks of churches, denominations, and individuals who did not heed this warning of the apostle Paul. Perhaps when doctrinal controversy came to their churches, the false teachers even quoted these words of the apostle. Perhaps they preached a sermon about these words, exhorting the congregation to speak the truth in love. But they handled the word of
God deceitfully and misused the word to denigrate, to silence, and to shame those who were speaking the truth in love. They were like useless sailors aboard a ship who had neither the skill nor the willingness to keep the ship on course in a storm. Their ship was tossed to and fro on the mighty waves; and by the fierce and relentless winds of doctrine, the ship and all who were on it were shipwrecked on the rocks of apostasy. Or the false teachers were like the negligent captain, who drunkenly steered his ship onto the rocks; and the ship, crew, and passengers perished; so they, being drunken on man, smashed their ship on the shores of false doctrine.
Oh, it is certain that the church of Christ never comes to shipwreck. Whatever happens to this church or that church, to this denomination or that denomination, or to this individual or that individual, the church is never lost, and none of her members perish. She is the church of Christ! Like the ship in the fierce winds that troubled
Galilee’s waters, the church is absolutely safe with Christ.
He brings her to the harbor: the unity of the faith, the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That is heaven. Christ perfectly guides his church in every age to heaven through the raging storms, towering waves, and fierce winds of doctrine that blow. The gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ’s church.
So the apostle tells the church to grow up into Christ.
The church is safe with Christ. If a church departs from him, she cannot but end up shipwrecked. Approving of the error of common grace, within a few generations she will approve of sodomy. Approving of the false doctrine that displaces Christ, in a generation or two, she will join with the antichrist. She goes shipwreck, tossed on the winds and storms of doctrine that blow.
Grow up into Christ because there are fierce storms that constantly blow upon the church through the sea of time. The ship on the ocean observes clouds gathering ominously on the horizon, the winds pick up and begin to swirl, and the waves rise higher and higher. The ship is headed straight into a typhoon! It is time to prepare for a storm! On the sea of time, there are ferocious winds that constantly blow terrible storms that raise capsizing waves.
Those winds are winds of doctrine. Winds of doctrine are not gentle zephyrs but are black storms of false doctrine. So it has always been for the church, and so it always will be.  Is it not true? In the Old Testament there were always the false prophets. There were more false prophets than true. Sometimes it was four hundred against one. What was true of the Old Testament continued in the New
Testament. Already in the apostolic age, false teachers and false apostles crept into the church to privily bring in damnable heresies. They taught righteousness by faith and works, denied the resurrection of saints, and taught the church to live as the world, along with many other heresies. John said that many antichrists have gone out into the world!
The winds did not die down with the end of the apostolic age but continued blowing on down to the present age. There were those who tried to take Christ away from the church by denying his Godhead and those who denied that he was a truly righteous man, the seed of
Mary and David. The winds of doctrine blew, denying the total depravity and utter wretchedness of the natural man. Whenever total depravity is under assault, behind that is always lurking the hurricane of denying the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation and the attempt for man to take some credit for salvation. So
Pelagius came; later came Rome with her free will and works-righteousness; then came Erasmus to try to overthrow the Reformation; soon Sadoleto with his honeyed words attacked Geneva; and later the arch-heretic James
Arminius sought to overthrow the Reformed faith. The  Afscheiding  was corrupted almost from the beginning by the introduction of conditional covenant theology, and common grace came to sweep away the Christian
Reformed Church and the Reformed church world. Federal vision sweeps like a violent storm through Reformed denominations, destroying churches and making shipwreck the confession of many. We ourselves faced and are facing doctrinal winds as a denomination. These and many other winds are examples of the terrible storms of false doctrine that blow on the sea of history, through which the ship of the church must be steered by a sure hand toward her everlasting habitation and the safe harbor of heaven.
What makes these winds different from the winds of the creation is the devilishly clever way in which they come. The creation wind states its presence clearly. These doctrinal winds come with sleight of hand and cunning craftiness, whereby those who bring them lie in wait to deceive! False teachers come in. Rather, false teachers slip into the church undetected. Some are born there, some join later in life, some call from outside.
And what is to be our evaluation of false teachers who maintain their errors and who seek to lead the church away from Christ her head, to tear her out of him and to make her shipwreck on the rocks of apostasy? Is it that they suffer from a mere error in judgment? I suppose that we could say that about the rise of some errors. Men are liars. Men are vanity. Men may be deceived, teaching for truth the doctrines of men. We are not to follow men but
Christ and his truth.
Grow up into him!
Here we speak of false teachers. There are those who sneak into the church, who love the darkness rather than the light, and who are of the darkness and of the devil.
They use sleight of hand. According to the original
Greek of Ephesians 4:14, they are dice players, magicians who are expert in card tricks and other deceptive arts.
They are capable and practiced in the arts of theological legerdemain. They play games with the truth.
Teaching and preaching the truth in the church is deadly serious. In the preaching of the truth, Jesus Christ comes to speak to his church, and we must not refuse him who ever speaks in the house of God. The issues are the glory of God, the honor of Jesus Christ, and the salvation and damnation of men.
But not with these false teachers. Preaching in the church is a game to them. New words and phrases are injected into the teaching of the church. Confusion is introduced, so that the church does not know what to think. Old words and phrases are redefined. Distinctions upon distinctions are piled up like a stack of cards in order that the dealer may draw from it what he pleases.
The false doctrine is dressed up in the most appealing lan  guage and defended with the most reasonable arguments.
Then we must know that false teachers are playing games in the church. They are rolling the dice in their preaching. They are shuffling cards in their teaching. They are playing tricks. At stake in this game are the souls and salvation of the whole church and the very existence of that church as a church of Jesus Christ in the world.
The false teachers work by cunning craftiness, and their mode of operation is deceit. Cunning deceivers!
They do not love the truth; they hate it. They ravish the truth and fight against it. But, oh, so cunningly. The men who bring the false teachings are personally pleasing, well-spoken, or of impeccable pedigree. You would say that they only want what is best for the church; they profess great love for Jesus Christ, for his church, and for his truth. So, cunningly with deceit, they subtly substitute the lie for the truth. A little here and a little there, bit by bit, they substitute the lie for the truth. And the ship is off course, heading for shipwreck.
And this is of the devil. Whenever false teachers arise in the church and when—through their games, cun  ning craftiness, and deceit—false doctrine arises in the church, know for certain that you have to do with the devil. He beguiled Eve through his subtilty. He operates in the winds of doctrine that blow and in the dice that are thrown by the false teacher.
Be not children!
Jesus Christ gives the gift of ministers to his church to edify the body of Christ. The church is the body of Jesus
Christ, and it grows and matures in him till the saints in the church come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Christ is the fullness. The church is always growing up into Christ.
On this side of the grave, she never attains to that perfection. That perfection is in heaven. To attain to that perfection, she must depart this world. So in this world she must be ever learning, ever growing, ever listening to what the Spirit says to the churches, and ever receiving him whose voice is ever heard in the church of God.
She may not stay a child in the truth. In malice? Yes.
As a baby receiving the kingdom? Yes. As a newborn babe, desiring the sincere milk of the word? Yes. But she must never remain a child in the truth. If she stays a child in the truth, she will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and by every trick of the false teacher and every crafty and deceitful ploy of the spiritual magician.
A child is ignorant. The child’s soul and mind are impressionable. The child is of extremely limited knowledge. The child is of limited experience. The child, per  haps above all, takes you at your word. And the child is easily led astray. This is at least one of the reasons for the
Christian schools. To turn our children over to the false church and her schools or to the wickedness of the world in the public schools would be to murder their souls and ensure their apostasy from the truth. Children are so vulnerable. That is a child in the natural sense.
And the same holds in the spiritual sense with the truth.
A child in the spiritual sense has no clear, profound knowledge of the truth. He has no steadfastness of conviction in that truth. He is therefore receptive, easily receptive, to outside impressions. He listens to every teacher who comes along with his cunning craftiness, is sucked into the false teacher’s game with the truth, and very soon finds himself playing that game in his own mind. The deceit of teachers playing dice with the truth escapes him. And thus he is tossed to and fro by the winds of doctrine, duped by the cunning craftiness of the false teacher, who lies in wait to deceive. So that child in the truth is one day defending the truth and speaking what you think he believes and what should guide his every move and decision. The next day he turns around and says the opposite, or his decisions in life bear no resemblance to his confession. He is tossed about like a ship without a rudder on a storm-driven sea. There are those who are born and grow up and learn a little doctrine, and they never move past that. The doctrine never sinks into their souls. They never grow any more. They are forty, fifty, and even eighty years old; and they are children in the truth. And when the cunning false teacher comes, he quickly blows them off course.
But it is worse!
For the ascended Lord gave his church pastors and teachers, and through them he ever speaks in the church; by them he is ever edifying his church, perfecting the saints for the work of the ministry to cause his church to grow up into him. So that one is growing up into Christ under the preaching of his truth or is being driven away by the winds of false doctrine. There is no neutral ground on the sea of time blown by the winds of false doctrine.
It is not the will of Christ to see his church tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine. He keeps his church and guides her through every wind of doctrine by a sure and true course to everlasting glory. To that end he gave pastors and teachers. It is impossible to sit under Christ’s ministration and remain a child.
That the church grows up into Christ is also the purpose of his death and resurrection. He who ascended and gave pastors and teachers first descended into the lower parts of the earth. He came and gave himself as the gift to his church. He who is very high and above all things; he who thought it not robbery to be equal with God; and he who also had astounding glory in the counsel of God as the firstborn of every creature—he descended into the lower parts of the earth. He entered Mary’s womb in order shortly to enter the agonies of hell upon the tree of the cross and to enter death and the corruption of the grave.
In that coming down God found Christ in fashion as a man; and God imputed all our sins, filth, guilt, and wicked  ness to him. Christ descended into the torments and anguish of hell to accomplish all of God’s will for our salvation.
That same one who descended also ascended far above all heavens. He ascended because in his descent he had taken away guilt and accomplished salvation and fulfilled the will and counsel of God for our salvation. He ascended, and his people with him, because he was righteous with the very righteousness of God. He, and his people with him, went up far above all heavens to sit down on the right hand of the majesty on high. He willed that where he is his people might be also—the perfect man.
So he gave some pastors and teachers. We do not receive
Christ without them. We are not filled by Christ apart from them. He fills us with himself by that means; so that all his grace, mercy, wisdom, glory, righteousness, holiness, and goodness become ours. By that means he causes us con  stantly to grow. To sit under that preaching of Christ and remain a child is really to reject that preaching and to fight against it and to refuse it as the food that causes us to grow.
That is impossible for the people of God. Those who are not growing up into Christ are being swept away from him by the stormy winds of false doctrine and by the dice-playing with the truth of cunning, crafty, and deceptive teachers, and that according to the eternal will of God for their destruction.
It is as the apostle says regarding the perilous times during the New Testament age. Perilous times will come: the winds of doctrine will blow with increasing ferocity; men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, unthankful, and unholy; despisers of those who are good; lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof; ever learning are they and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. These also resist the truth!
They know the truth, but they do not take their stand in it, they are not rooted in it, and they easily forsake it.
There is no love of the truth in them; that truth never has laid hold on their hearts, and they do not thereby grow up into Christ but remain spiritual children. And being adults in malice and refusing to receive the kingdom as a little child and not desiring the sincere milk of the word as a newborn babe, they resist the truth and are swept away by the winds of doctrine, tossed to and fro, wrecked on a spiritual Scylla and Charybdis!
Grow up into Christ!
Urgent exhortation!
Christ is the fullness. He is perfection. He is the head.
We constantly grow. Grow up spiritually. Grow stronger, grow richer, grow in the grace and knowledge of the Son of God.
To  grow  is to become stronger in the power of faith, so that more and more we live in the knowledge and assurance that Christ is our all in all, that we are nothing apart from him, and that all our blessedness is in him alone. We more and more live in the reality that we are not our own but belong to our faithful savior; that we are his property, his precious possession, in body and soul and in life and death. We more and more understand that with his precious blood he has fully satisfied for all our sins and that everlasting righteousness, salvation, and eternal life are ours in him. We know more and more that we have been delivered from all the power of the devil; that we have the victory over sin, the world, Satan, and the powers of darkness; that we have this in Christ our head!
Precious knowledge!
That we become richer in the knowledge of Christ, that we may know him and the power of his resurrection and the communion of his sufferings. That we know and taste his love more and more in our hearts; that by the power of his Spirit in us, we might more and more reveal the love of God in us through a walk in the light in communion with him and with one another. That we may continue in sanctification of life, hate sin more and more, and love righteousness more and more; that we may utterly humble ourselves before God as the God of our salvation, becoming nothing before him; so that all that we do, think, and say may be of Christ Jesus our Lord.
That we become more steadfast in hope; that we may keep an eye on the blessed future coming at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, seeking the things above, walking steadfastly toward the new and heavenly Jerusalem.
To become stronger in the fight of faith, that we may have on the full armor of God and may fight the good fight to the end, lest any man take our crown.
If I can summarize what it means to grow into Christ: it means that in all our lives we become more and more like our head in everything. By nature we are from a wicked and evil head, from a sinful and guilty head. Christ has cut us out of that evil head and grafted us into himself. And constantly he speaks that we might grow up into him and be made more and more like him in all things. His fullness must be revealed in us to the glory of the Father. Until we arrive at that perfection proposed to us in life eternal!
And that explains why the church must speak the truth in love. The truth of Christ is everything in the church. By the truth everyone is kept in order, all things are moved forward according to the word of Christ, and the ship of the church is guided by a sure hand toward eternal glory.
Oh, do not believe those who twist Ephesians 4:15 to make the church complacent and silent when the winds of doctrine blow against the church. They make “speaking the truth in love” to mean speaking the truth inoffensively, with the right tone, never rebuking or calling out false doctrine and false teachers. So they adorn themselves with the name of love and give themselves a convenient excuse for their lack of faith and lack of growth, by which they are exposed as remaining spiritual children beneath the ministration of Christ.
Speaking the truth in love does not mean speaking the truth inoffensively!
Can one speak the truth inoffensively?
Is it possible to speak the truth without the truth’s seeking out and destroying the lie and all who teach it and believe it? Regardless of the intentions of the speaker, the truth—which is Christ—has its own purpose. The truth attacks the preacher of the lie and calls him a liar, a deceiver, and a deadly magician. The word attacks the wisdom of the false teacher and calls it earthly, sensual, and devilish.
The truth shuts the door of the kingdom of heaven to the unbeliever and will give him no peace. There is no peace and concord between the truth and false doctrine. They are bitter and implacable enemies. The truth roots out every lie in us. The truth exposes the very thoughts and intents of our hearts. When a man comes under the truth and has a lie in his heart, the truth opposes that lie with the very might of the living God. The truth seeks out and destroys the unbeliever and his deadness and lack of faith. The truth pricks the unbeliever, makes him angry, hardens him; and finally, being enraged, he stops his ears and rushes on the truth to gnash on it with his teeth, to stone it, or to nail it to a cross. That is why the truth from a negative viewpoint unifies the church, for the truth cuts off the ungodly and the unbeliever. And positively, the truth gathers God’s people to himself and unites them to Christ, keeps them in
Christ, and causes them to grow up into Christ.
Thus the only speaking that may be heard in the church is the speaking of the truth in love.  Speaking the truth  means the whole word of God as it reveals God in the face of Jesus Christ as the God of our salvation.  Speaking the truth  is to speak Christ!  In love  means being rooted in Christ in the love of the truth. Speaking the truth is simply the manifestation of what is in the heart. In the heart the church loves the truth. The truth has laid hold on her. The truth is the beating heart of the body of Christ and all her members.
Her whole life comes out of that truth.
Many diverse people can be united together in an outward agreement if they talk about the weather, their businesses, their houses, their cars, their shared likes and dislikes, or their shared hobbies and experiences. But as soon as one opens his mouth to speak the truth in love, he speaks what lives in his heart and what his convictions are, based on the word of God. Then divisions come.
The truth cannot be blamed for that. That truth exposes what is in men’s hearts.
But another and heavenly unity is wrought by the speaking of the truth. Christ’s speaking his truth in the church bears fruit in the closer and closer unity of his people with Christ; so that they grow up into him, and they speak the truth as that which they love in their hearts. They cleave to that truth and are joined together in that truth. They would rather abandon every friendship in the world and gain for themselves the hatred of the whole world, rather than to depart from the truth one iota.
Let the truth ever be spoken in the church, as by means of it we grow up into Christ and are no more children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
—NJL  

Welcome to the Annual Meeting Edition of  Sword and Shield  . In this issue you will find the speeches, reports, and photos of the third annual meeting of Reformed Believers Publishing (RBP), held October 20, 2022, at the Wonderland Tire shop in
Byron Center, Michigan.
Two of the three editors of  Sword and Shield  were not able to be present at the meeting. Rev. Nathan Langerak was officiating at his daughter’s wedding rehearsal. A hearty congratulations to Reverend Langerak and his family on God’s gift of marriage to Dan and Sadie Andringa. Although Reverend Langerak was not able to be present, he has written the meditation, an article on the origins of Reformed Believers Publishing, and the  Finally,
Brethren, Farewell  for this issue.
Rev. Martin VanderWal was scheduled to be the keynote speaker for the annual meeting. A few days before the meeting, Reverend VanderWal informed the board of RBP that he had decided to decline its invitation to speak. The topic of Reverend VanderWal’s speech was a worthy one: “The Office of Believer: 1953 and Today.”
Perhaps that topic could be developed and published in the future.
That left one editor to attend and give an alternate keynote address, which address is reprinted elsewhere in this issue with some very slight editing to adapt it for print.
What this demonstrates as much as anything is that
Reformed Believers Publishing is a believers’ association.
The association does not belong to the editors or even to the board but to the men and women who have associated together for the cause of publishing a theological and polemical magazine. We could have an annual meeting of
RBP without a single editor in sight if we wanted, and it would still be a full and profitable meeting.
Having said that, it is a privilege for us as editors to write for  Sword and Shield  . We are very thankful to God for an association that willingly and even eagerly supports the publication of the magazine. May the Lord continue to give our magazine a place for the publication of sound
Reformed doctrine.
May God speed the truths written herein to your heart and the next issue into your hands.  —AL  

A hearty welcome to all who came out tonight for the third annual meeting. We appreciate your attendance and support of Reformed Believers Publishing, the board, and the editors. Your presence is an encouragement to us.
That is our purpose tonight too. It is to encourage ourselves in the task of representing the true Reformed line through the printed page.
And we need that encouragement, especially in the face of the fierce opposition that we have received and continue to receive. It is easy to become discouraged because of that opposition and also because of the defection in our ranks.  Sword and Shield  is now in its third volume year, and the magazine marches on in its battle for God’s sovereign, particular grace and unconditional covenant.
If you read the issues from the past year, you will notice a reality there. The reality is a certain devastation that has happened in the wake of our recovery of the truth. This recovery has left a path of devastation of liars and of the lie, which comes through in the whole catalog of past issues of  Sword and Shield  . There is a certain awesomeness to that devastation that is evident to all.
The scripture text on the magazine’s cover is actually being realized issue after issue. I will read that text for you:
Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places. (Deut. 33:29)
I think this text is being fulfilled and realized in the work of Reformed Believers Publishing and its magazine.
It is also true that in issue after issue, God’s saints receive a feast—a spiritual feast. The magazine continues to stir excitement and hope among God’s people.
Men may oppose, slander, and even reject  Sword and
Shield  , but they cannot stop its witness. Neither can they silence the call of  Sword and Shield  to faithfulness and reformation.
We love our magazine for the truth’s sake, and we are profoundly thankful for our editors and for their steady, deep, and warm spiritual zeal for God’s truth.
And we thank the editors for stamping the magazine with a distinctive character that is theologically positive and sharply polemical, with even a savage ferocity against false doctrine.
So as we go forward, our confidence is in the knowledge that the battle is the Lord’s; and the victory is sure in our Lord Jesus Christ, who reigns now and forever.
Praise the Lord!  Our heavenly Father, we come to thee in prayer, and we thank thee for thy covenant of fellowship and friendship which thou hast established with us according to Jesus
Christ and thy eternal counsel.
We thank thee that that covenant was realized in the day of Christ in the perfection of God and man together.
And we thank thee that in that state of perfection the covenant will continue forever.
We thank thee for redeeming us and for forgiving us all our sins. We thank thee for delivering us from the wrath of God that was due us for all our sins.
We thank thee that we have a perfect righteousness before thee that we can claim as our own. We rejoice in a full and complete and free salvation, which thou hast freely given us. And we magnify thy name and praise thee for the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We thank thee for Reformed Believers Publishing and the privilege of thy grace which thou hast given to us,  Henry Kamps  that we may give a distinctive witness to thy truth and to thy absolutely sovereign grace and the unconditional covenant. And we pray that thou would establish our witness to our hearts and that that witness may go far and find thy people wherever they are.
We thank thee for our editors—for their gifts, their cour  age, and their zeal for the truth. We pray that thou would continue to give them renewed courage and strength so that we may continue as a publishing association to defend thy truth and to set it forth. And grant also to our editors the skill and bravery to unleash the sword against the lie.
We pray too that thou would preserve thy church in these last days of deep and far-advanced apostasy that now manifests itself as Satan’s last desperate attempt to destroy the gospel of Christ and the name of Christ from the earth.
We pray that thou would cause that we may persevere in these days and that thou would bind thy saints wherever they are with us in the true faith of the pure gospel of grace in Christ Jesus.
We pray for thy blessing upon our speaker this evening and all our other activities tonight.
Hear us in mercy with the forgiveness of all our sins for Jesus’ sake.
Amen.  We now come to the main part of our program this evening  .Regrettably, Rev. Martin VanderWal, who was scheduled to speak, has declined to speak for us this evening on the topic that was previously announced.
The board of Reformed Believers Publishing wishes to make clear that this was entirely Reverend VanderWal’s decision. He was entirely free to speak, and he had an all-expenses-paid invitation from the board. In no way did the board discourage him from speaking for us. We are disappointed and regret his decline.
Reverend Lanning, our editor-in-chief, has graciously offered to address us this evening. We thank him for his willingness to speak to us, especially on the very short notice of Reverend VanderWal’s decline.
Reverend  Lanning will address us on the topic
“Reformed  Believers  Publishing:  A  Distinctively
Reformed Association.”
We look forward to his important and timely speech.
Please join me in welcoming Rev. Andy Lanning.  

I would like to thank Henry for the introduction and for leading us at the beginning of our activities this evening.
And I would like to echo Henry’s appreciation to those who are present here tonight. It is very encouraging to see the interest in Reformed Believers Publishing, which also is an interest in the magazine that God has given us to publish,  Sword and Shield  . And I’m also thankful that, although not everybody is able to attend tonight, there are many who have said they will be watching over the livestream; and we welcome you this evening as well.
I can’t help but think, at the occasion of this annual meet  ing, of the first annual meeting that was held just down the road in a tent on a cool October evening. That was the first annual meeting of an endeavor that God gave us entirely of his grace and that we did not deserve. The memories of that evening are precious to me and to many of us because we were in a bondage that was deceitful and sneaky, so that we did not even realize the bondage we were in. The bondage that we were in became evident especially to me at that first annual meeting. There we came together with God’s people who loved the truth, who loved the Reformed faith, and who were determined to make a witness in this world to that Reformed faith. They were very eager to publish a magazine and determined to send forth a Reformed witness as far as God would carry that magazine on the wings of his
Spirit. And when we came together that night, it was like chains broke. It was an experience that I hadn’t had and many of us had not had for a long time, of being entirely free to speak in an assembly of the Reformed faith and the truth of God’s grace. We were able to speak together face to face of the corruption that had overtaken our now mother church but at that time the denomination of which we were a part. There was a freedom in the air that night, and remarks were made to that effect by some of the speakers as well. We did not realize that we actually were free in the office of believer to speak the truth. We were utterly free to speak the truth; and, as importantly, we were utterly free to condemn the lie, to damn the lie, to be angry with the lie, to want no place for the lie. We didn’t know we could speak that way. We didn’t know we could have that. The Lord delivered us, and the Lord gave us a great freedom.
And I believe that at this annual meeting of Reformed
Believers Publishing, that same freedom is in evidence.
We are at a point not only in the Reformed Protestant Churches but also in our association, in Reformed
Believers Publishing, where there is division. That division is evident tonight in the fact that the speaker who was scheduled to speak has declined the invitation. That speaker, Reverend VanderWal, is currently writing publicly against decisions of the classis of the Reformed Protestant Churches. Now, can you imagine such a thing: writing publicly against decisions of the Reformed Protestant Churches? And I would say, as recently as four years ago we couldn’t imagine such a thing. Who would write publicly against decisions of the Protestant Reformed
Churches, for example? What is happening right now in our association and in the Reformed Protestant Churches is an aspect of that freedom of the believer to write the truth. That’s what is happening. And I, for one, welcome the open writing—though it hasn’t been on the pages of  Sword and Shield  ; the open writing in a man’s personal blog and on social media posts. I welcome that open writing. It is good for us that we know where we stand, and it is good for us to know whether we can stand together or whether we cannot stand together. That is all for the good. I believe that we ought to see what is happening right now in our association as one of the fruits that God has given us in this association and in the magazine  Sword and Shield  . I’ll have a little bit more to say about that later, Lord willing; but I want that at the outset to be known, and I think that’s the correct perspective on what is transpiring. What must be tested is whether what the believer writes is the truth. He is not free to write anything but only the truth.
Because the speaker who was invited tonight did decline the invitation and there is a different speaker in his place, the topic also is not going to be the same. I think the topic that Reverend VanderWal had chosen is a very worthy topic: “The Office of Believer: 1953 and Today.”
That is a striking topic because if you look at 1953, that whole controversy over the conditional covenant versus the unconditional covenant was carried on right before the face of the office of believer. It was not a controversy that was carried on behind closed doors; it was not a con  troversy that was decided by committee meetings; it was a controversy that unfolded openly and publicly, with the office of believer not only reading in the  Standard Bearer  all of the things that were being said back and forth about the covenant but the believer also writing in and speaking to the issue himself. The controversy over the unconditional covenant in 1953 in some ways was carried on on the back of the believer and before the face of the believer. That topic is highly worthy of exploration, and
I do hope that that topic can be developed in some form at some point. I personally did not feel myself able to pull together a speech on that topic in the allotted time, so I have chosen a topic that is related to events going on in our association at the present.
My topic tonight is “Reformed Believers Publishing:
A Distinctively Reformed Association.” It is my conviction, as I believe it is the conviction of the association, that God has given us a distinctively Reformed association at a time when distinctiveness is despised. And it is my conviction, as I believe it is yours, that we must have and maintain a distinctively Reformed association.
And that will only happen by the grace of Jehovah
God, for this association and our magazine—the whole cause that we represent of God’s sovereign grace and his sovereign, unconditional covenant—have been given to us. All of this is a gift that none of us deserved. God has given us this gift, and the speech tonight is intended to be praise of him for that distinctive Reformed witness.  We ought to know what it means to be a distinctively
Reformed association. By being distinctively Reformed
I mean this: the association so holds the Reformed faith and defends the Reformed faith and promotes the Reformed faith that this association is inseparably identi  fied with the Reformed faith, so that you cannot think of
Reformed Believers Publishing without thinking of the
Reformed faith. This is a matter of identity. That’s what  distinctively Reformed  means: a matter of identity.
To be distinctively Reformed we can press further: it means not only that we hold the Reformed faith in such a way that we are identified with that Reformed faith, but it also means that we hold the Reformed faith in such a way that we are distinguished by that Reformed faith from all other associations that either are not Reformed or that take to themselves the name  Reformed  but do not live up to that name. When we speak of being distinctively Reformed, we are speaking of a distinguishing, a separation. We are speaking of being so characterized by the Reformed faith that Reformed Believers Publishing stands alone and stands apart in the whole world of Reformed publications.
And being a distinctively Reformed association, our magazine also will be distinctively Reformed, so that the moment you think “  Sword and Shield  ,” you think
“Reformed” and so that  Sword and Shield  is characterized by the Reformed faith and distinguished from all other
Reformed magazines that are published today.
I say that Reformed Believers Publishing  is  and ought to be a  distinctively  Reformed association. That position is not popular. That position is not the mood of the day in the Reformed world. That position is criticized as being proud and arrogant. If an association says, “We are distinctive, and we recognize that we’re distinctive, and we  intend  to be distinctive—that’s our goal,” then that association will inevitably be criticized as proud. “You think that the Reformed faith dies with you. You think as a
Reformed association that you are better than any other
Reformed association and that you as members are better than all other people.” The accusation against distinctiveness and against being distinctively Reformed is inevitably the charge of pride. And Reformed publications and
Reformed churches right along with that are expending themselves today to be anything but distinctive. The order of the day is not distinctiveness; the order of the day is ecumenicity. The order of the day is to be nice and to carry oneself with a kind of false humility; so that churches and publications, when they encounter the lie, can find in their hearts peace with the lie. Whatever they imagine about their niceness and their love and their humility and all of those things, they are hatred of the Reformed faith.
And that is the order of the day. Reformed publications and churches today are not interested in being distinctively Reformed. That can be demonstrated from a wide variety of publications. I will limit myself to how the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are expending themselves to rid themselves of distinctiveness.  Rev. Andrew Lanning  That happened in a recent publication of Professor Engelsma, in which he maintained that “  Reformed is enough  !”1 That was his watchword in the article:
“Reformed is enough  !” What he was fighting against in that article was a supposed attitude that certain members of the Protestant Reformed Churches had had— which members, conveniently for him, are all now in the
Reformed Protestant Churches and in Reformed Believers Publishing—of pride and arrogance, an attitude that they were better than everyone else and that there was no
PR as good as these PRs; and that now, in the Reformed
Protestant Churches, we consider ourselves to be the wheat of the PRC and the remnant of the PRC that’s left now to be the chaff of the PRC. And his antidote to that supposed pride—and there is the charge that always comes against distinctive Reformed intentions—his antidote that he recommended to the PRC was “  Reformed is enough  !” Now, if you use that phrase  Reformed is enough  to fight a man who is saying, “Reformed is  not  enough”— and there are men who are saying that; the federal vision uses as their watchword “Reformed is not enough”—if you’re using  Reformed is enough  to fight the federal vision’s  Reformed is not enough  , I’m with you. But I would modify it to this:  distinctively Reformed  is enough. However, that phrase  Reformed is enough  or  distinctively Reformed is enough  is wrongly used to fight distinctiveness in doctrine; that is, to be distinguished by the Reformed faith and to live up to the Reformed faith and to insist on being separate from all of those who are tearing down the Reformed faith; so that when Professor Engelsma used that phrase  Reformed is enough  , whatever he thought that was going to mean for the Protestant Reformed Churches, that became the watchword for  don’t be distinctive  . And when you look around you at denominations that are throwing off Reformed doctrine and corrupting that Reformed doctrine at every turn, you can still make nice with those denominations. You can still tell your people that those people are good people. That is the atmosphere in the
Protestant Reformed Churches. There is nothing of  distinctively Reformed  in that.
That is the attitude that is evident in the October 15  Standard Bearer  in Rev. Daniel Holstege’s article in the rubric  All Around Us  , “A View from Ontario, Canada.”2
Reverend Holstege notes that in Ontario, Canada, there are many Canadian Reformed Churches and Canadian
Reformed people whom he has gotten to know. In the second paragraph of his article, Reverend Holstege gives a brief review of the history between the PRC and the
Canadian Reformed Churches. Really, it’s a brief note of the friendship between Herman Hoeksema and Klaas
Schilder. In that paragraph Reverend Holstege merely mentions, almost as if it’s a historical curiosity, that Herman Hoeksema and Klaas Schilder ended up disagreeing doctrinally. I say that he notes that almost as a historical curiosity because there’s no condemnation of Schilder’s conditional covenant and no condemnation of the Canadian Reformed conditional covenant, following Schilder.
In fact, the article is a paean of praise to the Canadian
Reformed Churches. It praises the Canadian Reformed
Churches for their diligent mission work here, there, and everywhere; it recommends the Canadian Reformed literature regarding missions to the Protestant Reformed
Churches as helpful. That is  not  distinctively Reformed!
And, in fact, it creates an atmosphere among those who are meant to be influenced by the article of finding warmth in their hearts for Canadian Reformed doctrine. That will be the effect. If the PRC and the Canadian Reformed are going to walk together, they must be agreed. They  must  be agreed. And if they are determined to walk together, they will find, before long, they  are  agreed; so that if there is anyone who would still damn—and I mean damn—
Canadian Reformed doctrine as heresy, they will find in their generations that those churches do not damn that doctrine but believe it and live it.
That whole atmosphere of opposition to distinctiveness is seen also in the fact that a Protestant Reformed minister can leave the Protestant Reformed Churches with apparently doctrinal concerns and be given an attaboy on the way out, a pat on the back, a word of thanksgiving for services rendered. That can only happen in a denomination where the atmosphere is not distinctive.
And I maintain that Reformed Believers Publishing is, by God’s grace, and must be a distinctively Reformed association. The Reformed faith must be so held and developed by us that we are identified with it and that we are distinguished by it.  Now, how does it happen that an association and the people of God become distinctively Reformed? That happens by the truth of God, the Reformed faith, taking hold of the members. You can say it this way:  you  are not going to make yourselves distinctively Reformed. The  truth  is going to make you distinctively Reformed: the truth of the gospel of sovereign grace, the truth of God’s unconditional covenant with  you  —with you! Who are you, who am I, that God should be so gracious to us? Do you know who  God is? Do you know his majesty? Do you know how the angels cover their faces before him? And that God, that holy God, has come to the worm that is you and that is me and said, “You’re my son. You’re my daughter. You come live with me. You abide with me. And I will live with you.
I abide with you.” That’s God’s unconditional covenant of grace. And when you in that covenant of grace have within you that old, depraved nature that is a fount of corruption, and when you see the sins that you commit, so that there’s no way that such a wretch could live with Jehovah
God, God is gracious to you and says, “But this covenant isn’t established on you. It’s not established on your work or on who you are. It is established on me. It is established on my Son, Jesus Christ.” That truth of the unconditional covenant of grace takes hold of the people of God, as Paul says in Romans 10:8: “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart.” That word is so near that it’s in your heart. God by the gospel has come to you and taken hold of you. And what is the fruit of that? That when the conditional covenant walks through your door, you hate it! You cannot abide it. You distinguish yourself from it. You damn it as wicked and have no fellowship with it. And then you’re distinctively Reformed. It’s all by the sovereign grace and power and gospel of Jehovah God, so that when we say, “Reformed Believers Publishing is a distinctively Reformed association,” all we are saying is this:
“God has been gracious to such as us.” That’s all.
This matter of being distinctively Reformed is a beautiful gift of God to his church because a distinctively
Reformed association reflects the very nature of the truth itself. And now we begin to swim in what I consider very deep waters. The truth itself  is  distinctive. The truth in its essence is distinctive. You don’t make the truth distinctive. You don’t take the truth and say, “Now I’m going to make this truth stand out against the lie there and the lie there.” The truth  is itself  distinctive. The truth always of itself is opposed to the lie. The  truth  cannot stand the lie.
The  truth  is characterized by opposition to the lie. The truth itself is distinctive.
One of the first ways you can test whether an association or a church or a believer is distinctively Reformed is that when God gives him the truth and takes hold of him by that truth, he cannot help but damn the lie. And so, if somewhere a Reformed association says, “We are distinctively Reformed,” and you listen for a little while, and you hear that it never, never damns the lie, then its failure to condemn the lie has given the lie to its confession. Such an association does not have the truth. The truth  will  condemn the lie. That’s the nature of the truth.
And that takes us to the deepest that I believe we can go: God  himself  is distinctive. When we talk about distinctively Reformed, we’re talking about God! God in his own being is distinguished from all others. God says that in the passage that was read this evening, Isaiah 43, as he says it in
Isaiah 40 and in many other places: “Whom will ye liken to me? Who is like me?” That’s divine speech for his distinctiveness. You search the heavens; you search the earth; you will find no one like unto God. He alone is exalted above the creature. He alone is exalted above everything opposed to him. God in his being is a distinctive God.
That is also the attribute or perfection or praise of
God that we call his  holiness  . God has many perfections.
God is love; God is right and just; God is eternal; God is omnipotent. One of God’s perfections is his holiness, and in that idea of holiness is this distinctiveness of
God because holiness does not mean merely purity, as we sometimes think of it. That is true; God is pure. But
God’s holiness means that he is consecrated to himself; and in consecration to himself, he is consecrated  from  all others, so that in the very attribute of God’s holiness is this matter of distinctiveness.
And now let us bring that home to our association. This is a Reformed association. Reformed theology faithfully expresses what God has revealed of himself, so that the true
God is the one confessed in the Reformed faith.  Distinctively
Reformed  means nothing other than the truth of God, the truth of his unconditional covenant, the truth of his sovereign saving grace. That is all  Reformed  means. Reformed isn’t one brand of Christianity at the buffet; Reformed  is  Christianity. There is no other Christianity than Reformed.
Only the Reformed faith teaches the sovereignty of God in the salvation of man. Whatever is not Reformed makes man to be his own savior at some point along the line.
Jehovah God loves his sovereignty. He loves his grace.
He loves his unconditional covenant. And when he takes hold of you by that, then you are distinctively Reformed too. You love those things and will not suffer anything to take away those truths.  I would like to spend a little time tonight applying that with regard to specific characteristics of what it means to be distinctively Reformed. You can talk about being distinctively Reformed. You can understand what that means. But now, what are those truths and those characteristics that make an association distinctively Reformed?
First, the truth of election is distinctively Reformed.
And when I say, “The truth of election,” I am speaking of the whole decree of God: his decree of Christ as the center of his whole purpose; his decree of all things that shall come to pass; his decree of sovereign election and reprobation. We can summarize the whole decree of God in that one word:  election  . Our fathers used to call it  decretal theology  . We have taken to calling it  election theology  .But it is the same thing. It is the decree of Jehovah God according to which he has determined everything. And
I say that decretal theology, election theology, is distinctively Reformed because in that theology you see God as
God. You see God as God with regard to reprobation, so that men are condemned eternally to hell because God said so, and that is not unjust. That is not unfair of God.
That is just of him. That’s how  God  God is—so sovereign that he reprobates according to his own will and good pleasure, and no one may say to him, “What doest thou?”
In decretal theology we see the grace of election, that Jehovah God chose to himself his church in Christ because of absolutely nothing in you or in me. Nothing.
There was nothing in you that drew him to you. Nothing.
In fact, you may say and I must say that I am a worse sinner than the reprobate. I don’t see into the heart of a reprobate man. I see into my heart, and it is filthy; so that
I know myself to be a worse sinner than a reprobate or, as Paul put it, the chief of sinners. And yet God from all eternity, before I was born or had done anything, said,
“That one is mine. That’s my son. That’s  my  son. I’m going to have a home for him in heaven. He’s going to have a mansion here with me to live in forever.” That is grace.
That election theology is distinctive, very distinctive.
Election theology is distinctive also from this point of view, that election theology is not only a question of  who  but is also a question of  what  . Election is not only this:
God says, “I choose you and you and you”—the  who  of whom I’m going to choose. But election is also this: the  what  . What do I choose you unto? I choose you unto membership in the body of Christ. I choose you unto salvation. I choose you unto justification. The whole  what  of your salvation is there in election, so that when you start talking about the different gifts of salvation—fellowship, assurance, peace with God—it is election theology alone that is distinctive and that makes fellowship with God to be God’s work alone and the experience of salvation to be from him alone. And everyone who fights that election theology will compromise it.
I make a point of that tonight because that compromise of election theology is well underway in the Protestant Reformed Churches, which is still the Reformed denomination we know best. In Professor Engelsma’s book  Gospel Truth of Justification  , he discusses in chapter 13 “Justified When?” In that chapter he asks the ques  tion, is justification given to you now, in this moment of time, by faith; or is there a sense in which we can speak of justification at the cross, and is there a sense in which we can speak of justification in eternity—eternal justification? And as Professor Engelsma writes about eternal justification, he says this:
Justification by faith is “real” justification. It is the “reality” of justification. This does not imply the unreality of eternal justification. But it does justice to the truth that biblical justification is a declaration of God by the gospel through faith in the believer’s consciousness. This is what justification  is  . Justification in eternity is a full reality, according to God’s own decision, only when it realizes itself in the word of the gospel in the consciousness of the elect but guilty sinner, by the operation of the justifying Spirit of Jesus Christ.3
Did you catch that? Professor Engelsma says that eternal justification is a reality. That is, from all eternity
God justified his people. He declared them righteous.
And he declared them righteous in Christ. It wasn’t just this, that from all eternity he declared that someday he  would  declare them righteous—once they were born and once they believed—but in eternity they were declared righteous. But now, confessing that eternal justification is real, Professor Engelsma immediately breaks the counsel, destroys the counsel, of God by saying, “Justification in eternity is a full reality...only when it realizes itself... in the consciousness of the...sinner.” Eternal justification isn’t real until you hear it.  Then  it becomes real. And I say, that breaks election. That overthrows election because the counsel of God, then—not only eternal justification but also the whole counsel of God—isn’t real until it’s realized  here  in time and history.
This goes back to the debate that we’ve talked about before between  Herman  Hoeksema and  Professor
Engelsma on whether the counsel of God is more real than history. Hoeksema maintained that the counsel is more real than history, and Engelsma disagreed with him publicly at his synodical examination. I didn’t realize how serious that debate was. I had always thought that was kind-of a curious, cute historical insight into the per  sonality of Herman Hoeksema. But I begin to see that that debate is central to election theology.  Is  election and
God’s counsel and decree  real  , or is it only real in time and history? And I say that God’s counsel is real, so that from all eternity I was righteous in Christ. That’s the language of Canons 1.7, where election is defined. God decreed to make Christ the head of the elect. And if he’s the head of the elect, then the elect have everything in him already in eternity. You could even say this: you already have your inheritance. You’ve been in heaven a thousand times a thousand times a thousand years already in God’s counsel.
That’s very real. That’s a very real thing. And that doesn’t deny the reality of time and history. Time and history are the unfolding of that counsel. But that counsel in itself is a very real counsel. That’s distinctively Reformed. You’re going to lose everything if you break election by making it somehow unreal until it is realized in time.
You can think of the difference this way: if God’s eternal decree is not real until it is realized in time, then his decree is only a blueprint. That’s all it is. The reality is in time; this is the house that the blueprint directs God to build; this is the reality, and the decree is just the blueprint.
But the teaching that the eternal counsel is real means that in God’s eternal counsel is the whole house. There is the whole covenant. There is the whole Christ. There is the whole body of Christ. There is your whole inheritance. It’s all there. It is the reality. And now in time and history is
God’s revelation and unfolding of all of that to us.
That’s distinctively Reformed decretal theology or election theology.
Distinctively Reformed means, second, that this association is confessional. This association lives out of the confessions and holds the Reformed confessions as author  itative. To be confessional means that the matter of doctrine for us as an association is decided by the Reformed confessions—not because the Reformed confessions are above the word of God but because the Reformed confessions set forth faithfully the divine doctrine of the word of God, so that all matters can be explained and defended out of the confessions. To be a distinctively Reformed association means being confessional.
That has application to the controversy that our association and the Reformed Protestant Churches find ourselves in at the moment. I have thought that perhaps the
Reformed Protestant Churches don’t have a school problem so much as we have a confessions problem. I think that is being borne out. The confessions are crystal clear on schools. Crystal clear. So clear that every attempt to make the confessions unclear on the schools involves decades of wrangling and decades of sowing seeds. And those seeds have been sown among us for decades, that the Christian school is not required, not a demand of the covenant; it’s something else. The confessions put that whole controversy to bed. If you want a further beautiful explanation of that,
I highly recommend Reverend Langerak’s speech sponsored by Sovereign Reformed Protestant Church.4 There the confessional doctrine of the schools as the demand of the covenant is laid out beautifully.
But there is more to that for us: is it hierarchical to decide that matter on the confessions, or is it part of the freedom of the believer—which Reformed Believers Publishing has trumpeted from the beginning—that matters be decided on the basis of the confessions and that we hold one another to the confessions? That matter is unresolved among some. But let it be resolved among us all that being distinctively Reformed means standing on the confessions; so that when a matter comes up at classis, even if it comes up that very day, and the matter is brought before the confessions for the confessions to speak to, and men are held accountable to the confessions for their offices or for their places in the church, that is not accused of being hierar  chical. That is not hierarchy. When the confessions say,
“Schools,” that is not Langerak or Lanning or anyone else you could think of saying, “Schools”; that is the confessions. And when Reformed believers together, in an association or in the church of Jesus Christ, hold each other to that, that is just being distinctively Reformed; being so distinctively Reformed that any lie opposed to that truth is disgusting, intolerable; so that there may be no compromise—not for a moment—on confessional doctrine.
That is what it means to be distinctively Reformed: it means to be confessional. And that is true liberty for the child of God. We have said for all of our existence now—our few years of existence in Reformed Believers
Publishing—that the believer is free to speak the truth.
And he is free to condemn the lie. That is true for Editor VanderWal. He is free to speak the truth and free to condemn the lie. That is true for Editor Lanning. That is true for the association members. That is true for every
Reformed believer in his office of believer. He is free to speak the truth and to condemn the lie, and no one may say to him when he speaks the truth and condemns the lie, “You mayn’t do that”—so much so that here at
Reformed  Believers  Publishing we have maintained that it is our right to write and speak against decisions of assemblies of the churches. I maintain that right yet tonight. Our position at Reformed Believers Publishing has  never  been “You’re free to say anything you want,” that believers are free to lie or that believers are free to oppose the Reformed standards of the church. The position has never been “You’re free to say anything.” The position has always been “You are free to speak the truth, and no one may say no to that; and you are free to condemn the lie, and no one may say no to that.”
That is how these matters will be decided too. That’s distinctively Reformed too, that these matters be decided by the judgment of each believer as he hears what men speak. Is that the truth, or is that the lie?
There is safety. There is freedom for the believer because then our foundation is the truth of Jehovah God himself. And that is a firm foundation that will not fail.
By God’s grace he has made Reformed Believers Publishing a distinctively Reformed association. And I can testify to that personally with a comparison of what it was like to write in the PRC with what it is like to write now for  Sword and Shield  . When I was in Singapore, Maurice Roberts, a foremost champion of common grace, came from the United Kingdom to Singapore and spoke, defending common grace. When I wrote an article in the church’s magazine against common grace, I had to look over my shoulder the whole time. The committee was uncomfortable with a sharp letter condemning common grace. Eventually something was published, but I had to look over my shoulder. That was worse in the PRC. When a new school year was going to begin and it was time to write a pastor’s article for the church newsletter and I wrote against homeschooling in that article, the consistory had all kinds of wranglings over it, whether it should be published or not, because of all the homeschoolers at Byron Center. With the Reformed Free Publishing
Association (RFPA), it was worse yet. The RFPA asked me to review the second volume of Reverend Langerak’s commentary on Corinthians,  Walking in the Way of Love  .And the editors at the  Standard Bearer  went around and around in some of the most bizarre correspondence I have ever been a part of and finally shut down the book review. And it could only finally be published in  Sword and Shield  once that magazine started.
And now in three volumes of writing for  Sword and
Shield  , I have never had to look over my shoulder. I have never had to wonder if speaking the truth, writing the truth, is going to be shut down. And the fact that I don’t have to look over my shoulder and that we don’t have to look over our shoulders in our publication of the magazine is not a testimony to us but to Jehovah God. He has given us his gospel and his truth. He has taken hold of our hearts by that truth, and the fruit of that is a distinctively Reformed association and magazine.
To God be the glory.
I thank you for your time.
—AL  EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTION  

Footnotes:

1 David J. Engelsma, “Reformed according to the Creeds is Enough: Once Again the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC),” August 2022; emphasis is Engelsma’s.
2 Daniel Holstege, “A View from Ontario, Canada,” Standard Bearer 99, no. 2 (October 15, 2022): 38–40.
3 David J. Engelsma, Gospel Truth of Justification: Proclaimed, Defended, Developed (Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2017), 259; emphasis is Engelsma’s.
4 Nathan J. Langerak, “The Necessity and Demand of the Christian School,” October 14, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3dmg PsLXzU.

On October 20, 2022, Reformed Believers Publishing held its third annual meeting. These annual meetings—rallies—have been a tremendous source of encouragement for the editors and I am sure for the board and for all who attend. I was unable to attend the annual meeting of Reformed Believers Publishing this year because of my oldest daughter’s wedding. I sorely missed being at the meeting, and I will lack now for a year the encouragement that the meetings have always given to me in the work of writing. When one sees the faces, hears the singing, and speaks with others of the truth, there is a taste of heaven. I have looked forward to the annual meeting with great anticipation each year. Reformed Believers
Publishing is an organization of those who love the truth.
I love the enthusiasm of the members, and so my regret at being unable to attend the meeting this year.
I would suggest to the board members that they consider holding the annual meeting on a Friday in the future so that, if possible, those from outside the Grand
Rapids area might be able to attend more easily by having Friday and Saturday for travel. I am sure there are many who would avail themselves of the opportunity.
Reformed Believers Publishing from its inception was an organization of men from around the United States and
Canada. The magazine and organization have supporters from around the world. The board should consider this in planning such a wonderful evening as the annual association meeting. Having the meeting on a Friday would also allow more children to attend without their having to be concerned about getting to bed on time because of school the next day. I reflect on these things and write them to you and ask the board to consider these things.
More important is that this meeting has revealed that the truth continues to divide. When one looks at the effects of the magazine after only three years, it is shocking to see the desolation. One would be tempted to blame the magazine. But division must come according to the sovereign will of God, and the instrument that the Lord uses to bring this division—and desolation—is the speak  ing of the truth. The truth cuts off many who are carried away on the waves of apostasy, and by this means the truth also brings a lovely unity in the truth. I say that the annual meeting this year revealed that because the scheduled speaker, Rev. Martin VanderWal, decided to cancel his speech. This was because of division over the issue of schools and the question of being creedally Reformed in the Reformed Protestant Churches. Furthermore, there were several vacancies on the board that had to be filled because men abandoned this cause of the truth for their own ideas and theologies.
Reformed Believers Publishing is an organization that stands for the truth and that was formed by the truth. The truth supports the organization. The truth is the reason for its existence. And the truth has also shaped the organization and will continue to do so. We submit to these workings of the Lord, who through all our history— beginning in the Protestant Reformed Churches with our opposition to the false doctrine in those churches and carrying through to today—has taught us that we may not rely upon men. God teaches us that the Lord is everything and that all men are vanity.
This year’s annual meeting gave me an occasion to reflect on where we came from as an organization and, closely allied to that, as Reformed Protestant Churches. I make no secret of the fact that I believe the organization and its magazine,  Sword and Shield  , were instruments in the Lord’s hands to bring about reformation in the churches by means of separating us from a false church and forming the churches anew in the Reformed Protestant Churches. If history is any indication, the way of the paper will also be the way of the denomination, and vice versa, for good or evil.
It was originally my intention to write and publish a pamphlet that details the history of the formation of
Reformed Believers Publishing and later the Reformed
Protestant denomination. I believe this is valuable and fascinating history and that it should not be lost. I would like to include in it the beginnings and then the development of the doctrinal controversy that led to the formation of
Reformed Believers Publishing, as well as the history of the actions that the Protestant Reformed Churches took to silence the truth and to kill it, including the suspension of Rev. M. VanderWal, the deposition of Rev. A. Lanning by Byron Center, and then my suspension by Crete that in the end resulted in the formation of a new denomination of churches. The press of work in the churches has so far prevented me from writing such a pamphlet. I strongly desire in the future to do so, if the Lord gives me strength.
At present I have many hundreds of pages of documents and commentary, including decisions of consistories and classes, as well as anecdotes from those involved. I assure you that it is gripping reading for anyone who loves church history or the cause of the truth.
I thought that it would be good to give a little piece of this history through two documents. The first is the
“Letter of Concern” that was sent to the board of the
Reformed Free Publishing Association, calling for action at the  Standard Bearer  . The second is one of the attachments sent along with that letter, in which the concerned men attempted to prove that their case was not merely one of empty name-calling but that their evaluations were based upon solid facts and history. There were four such attachments. One was from Reverend VanderWal.
Another was from Reverend Lanning. Another was an analysis of what at that time was a recently published  Standard Bearer  letter and response.
I feel a sense of grief when I read the names of those who signed the “Letter of Concern.” Some have never joined the cause of the truth but stay put in their relative safety, having turned back in the day of battle. Some, having stood in that fight, abandoned the battlefield. Others brought trouble to the church by false doctrine. The ways of the Lord are mysterious, and his judgments are past finding out.
For the rest, the letter from the group of concerned men is a vital part of the history of an organization that was formed to speak God’s truth. The letter that follows it shows that our cause was a righteous one based on truth and justice. The truth was under an all-out assault by the ministers and professors of the Protestant Reformed
Churches, who were bent on taking the churches in a new direction. Reformed Believers Publishing and  Sword and Shield  were necessary to free the truth to be heard again, and that truth worked a reformation.
—NJL  Letter of Concern to the Board of the
Reformed Free Publishing Association (R FPA)  May 23, 2019
Dear Brothers in Christ of the RFPA Board,
Each of the undersigned are members of the RFPA board, the RFPA association, or  Standard Bearer  (SB  )readers. We come to you with this letter because we are deeply troubled by developments at the board and the paper of the RFPA, the  Standard Bearer  . We have also addressed a letter of concern to the editors of the  SB  ,detailing our concerns and informing them that we have written a letter to you. The letter is attached.
Through the  SB  the RFPA gave birth to the Protestant
Reformed Churches (PRC) in the early 1920s during the struggle over the false doctrine of common grace in the
Christian Reformed Church (CRC). In the 1950s the  SB  was instrumental in the preservation of the truth in the
PRC during the controversy over the false doctrine of the conditional covenant. We care deeply about the organization and the paper. We love the theology for which they stand historically and officially, the cause for which they were started, and the principles for which they stand.
The theology for which they stand is the truth of God as
God in all of creation and in the salvation of elect sinners.
It is the truth of the sovereign and particular grace of God and of salvation all of grace, all of God, and all to the glory of the only good God—of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things. It is the truth of the Reformed faith, which is the truth of the scriptures. It is the truth as it has been historically maintained in the Protestant Reformed
Churches over against any and all attempts to diminish the glory of God and to exalt man, especially by such false doctrines as the well-meant gospel offer, common grace, and the conditional covenant.
The cause for which the organization and magazine were started was to give witness to that truth to the glory of God and the salvation of his elect church. The RFPA was formed for this purpose and used the  SB  as the instrument to carry out this purpose.
Chief among the principles for which they stand is the freedom to write that truth, not only in the face of false doctrine but also in the face of trends and pressures to be silent about the truth. The RFPA and the  SB  are  free  . The principle is embodied in the name of the organization and printed in the masthead of every issue of the  SB  . They are free of denominational control. Ultimately, they are free in the truth of God, which gives them their purpose and right of existence. The RFPA is not merely a printer, but it has a right to exist as an independent witness to the truth of
God’s word based on the office of all believers. The RFPA carries out its calling to witness to that truth through the  SB  . The organization and magazine were started by worthy men while they were still members of the CRC in order to defend the truth of God’s sovereign and particular grace against the error of common grace. They were started because the truth—especially in its criticism of false doc  trine—could not be heard and was shut out of the CRC pa  per, the  Banner  . The RFPA and  SB  gave a free voice to the truth that could be heard nowhere else. The founders believed that there must be free discussion of doctrinal issues, not merely for the sake of liberty but also for the truth’s sake. The truth is lost in an environment of censorship.
Because the RFPA stands for this truth, this cause, and this principle, it has never been neutral in respect to the truth. The RFPA has never merely hosted a discussion of ideas. The RFPA has decided what the truth is, and it stood for the truth. The RFPA stands for the historic Reformed faith of the creeds as maintained in the PRC as that was explained by the reformers of 1924. In pursuit of the purpose to witness to the Reformed truth, the RFPA has allowed those who speak against it to have their voice heard so that they can be refuted by the truth and so that the truth can stand out victoriously. The Protestant Reformed truth, first and foremost, is given a voice by the RFPA.
We believe that the  SB  through the leadership of the present editors has departed from the purpose, mission, and principles of its founding and that the RFPA board is acquiescing in that departure.
First, the editors have set a direction for the magazine that is not in keeping with its distinctive character as sharply Protestant Reformed, doctrinal, and polemical. We are dissatisfied with the character of the editorials and the weak tone. This same character and tone are reflected by force of editorial leadership throughout the magazine. We believe this stance of the magazine is not simply the result of different men with different abilities and interests, but it is the result of a conscious decision to tone down the magazine and to take it in another direction. In the present doctrinal controversy in our churches, the editors have at last found a sharp voice, but it is directed against those who stand for the historic positions of the  SB.  This stance of the magazine we find unacceptable. We see it as the end result of the previous bad direction set by the editors and, indeed, as its fruit.
Second, the editors are taking away the freedom of the magazine. We learned that, after frequent censorship of his writings by the editors, a writer has been dismissed from writing for the rubric “All Around Us.” We discovered through a letter published on the RFPA blog that a minister could not have his letter about the doctrinal controversy which recently was decided by the synod of the PRC published in the  SB  . We learned that still another letter, intending to carry on a discussion of that current doctrinal controversy in the PRC and to give a response to the editors, cannot be published in the  SB  . Another minister could not have published his letter about some editorials.
We learned that another letter, written by yet another minister about the doctrinal controversy in the PRC, took months to publish and only after efforts by the editors to have the writer withdraw the letter or substantially change it. We learned that the same minister has offered to write guest articles in the  SB  to illuminate the  SB  readership on the current doctrinal controversy in our churches, but he was turned down. We understand that there has been interference from the editors of the  SB  at the RFPA, with a view to having certain content about the doctrinal con  troversy in our churches placed on the RFPA blog taken down and to hinder the free publication of articles on the blog that may be critical of writing in the  SB  . Efforts to have discussions about these issues in the  SB  have been met with denials, deflections, criticisms, silence, delays, and refusals to publish. That is bad enough of itself, but it is more serious when those who are obstructed and shut out are promoting the truth historically championed on the pages of the  SB  .Third, there are recent troubling developments on the editorial pages of the  SB  . When the PRC were going through a doctrinal controversy over the place of works in salvation, the editorial pages of the  SB  were silent. The controversy dealt with the fundamental doctrines of justification and the unconditional covenant, yet the  SB  said nothing. As soon as a decision was made by our synod, the editorials of the  SB  minimized the issue and declared that it was neither false doctrine nor heresy, made threats against those who insisted that the issue was so serious, and insinuated that there are such radicals lurking in the
PRC. Soon afterward editorials appeared that condemned a new species of antinomianism that was allegedly a danger in the PRC. Now the editors of the  SB  are criticizing the doctrine of the PRC as developed and taught to us by Rev.
Herman Hoeksema and maintained through the doctrinal split of 1953. The editors are using the  SB  as a platform to call that doctrine dangerous and to call those who espouse and maintain that doctrine antinomian and hyper-Calvinistic—the very charges that this denomination and that pa  per have endured through the decades for their stand for the truth. For the first time in its illustrious history, the  SB  was shamefully silent during a serious doctrinal controversy in the PRC over the very heart of the gospel. Now having found a voice, the editors of the  SB  are criticizing the doctrine that is necessary to expose the error just faced in our churches. If there had been no blog writing, there would have been no writing at all that publicly discussed the issues to inform and to instruct. We are still suffering at present from a great dearth of information and a flood of misinformation in that many are totally clueless about what the issues are that our churches are facing, do not understand their seriousness, or have a completely wrong understanding of the issues.
Fourth, we learned that the RFPA has given up control over the content of the magazine by means of an agreement that fundamentally alters the long-standing relationship between the RFPA and  SB  . The fact that such a document was deemed necessary is indicative of the problem in the relationship between the  SB  and the RFPA and of a power struggle for control of the content of the  SB  .The  SB  magazine is owned by the RFPA and is the paper of the members of the association and really of its readership. The paper has been taken over by the editors of the  SB  and is being pressed in a direction with which we are in disagreement. The editors are not vigorously maintaining the historic character of the magazine as Protestant
Reformed, doctrinal, and polemical. They have censored content, refused good letters, and not honored the principle of the paper of freedom to write on the issues. The editors were silent during the recent doctrinal controversy in our churches. Now they have instigated criticism in the paper of the Protestant Reformed truth and believers who stand for it. We believe the RFPA board has acquiesced in this and given up control of the paper, especially by means of the document that states the relationship between the
RFPA and  SB  . The document alters the relationship between the RFPA and  SB  by ceding control of the content of the paper to the editorial staff and taking it away from the organization in whose hands it properly lies, but also by making the relationship, which heretofore was as organic and harmonious as that between the hand and the arm, into a legal contract. We strongly disagree with this and believe it serves to take the  SB  away from the organization that started and owns it and to insulate the paper and the direction the editors are taking it from criticism by the board and ultimately by the RFPA.
We are writing this to you to call you to take action on these issues. The RFPA board needs to assert its sovereign control over the paper and its content. The association itself will have the ultimate say. If the board is unwilling to take action, we are willing to address a letter to the RFPA board in harmony with the constitution’s rules, which allow fifteen members to call for a special association meeting to address these matters. We are calling the RFPA board to see these things as serious problems and to address them decisively, without delay, and with all due and deliberate speed.
We feel compelled to write this to you by a sense of the gravity of the changes taking place, the urgency of the issues facing our churches, and a growing sense that if nothing is done at all, the illustrious heritage of the RFPA and  SB  as a clear and feared witness to the Reformed faith as officially maintained in the Protestant Reformed Churches will be lost, and the principles—especially freedom—for which the
RFPA has historically stood will be further eroded.
We are further compelled to write this letter because we believe that at present the churches are in the midst of an unsettled doctrinal controversy over fundamental doctrines of the Reformed faith, such as the call of the gospel, the nature and definition of grace, the understanding of faith, the place of works in salvation, and ultimately, then, the truth of God’s unconditional covenant and salvation by grace alone. We believe that the truth on these matters is not receiving a hearing at the  SB  .The men of the RFPA board must make up their minds where they stand on the issue of the truth and on the principles, constitution, and history of the organization. The  RFPA stands on the truth and must take the side of the truth. The RFPA must demand that the truth be given a voice, especially as that has been historically maintained in the PRC and found on the pages of the magazine. The
RFPA stands for freedom for the truth to be heard. The truth will prevail. The only question is whether the RFPA will be found among its supporters as it has been in the past. The RFPA is not a neutral organization. It becomes irrelevant if it is neutral; and worst it betrays its purpose, constitution, and history. That is what is at stake here.
As proof—by no means exhaustive—of the issues that we raise in our letter, we include four attachments. First, we attach a letter that was rejected for publication in the  SB  .We agree with this letter and believe it must be published immediately. We include a brief explanation of the circumstances surrounding its rejection. Second, we include a letter from Rev. M. VanderWal that was rejected. Third, we include a timeline and recollection from Rev. A. Lanning about his experience with the  SB  editors regarding his letter to the  SB  . Fourth, we attach a brief analysis of a recent editorial response to a letter that was printed in the May 15  SB  that was in many respects the impetus for this letter.
For the cause of the gospel,
Rev. Nathan J. Langerak
Rev. Andy W. Lanning
Rev. Martin L. VanderWal
Ryan D. Brunsting
Daryl A. Bleyenberg
Kevin D. Schipper
Wayne M. Courtney
Les Kamps
John R. Cleveland Jr.
Andy Birkett
Jon Langerak
Aaron J. Cleveland
Henry Kamps
Brian Hilt
Philip Rainey
Gordon J. Schipper
Nathan M. Price
Daniel J. DeJong
Jason Cleveland
Craig D. Ferguson  Attachment 1:
Rejected Letter of Rev. N. Langerak
In the October 1, 2018, issue of the  SB  , Rev. K. Koole wrote his infamous editorial “What Must I Do...?,” in which he gave a different explanation of the call of the
Philippian jailor than Herman Hoeksema had; Reverend
Koole later called Hoeksema’s explanation “Nonsense!”1
On October 8, 2018, Rev. N. Langerak wrote a letter disagreeing with Koole’s editorial and sent it to the  SB  editorial office. The editors of the  SB  would not publish the letter without Reverend Langerak’s making substantial changes to the letter’s content and because of the letter’s length. This was evidence of the censorship and collusion of the  SB  editors in silencing the voice of the believer.
Then, as an RFPA-approved blog writer, Reverend
Langerak published the rejected letter on the RFPA blog.
This set off a firestorm of opposition from the  SB  editors, in which they demanded meetings with the RFPA staff to get the letter taken down from the blog. Only after many unsuccessful attempts by the editors to have the letter pulled down from the blog did they publish the letter in the  SB  ,along with a response from Reverend Koole. His response was as bad as or worse than his original editorial.
The letter that is attached [to the “Letter of Concern”] is a follow-up and a response to Reverend Koole’s response to the original [rejected and then published] letter. The follow-up letter was also sent to the  SB  office for publication. It is no small point that this letter was sent in
January, and the  SB  editors gave no response until March.
When they finally did respond, it was only after they had made sure the letter would not be published on the RFPA blog. Their response was a refusal to publish the letter.
This letter was refused publication in the  SB  because the  SB  editors charged Reverend Langerak with the sin of lying because he wrote on the blog that the  SB  editors would not publish his original letter. As a consequence, they refused to publish anything by him until he met certain demands of theirs.
The material sent by the group of concerned men laid before the board of the RFPA its calling to take action.
The truth was being stifled by the editors of the  SB  . It could not be heard freely on the pages of the  SB  . The
RFPA board did nothing. They forsook their calling to speak and defend the truth. Thus the need for an organization that was founded on the principle that the believer has the right to speak the truth.  Rev. N. Langerak’s Letter  January 7, 2019
Dear Editors of the  Standard Bearer  ,I read Reverend Koole’s rebuttal of my blog post in the  Standard Bearer  [November 15, 2018]. He reiterates without proof that the controversy recently decided by synod was about the question, “What is to be judged as antinomianism?” Can he not see that this matter of antinomi  anism only came up as a false charge against objections to preaching that compromised the gospel of grace? The gospel of grace in its criticism of that preaching was charged with being antinomian.
In his response Reverend Koole continues to press his point about the threat of antinomianism that he “fears,” by criticizing “men full of misguided zeal” for the truth that the salvation of the sinner is  all  of grace, and therefore  all  of God (in reaction to Arminianism or work-righteousness), but doing so by insisting that the preaching emphasize simply what God has done for us (prompting the believer to gratitude) and that the preacher then steer clear of stressing also how the hearer is called to live if he will experientially know the salvation and approval of his God.
Is this a description of the kind of men who “loud  ly subscribe to the Canons and then proceed to trouble the churches with their antinomian sentiments again and again”? Is this a description of “those of an antinomian strain in our churches”? Since he is referring to preachers in our churches, my questions are, who are they, and what have they preached or written to which he can point as evidence of their misguided zeal?
But there is something curious about these misguided preachers. Are they a description of the real opponent  in this controversy  for Reverend Koole and the real problem in our churches as he sees it?
Let us examine the thinking of these preachers. They have a zeal for protecting the doctrine of salvation all of grace. They do that out of loathing for Arminianism and work-righteousness. In their preaching they emphasize simply what God has done for us. They believe that this prompts gratitude. What preachers! They would build up faith, since the gospel is not what one must do for salvation but what God has accomplished by Jesus Christ and applies to us for salvation.
Reverend Koole accuses these men of antinomianism because they “steer clear of stressing also how the hearer is called to live if he will experientially know the salvation and approval of his God.” These preachers are not accused of avoiding preaching on how the believer is called to live in thankfulness for his salvation. They are not accused of minimizing the law of God and the call to sanctified liv  ing. They are not accused of avoiding the exhortations and admonitions of the word of God. Doing that, they could legitimately be charge with antinomianism.
So what is this doctrine that earns a preacher the label of  antinomian  if he avoids that doctrine? “How the hearer is called to live” means obedience to the law of God. Reverend Koole makes the hearer’s experiential knowledge of the salvation and approval of God dependent on the hearer’s obedience. These preachers are condemned as antinomian because they will not tell the people that  if  they will know the salvation and approval of God, they must obey the law of God. Reverend Koole adds the word “experientially.” But to know the salvation and the approval of God is experiential.
The apostle Paul says that we know the salvation and approval of God by faith: 8.  Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ
Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9.  And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10. That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. (Phil. 3:8–10)
Our obedience the apostle calls the “righteousness, which is of the law.” This he counts loss and dung to be found in Christ with the righteousness of God, which is by faith. On the ground of that righteousness, we know both the salvation and the approval of God experientially; since our salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins, and justification is the approval of God.  That I may know him  is the translation of the Greek infinitive of purpose. The apostle says that forsaking our own obedience as righteousness is necessary  in order that  we know Christ, know the power of his resurrection, and know the fellowship of his sufferings.
To know Christ is personally and experientially to know him as the complete savior who saves from the guilt and the pollution of sin. To know the power of his resurrection is to know personally and experientially the power of the resurrection of Christ to justify and grant eternal life and to transform the believer and make him a new creature in all his life. To know the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings is to know the persecution of the world because the believer stands in the world that hates Christ, confessing his truth and living to his glory. So long as we hold on to our obedience as necessary to know the salvation and the approval of God—for righteousness—we are ignorant of Christ, the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his suffering. The apostle says that we know all these treasures of
Christ—experientially—only by casting off our obedience for righteousness and having Christ and his righteousness by faith. In short, we know all this by faith because we know Christ by faith.
In light of the passage, is it not wrong to teach that obedience is the  if  on which the experiential knowledge of the salvation and approval of God depend? Where is this doctrine in the creeds? Is this an example of the “development” that “needs to be done” in “understanding grace in its sanctifying power”?
If making the knowledge of the salvation and approval of God depend on obedience is the idea behind the nov  el quest that Reverend Koole suggests for “wording” that
“may be used in the preaching...to prompt and promote godliness,” then I say, “No, thank you.” Making some aspect of salvation—also the experience of it—dependent on works does not prompt godliness but promotes a smug self-righteousness.
I like these imaginary preachers then. I wish they were real men. I find that their zeal for the truth that salvation is all of God manifests itself in avoiding the doctrine that
Reverend Koole praises as essential to the gospel and for which he charges them with antinomianism. They are not antinomian at all, but they preach the gospel. Reverend
Koole’s imaginary preachers—and all who are like them— are to be commended for avoiding that kind of preaching.
I doubt they would have any interest in Reverend Koole’s quest for “wording” to “prompt godliness.”
Reverend Koole gets exercised about one of a series of questions that I asked in my blog post. I asked, “Are they
[good works] fruits of faith or do works along with faith ob  tain? Is fellowship with the Father by faith and by the good works that faith produces? Is salvation by faith and by the works of faith?” Rev. Koole writes,
The first two can pass inspection, but the third?...
As if that was what Hope’s consistory was approving, what was being preached from their pulpit, and most of its members were oblivious to? And that this is what Classis East was willing to defend by its decisions? That is a serious misrepresentation.  That  was not the issue before synod. To indicate that it was is not honest or helpful.
As if...!
What if?
What if it was preached, approved, and defended, and thus before synod that “we do good works to have our prayers answered...we do good works so that we can receive God’s grace and Holy Spirit in our conscience...obedience is required here, obedience that I must perform in order to enjoy fellowship with God...The way of a holy life matters; it is the way to the Father” (  Acts of Synod 2018  ).
All this was preached, approved, and defended under the banner of prompting and promoting godliness and exposing radical antinomians of all shades.
Synod said that these condemned statements com  promised justification and the unconditional covenant. If justification and the covenant are about anything, they are about the truth that  salvation  is by  faith alone  and not by faith and faith’s works.
It is surprising that Reverend Koole would see any difference among the three questions that I asked. He accepts the first two as legitimate, but the third is simply the extension of them. How are the questions different? The three questions do not present the truth over against three different errors but over against one and the same error that can be stated three different ways, more or less subtly. The three questions are all equally serious because they all compromise justification by faith alone and the unconditional covenant.
I wonder if the new search to find “wording” to “prompt godliness” was not begun because synod took away words and phrases that many thought were a fine way to prompt godliness and criticism of which was judged as antinomian, but that in fact the words and phrases compromised the gospel.
His imaginary preachers will not preach “how the hearer is called to live if he will experientially know the salvation and approval of God.” The sad thing is that Reverend Koole criticizes them for a reactionary and misguided zeal for grace and condemns them as antinomian.
I challenge the editor of the  Standard Bearer  to explain how the fault that he finds with those preachers differs at all from the theology of the statements quoted above.
If those preachers are antinomian, then synod was dead wrong.
I wish there were more of these “antinomian” preachers. They remind me of Hoeksema, who wrote,
If the preaching of the law would leave the impression with the church of Jesus Christ that somehow we must add to the righteousness that is in Jesus
Christ our Lord, then, of course, it would be far bet  ter that we never heard at all of the law again. (  Triple
Knowledge,  3:443)
Cordially in Christ,
Nathan J. Langerak  

Footnotes:

1 Kenneth Koole, “What Must I Do...?,” Standard Bearer 95, no. 1 (October 15, 2018): 6–9; Kenneth Koole, “Response,” Standard Bearer 95, no. 12 (March 15, 2019): 279.

I  t has been almost three years since the first issue of  Sword and Shield  hit mailboxes in June 2020.
In the chairman’s opening remarks at the recent annual meeting of Reformed Believers Publishing, I said that as one surveys the past issues of our magazine, he can see the ground that has been traveled and now recognize the recovery of the true Reformed line and confession that  Sword and Shield  has brought about. One sees too a devastation in the wake of that recovery of the truth.
You can see that  now.  The clash of the battlefield when it moves forward across territory brings with it gruesome scenes of bodies, the scorched earth, and the all-out wreckage of war. That same reality happens in the war for the truth. There is a certain devastation because of that.
What do we now witness after almost three years of bitter fighting for the pure gospel of sovereign grace against the lie in our mother church, as that war has been waged on the pages of  Sword and Shield  ?When we gave again a vigorous witness to the gospel of God’s absolutely sovereign grace through our magazine, no one knew or could see where that would lead and what would be the outcome. With all our hearts we desired that this renewed witness to the truth would work reformation, a reviving, and a return to the pure gospel of sovereign grace  within  our beloved Protestant
Reformed Churches (PRC). This was our hope and long  ing. Our aim was simply to unleash the truth again after it had been held under for so long and even silenced in our mother church. We desired with all our hearts to have for ourselves again the full-throated confession of the gospel of sovereign, particular grace that we once enjoyed and that filled our hearts and to experience again the glory and joy of that gospel. We wanted to have back in our grip the fullness of our heritage in the truth that we always believed and confessed, to have that truth ring out once again, and to rally together in that glorious confession.
We were naïve.
We can see that  now.  The  PRC declared all-out war against us. They unleashed fury on us. They slandered us as fanatics, antinomians, hyper-Calvinists, schismatics, and whatnot else.
Then they cast us and our testimony out of the synagogue and deposed faithful officebearers. This was  only  because of our determination to give a clear and unequivocal witness to God’s absolutely sovereign predestination; sovereign, particular grace; and God’s unconditional covenant of friendship with his elect, established and fully realized in Jesus Christ according to God’s eternal counsel.  Only  because we proclaimed that God is God and that salvation is only of the Lord, we were cast out.
Since then a fierce fight has ensued on the pages of  Sword and Shield  for the pure gospel of sovereign grace against the lie that had raised its head in our mother church. The clash has been pronounced and sharp.
What has been the outcome?
What is that devastation that we can see now on the swath of battle behind us?
The Protestant Reformed clergy and the majority of the membership have decisively rejected our testimony to the pure gospel of grace and our distinctively Protestant
Reformed heritage, and they have refused to return to the old paths. For years the men in leadership in the PRC saw  themselves  and promoted  themselves  as staunch custodians of the faith and those who supremely maintained the true line of what was “Reformed” and who also boasted of being even PROTESTANT REFORMED. They wanted to be identified with the old, great reformers, especially the reformer of 1924, Herman Hoeksema; and they were proud to claim themselves as his spiritual sons.
In what is now their wholesale rejection of our witness to  that very truth and heritage  , they reveal themselves as apostates. It is now apparent that all their boasting and claims were the mere pretenses of the apostate, who built and garnished the tombs of the prophets and blessed their memory, while killing Christ afresh and reviling his people.  By  its defense and fight for the truth,  Sword and
Shield  has exposed, for everyone to see, who the clergy in the PRC really are and what the Protestant Reformed denomination really is.  Sword and Shield  on its pages has thrown a light on a brood of quislings, who were hiding undercover for decades in the PRC. The leadership and clergy of the PRC are men who actually despise Herman
Hoeksema and his theology in spite of their loud, public, high praise of him. For years they successfully camouflaged their hatred of him and his theology. Like beautiful, whited sepulchers full of dead men’s bones, these men covered their lies with a cloak of pious externals and vaunted, boasted claims of Protestant Reformed orthodoxy. They actually chafed and suffocated under Herman
Hoeksema’s theology that gave all the glory to God and none to man.  Sword and Shield  has thrown a light on that and flushed them out of hiding and exposed their project that was designed slowly, piece by piece, and quietly to dismantle the whole system of truth for which that reformer of 1924 had witnessed and given his life.  Sword and Shield  is the strongman that gave these impostors the shove they needed to come out with it, to stop hesitating on their already-decided path, and to get on to where they have always wanted to go.  Sword and Shield  forced them to finish their project of a complete rejection of the theology of Herman Hoeksema that had been underway for decades.
You can see this  now.
Sword and Shield  has uncovered what in my mind is  at the heart  of the doctrinal rot and apostasy of the PRC.
The Protestant Reformed Churches were given the fullest development of the truth of God’s covenant in the history of the church on earth, and the PRC had the clearest manifestation of the Reformed truth and faith  ever  given to a denomination by God.  Sword and Shield  has now exposed the PRC’s apostasy from  that  truth.
Just one poignant illustration will suffice to demon  strate this sad but astounding reality: the April 2022 issue of  Sword and Shield.  This very significant issue demonstrated an apostasy like none other before it in the PRC.
That  Sword and Shield  issue gave an extensive treatment to an official Protestant Reformed document regarding the heresy trial of the PRC’s heretic Rev. Hubert De Wolf, who was finally condemned officially by the Protestant
Reformed Churches in 1953.1  Sword and Shield  also gave careful, detailed documentation that the current writings and sermons by Protestant Reformed theologians, professors, and ministers and recent synodical decisions by the PRC are the  very same heresy  as that of Rev. Hubert
De Wolf, who overthrew the gospel in the Protestant
Reformed Churches and worked to destroy these churches by leading a majority of the members back to the Chris  tian Reformed Church.
The response of every professor, minister, elder, and member of the Protestant Reformed Churches to  Sword and Shield  ’s utterly damning and irrefutable exposure of gross apostasy  has been only silence  !Deafening silence  . The stench of  that  rot does not bother or affect them. They do not care. The theology of Protestant Reformed professors and ministers  is  the very same damnable heresy of the schismatics of 1953.
This matter itself  is whoredom for the PRC. It demonstrates that the denomination has  consciously  and deliberately forsaken her glorious privilege of the distinctively
Protestant Reformed heritage given to her in 1924 and graciously restored to her in 1953. Demonstrated to everyone who cares to see is that the Protestant Reformed
Churches are spiritually bankrupt. The once glorious and queenly denomination no longer has even the right of a separate existence in the Reformed church world. She ingloriously and shamefacedly has to submit to her former foes and give up all her treasures and join with them.
Even though for almost three years, through a clear witness and testimony,  Sword and Shield  has called for reformation and a return to the old paths, the response by the majority of Protestant Reformed clergy and membership is an astounding cold disinterest and an unwillingness to return to the distinctively Reformed confession of their fathers. The Protestant Reformed denomination is shown in all this to be the proverbial sow that was washed and has gone back to wallow in the mire.
You can see that stunning devastation  now.  The Protestant Reformed denomination has refused instruction, rebuke, and the call to reformation by  Sword and Shield  . Instead, her response has been a whore’s forehead. She refuses to blush and repent. She has become hardened. She hates the right way. She wants lovers elsewhere. In the total rejection of the witness of  Sword and
Shield  , the Protestant Reformed house is left desolate
(Matt 23:38).
Manifest is God’s severest judgment of the Protestant
Reformed denomination. She had the fullest development of the Reformed truth. She despised it. She turned away from it. This was hidden and covered up for years.
It was secret. God knew it. He has now split it wide open for all to see. “Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle”
(1 Sam. 3:11). There has been a turning away from God and his truth—at first in secret, for a long time undercover and hidden from the eyes of men, but now openly and in a hardened refusal to repent when God sent them prophets and clear testimony against their departure.
Against this testimony they respond by mocking in vengeful hate the truth witnessed to them and reviling those who give that testimony. It is impossible to renew unto repentance those who had the purest revelation of God and his truth and who harden themselves and turn away from it. This is the New Testament teaching of Hebrews 6:4–6. In the New Testament dispensation, this applies not only to individuals but to denomina  tions as well. Reformation is no longer possible now for the PRC. There will not be another reformation in the
PRC. It is urgent for God’s saints still lingering in that institution, and they must understand this. They must not look to any of the Protestant Reformed theologians, ministers, or leaders. The PRC have rejected the leaders and prophets whom God raised up to testify to the truth and to work reformation. In judgment God will not give the PRC any more reformers. God already gave them, and the PRC cast them out.
Now manifested is a most dreadful judgment of God upon the PRC.  Sword and Shield  has exposed that the extent of the apostasy of the PRC is nothing less than the total corruption of sheer Arminianism that now manifests itself. This is the fateful, ultimate idolatry that makes  man
God  . This then also explains, in light of Romans 1:18–32, the further judgment of God of a rampant, gross sexual perversion of every sort let loose and shown in the top ranks of Protestant Reformed clergy and eldership and pervading the entire denomination to its membership.
All of this perversion, which was hidden for years, is now providentially split wide open for all to see. In this is revealed the stunning and awesome judgment of God that he gives over to vile affections and moral atrocities men who had and knew the truth but held it under and turned away from it.
You can see that  now  .The Protestant Reformed denomination, her clergy, and her membership are now exposed to  themselves.  They now should see that they are not what they claimed to be.
The outcome after three years of controversy is that the
Protestant Reformed clergy and membership are exposed to  themselves  as apostates from the Protestant Reformed truth that was given to them.  Sword and Shield  has uncovered that they are not truly Protestant Reformed at all. Rather, the glorious truth that God gave to them through Herman Hoeksema has been rejected and is now lost to them. History repeats itself here. The schismatics of 1953 believed that  they  were the ones who were truly
Protestant Reformed and that  they  represented what was
Protestant Reformed. After a long and fierce battle for
God’s covenant at that time, it was revealed to the schismatics who  they  really were. They were finally compelled to admit that.  They  were in actuality Christian Reformed.
They had to make a sorry and shameful trek back to the
Christian Reformed Church.
You can see that connection  now  for the present PRC.
Since the beginning of Reformed Believers Publishing,  Sword and Shield  has been marching forward and onward as a juggernaut in the battle for God’s covenant and the pure gospel of grace, destroying the lie and bringing
God’s saints freedom from its tyranny and oppression.
The Lord has privileged Reformed Believers Publishing and its  Sword and Shield  to maintain his truth that has been cast away by the PRC and to maintain it vigorously against all assaults. We have that truth now. It is seen that we are the continuation of what is truly Protestant
Reformed. We are not ashamed to say that. We boast in that. We confess it is all by God’s grace to us. In spite of all the slander against us, God has vindicated us and our movement and  Sword and Shield  as reformation and as a return to his truth, once delivered to the saints. It was and has been reformation. It was not schism. God has shown it.
There was a liberation too in the battle for the truth.
You have seen photos of the happy faces of those beleaguered and oppressed people in the aftermath of war, weeping for joy at their liberation by the army that came to set their country free again. In  Sword and Shield  we experience too this same joy of liberation and the excitement of solid spiritual food and its enrichment. Reading its pages, the gold tumbles out issue after issue. We stuff our pockets with the regained booty of gospel truth that was taken away from us by our mother church. The magazine has become priceless to us. Truly, because of our magazine we enjoy a remarkable awareness of spiritual reviving and refreshment. We recall what life was like before  Sword and Shield  , and we cannot imagine life without it. We shudder even to think of having to go back to the life of spiritual exile and the wasteland that became our lot in the PRC.
You can see this  now.
Sword and Shield  has faithfully done its work. It has brought to many  liberation  from the lie and great freedom and rejoicing in the truth once again.
Christ commands his people still lingering in Babylon to come out and to stand with us in the heritage of the truth of his absolutely sovereign grace and his unconditional covenant with all the elect.
And he leaves a fearful warning to those who refuse:
“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev. 18:4).
As friend, you see it  now  .As foe, you must admit that  now.  Our boast is in the Lord. Our confession is that the witness we have is of pure grace to us. We are privileged to maintain God’s glorious truth and to persevere in that truth.
Praise God.
—Henry Kamps  

Footnotes:

1 “De Wolf ’s Examination,” in Sword and Shield 2, no. 17 (April 2022), 8–25.

With thankfulness to God we look back over the second year of publishing our magazine,  Sword and Shield  . We have been humbled to see the work of the Lord in preserving the truth of his gospel, as it is set forth in the pages of this magazine. And this truth, by the providence of God, is being spread throughout the whole world. We give all praise and glory to God for this wonderful privilege of sending forth the gospel through the printed page and pray that it may be used for the gathering of God’s elect, as they are found in all lands.
We can report that there are now 2,033 issues of each  Sword and Shield  that are being sent out on a monthly basis, with 101 issues being sent to those outside the
United States. These countries include Canada, Ireland, the
United Kingdom, Brazil, Northern Ireland, New Zealand,
Singapore, and the Philippines. With the completion of our first full year of publication, we made available for our subscribers the opportunity to have their volume year of  Sword and Shield  magazines bound together as a hardcover book. We have sold 122 bound volumes of our first publishing year and have some extra copies if anyone would be interested in purchasing one.
The monthly publication and mailing of  Sword and
Shield  has been made possible thus far by the generous donations of the magazine’s supporters. As God’s people read and become convicted that this magazine is Godsent, their support and love for it grows. It is a Godcentered magazine with meditations, editorials, and articles on sound doctrine, which make the magazine truly biblical, polemical, and distinctive in the rich heritage of the
Reformed faith.
The board of Reformed Believers Publishing again takes this time to thank our editors for their work in writing Reformed articles that are clear in proclaiming the truth of the gospel and that do not leave their readers confused and searching for the truth. We pray that God will grant the writers his grace and Holy Spirit that they may continue to proclaim in writing the truth of the gospel.
We take this time also to thank our excellent copyeditors, Evelyn Langerak and Stephanie Lanning. We appreciate the many hours of labor given to prepare each issue for publication. Thanks also goes to Tami Cleveland for her help with keeping the books and the mailing lists. This all is a great help in the success of our magazine. Above all we give thanks to our great God for his blessing in giving us  Sword and Shield  . We pray for our editors, the staff, and the board that they may remain faithful to the truth of God’s word and that we may give all glory to him alone!
—Dan Schipper  Dan Schipper  

Our heavenly Father, we rejoice before thee, the living, everlasting God, exalted high above the heavens and the earth and all creatures and perfectly consecrated to thyself over against everything that is not thee. We thank thee, Father, that thy truth is a mighty power, that thy truth is unassailable; so that although many men in the history of the world and in our own day hate the truth and fight it with all their seemingly considerable power and might, their strength is nothing in thy sight, and thy truth stands and shall stand forever.
We thank thee also that the lie, which is very deceptive and whose power is in its deceit, so that many are given over to it and blinded by it, is never victorious; for thou dost reign in the heavens and dost use all things, including the actions of devils and wicked men, for thy purpose.
Indeed, thou hast decreed all these things.
We thank thee for the comfort of the gospel of our savior and that thou hast given us by that truth an association and a magazine. We confess before thee, Father, that what we have tonight and in this association are not the fruits of our might or genius; they are not the products of our will or labor; but they must be ascribed entirely to thy grace.
We pray that thou wilt give us a witness as an association and a magazine. We thank thee for the place that thou hast given. Wilt thou carry thy word forth where we know not, and wilt thou call thy people by that truth unto thyself.
We thank thee for this evening, for the fellowship and unity in the truth of the gospel. We pray, Father, that thou wilt continue to remember us. Remember our frame, too, that we are dust and perishing. Wilt thou stand us upon the rock and found us upon the scriptures and the truth so that, even as an association that is interested in the
Reformed faith, we may continue to be distinctive. Wilt thou remember us also in our fellowship of this hour, in our speaking to and hearing one another. Continue to abide with us, forgiving our sin for Jesus’ sake. Amen.
—AL  

The board of Reformed Believers Publishing (RBP) is pleased to notify our readers that arrangements have been made for binding volume two of  Sword and Shield  . We received very positive responses to the first round of bound volumes, so we are happy now to offer bound volumes of volume two.
Just as they did with volume one, readers have two options for obtaining volume two. First, you may drop off your own copies of  Sword and Shield  at the office of
Reformed Believers Publishing (address on the masthead).
The cost for supplying your own copies to be bound is
$35 (USD). Second, if you prefer not to supply your own copies but to use RBP’s copies, you may purchase the bound volume two for $45 (USD). Either way, for less than a tank of gas, you can have  Sword and Shield  in book format, which can be passed down for years to come.
For those who would like to supply their own copies but who can’t find that last issue or two or three under the couch, RBP can usually help fill in a few missing issues at no charge. Just be sure to note on your stack of magazines which issues you are missing. This applies to those who have burned an issue or two as well. It does not matter to us whether you wore out an issue with repeated reading or set it afire in a fit of pique; we’ll help you to complete your set.
For those who may not be familiar with how the bound volumes look, we include a couple of photos for your reference and to promote anticipation of having volume two to stand alongside volume one.
—AL  Reformed Believers Publishing 325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315  

Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.  —2 Corinthians 13:11  Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.  —Hebrews 13:13
The law said that the bodies of beasts whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin were to be burned without the camp. Those priests who busied themselves with the tabernacle and all its laws had no right to eat of those sacrifices. Of all other sacrifices they received their portion. But of the beasts burned without the camp they could not eat.
A sign!
Then as now, those who busy themselves with the things of the law—touch not, taste not, handle not—have no right to eat of that sacrifice. For that sacrifice was a picture of Christ and his work to sanctify his people and to bring them to
God. Jesus also suffered without the gate. The Jews captured him—he gave himself up. They tried him and charged him with unspeakable crimes—he answered not a word. They bruised him—like a sheep he opened not his mouth. They led him away outside the city of Jerusalem to be crucified, and there he suffered, the just for the unjust. There he restored what he took not away. And by that sacrifice he perfected forever those who are sanctified. He brought his people to God.
Not in the way of their obedience!
Christ brought his people to God through his own flesh and blood that he made an offering for sin. We, who have cast away all confidence in the law and its works and have believed on Jesus Christ, have Christ; we eat of him and are nourished and sustained by his flesh and blood. All who come to God in the way of their obedience cannot eat of Christ.
They have no right. They do not believe in him. And thus they do not come to God, for they have no right. They do not have Christ’s righteousness, holiness, and perfect obedience.
And let us, therefore, go out to Jesus Christ without the camp. Let us bear his reproach. He was crucified outside the city because he was rejected by men. And is it any surprise that when you eat of Christ and drink of him and when he sanctifies you and makes you like himself, you will be rejected too? That is his reproach. People are not rejecting you.
They are still rejecting Christ. Christ is an offense to them because he takes away all their laws, their works, their obedience, and their repentance and makes them worthless for salvation. Christ declares that he alone is the way, the truth, and the life; and they hate him for it.
It is the glory of the Christian to bear that reproach of Christ. If he is Christ’s, he cannot remain in the city. In the city
Christ is rejected. Christ is put outside the city walls daily and weekly in many sermons, books, and articles. He is displaced, and his honor and glory as the only savior are reproached. So let us also bear that reproach. Then you must also go outside the camp. If you will retain your friends and associations, your family and your life, then you must stay in the camp; but then you shamefully refuse to bear the reproach of Christ. If you go out of the camp, you will have his reproach; and then you will also lose your name and standing, your family and friends, and even your own life. But you have Christ! Having him, you have the promise of eternal life and an entrance into another city, a heavenly Jerusalem—the glories of which far surpass any glory of this earth—where we will live and reign with Jesus Christ forever.  —NJL  

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.  —John 1:18
To see God!
That was the hope of Job: “Though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (Job 19:26). To see God is the blessedness of the pure in heart: they shall see God (Matt. 5:8). Seeing God was the desire of Philip, the apostle who led others to see the Christ. Philip said, “Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (John 14:8).
Yes, this vision of God alone satisfies the longing of the believer’s soul. To see God and to know him, to be with him and before him in all his grace and glory, who is good and the overflowing fountain of all good. To see
God is the end of our salvation and the purpose of God.
That we see God is the great will and purpose of the Holy
Spirit who is in us.
But no man has seen God. Neither can any man see
God, “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen” (1 Tim. 6:15–16).
The only-begotten Son, he has declared God. Such is the declaration of the gospel at the advent of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ came, and he declared God.
Jesus Christ came to John in the wilderness as he was baptizing in Bethabara. The Pharisees had wondered who
John was. Was he Elias? Was he the prophet long ago promised to Moses in Deuteronomy 18? Was he the Christ?
And John confessed that he was not the Christ! John was only the voice crying in the wilderness, “Make straight the way of the Lord!” Christ was coming after John, who was preferred before John because he was before John. Strange declaration! John baptized with water, but this one would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire!
And Jesus came! A man? And John baptized him?
Jesus did not baptize John. Mysterious. And as Jesus came up out of the water, John saw the Spirit descend on Jesus from heaven like a dove, and it abode on Jesus. What manner of man is this? Whom do men say that he is?
Whom do you say that he is?
John saw and declared that Jesus is the Son of God.
He was a man. He was in the world. He became flesh.
He lived and dwelt among us. He came unto his own.
He was born in a stable in Bethlehem. Angels sang, shepherds came, and wise men traveled from afar because they saw his star. His mother cared for him. He went with his parents to Nazareth, and there he lived in a house and was the son of a carpenter. He traveled to Jerusalem with his parents at age twelve. If there was any indication of his future work, it was that he stood among the doctors and lawyers and other scholars of the law, asking and answering hard questions. But he returned with his parents to
Nazareth and was subject to them, as every child must be subject to his parents.
All that happened in Bethlehem and in Jerusalem among the doctors and lawyers was quickly forgotten.
Only Mary laid those things to her heart, wondering what they meant.
When Jesus came unto his own, his own received him not. He was not the chief prophet according to their imaginations. He was Joseph’s son, whose brothers and sisters and father and mother they knew. He was from
Nazareth. Nothing good came out of Nazareth, and no prophet ever arose out of that town. Search the law, and you will see.
And yet how he spoke! He spoke with power and authority. He so spoke and declared among men that they were compelled to say who it was that spoke. The people wondered at him. The crowds followed him. The Pharisees, his inveterate enemies, had to ask of him, “Who is this that forgives sins also?” Jesus declared, “I am the bread from heaven. Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall never die, but I will raise him at the last day.” He said, “I am the light of the world” and “I am the door” and “I am the good shepherd” and “I am the way, the truth, and the life”; and especially did he say, “Before
Abraham was, i am!”
He also declared that he is the water of life, which if a man drink he shall never thirst. Christ forgave sins and commanded that the sinners go and sin no more.
He commanded the weary and heavy laden to come unto him, and he would give them rest.
By his voice he said to the lame, “Walk”; to the sick,
“Arise”; and to the dead, “Come forth.” He said to the powers of creation and to the devils too, “Be still.” All of that he accomplished with his word. Everywhere he went he went preaching the gospel of the kingdom.
He pronounced a determined woe against Chorazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum—wherein most of his mighty works had been done and in which his mighty words had been heard—because they neither heard his word nor believed his works.  Who is this who lived among the people, so that their eyes saw him and their hands handled him and their ears heard him? Oh, when he spoke, especially did ears hear and hearts burn.
He is the only-begotten Son. Adam was the son of
God by creation when God created Adam in God’s image and likeness. We are sons of God by grace and the Spirit, being begotten in God’s image. We have been begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Of God, according to the context of John 1, we are given power to become the sons of God. But only Jesus is the only-begotten Son. He is the image of his
Father. Begotten before all worlds. Begotten, not made.
God of God, Light of light, true God of true God. He is the offspring of the Father. He is the one in whom God has fully reproduced himself. The Son is the image of his
Father: the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person. Jesus is God! Of the same essence with the
Father and the Holy Ghost and coequal and coeternal with them.
And as Son he is in the bosom of his Father. This is altogether lovely and beyond our comprehension. It is staggering in its graciousness that God gives us a window into his household and allows us a glimpse of this eternal covenant of life. And John 1:1 goes even further and describes the qualifications of Jesus Christ. Father and Son are in a loving embrace. The life of God is love.
The life of God is fellowship. The life of God is the most intimate communion. The Son sits on his Father’s lap like a little child, an only Son, loved and cherished by his adoring Father. And the Son lays his head upon his
Father’s chest. He is snugly resting in his Father’s bosom.
Or to make the point with another figure, a man’s wife is the companion of his bosom. He receives her and loves her and communicates with her and lives with her in close, intimate fellowship. And this bosom? This loving embrace of Father for Son and loving fellowship of Son with Father? The Spirit! Yes, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father; so close and so intimate is their friendship and fellowship.
When the Son was among us, he was God. He became flesh; but the Son did not cease being God, so that in him all the Godhead dwells bodily; and he came to us as the one who reposed sweetly and securely in the Father’s bosom. Thus there is fullness in Jesus Christ. He is the full revelation of God. He fully knows the will of God.
He is full of grace. He is full of truth. In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Jesus Christ is the one who declares.  To declare  means to exegete. When you exegete something, you take that which is compact and unfold it; or you take an event and relate the details of that event. You take that which is revealed in a few words and explain its sense and meaning. This is the activity of the only-begotten Son when he comes to us. He exegetes. He declares.
That one! That one described as the only-begotten; that one who is in the bosom of the Father; that one who in himself, in his own person, is the full revelation of the
Father; that one who declares the Father; that one who preaches to us and speaks to us. We see a man, but in the
Son dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. God has come to us and spoken to us.
Absolutely necessary it is that Jesus declares God because no man has seen God at any time.
To see does not merely mean to see with the eye of the body. To see, according to the scriptures, does not mean merely to look at, but to see is to know and to know with an intimate and close knowledge of friendship and fellowship. The only-begotten Son lies in the bosom of the Father and thus by implication has seen him. It is the seeing of the Father by the Son. It is the free access and close fellowship that a Son has with his Father. To see
God is to have fellowship, life, communion, and sonship.
To see God is salvation itself.
No man has seen God. No man has seen God because man cannot see God. Sinful man cannot see God. He may not see God. He does not have the right to see God because man is a sinner. And he cannot see God because the sight of God would destroy man. But the contrast here is not between sinful man and Jesus Christ.
The contrast in the text is between Man. Man at his very best. John 1 describes the very mightiest of the prophets before Jesus. They did not see God either. Moses talked with God face to face, but this is a description of his close fellowship with God; even Moses only saw God from behind. With the other prophets God did not talk face to face but in visions and dark sayings. John the Baptist, the mightiest of those born of women and the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, did not see God. Man cannot see God and live. Man cannot look on the bare deity of God. God is other than man.
If man cannot see God—man at his very best—what shall we say of sinful man: that is, us, man, the whole human race as it is perished and fallen in Adam? John here takes all of mankind from the world’s beginning until the judgment day and collectively passes judgment on all men: they have not seen God! And this places all men on the same level as having no saving knowledge apart from the only-begotten Son. Natural man can discuss God with about as much authority as a blind man can discuss a Rembrandt painting or a deaf man can discuss a Bach fugue. No one has seen God at any time.
We are blind to God and to his glory. We do not know him. All is darkness with us. To see God is life. To be apart from God is death. God’s sentence on man was that he shall see God’s face no more.
And man’s condition is much worse than that. He has no right to see God. He is a guilty sinner by nature.
And further still, when God shows man God’s eternal power and Godhead in creation, then man takes that and holds it down in unrighteousness. Man does not see
God veiled and wrapped in creation and worship him.
Man does not give glory to the creator. Man worships the idol, and God gives him up to vile affections. Man would not see God in creation if God did not show himself and manifest his power and Godhead to man. And
God only shows so much of his power and Godhead in order to leave man without excuse. That is for man’s condemnation.
What man needs is grace. We need God in his infinite favor and his profound love and his omnipotent power to come to us, to give us the knowledge of himself, and to save us.
Was that not most clearly seen in the law? As John was preaching Christ, John declared that the law had come by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Shocking to the Jewish ears! No grace and truth in the law! But Moses had received the law by the disposition of angels on the holy mount of Jehovah! Jehovah himself had inscribed that law with his finger! The law was the very oracles of God! It showed the will of God! The law declared who God is. But when Moses gave the law, he did not give grace and truth. He gave Israel the law: do this, and thou shalt live. And God was the God who remained afar off; the knowledge of God was hidden in the blackness of man’s depravity; the way to God was impossibly barred by man’s sin and guilt. If Moses and his law could not give grace, then nothing in the world can. No work of man, no worship of man, no wisdom or sacrifice of man, and no act of man. There is no grace in the law because there is no Christ in the law. He is the way, the truth, and the life. The law is not the truth. Jesus
Christ is the truth. Just as the law is not grace. Christ is grace. The law is true only as it is subservient to God’s purpose in Jesus Christ.
Grace and truth came by Christ. The only-begotten
Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared the
Father because the Son sees the Father and is the one to whom the Father has fully communicated all the secrets of his will and purpose. The very appearance of the Son is gracious. His incarnation, his suffering, his death, and his resurrection are grace. He is the gracious fulfillment of the promise of God. He himself is full of grace and truth.
Of his fullness we receive grace for grace. The Son shows us the Father. Whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father; whoever has intimate fellowship with Christ has intimate fellowship with the Father. Christ speaks, and faith is given. He speaks, and grace comes. He speaks and forgives our sins, so that we have the right to see the Father. Christ speaks, and there springs up in us the desire to see the Father. Christ opens the eyes of our understanding, and we see the Father revealed to us in
Jesus Christ. In him we are holy to see the Father!
What is this true knowledge? That I have everything by God’s grace and truth and that without him I am abso  lutely nothing. Through the gospel one learns from Jesus
Christ to look on God’s face. When this happens, man must die to himself and live by Christ alone. No man has seen God. This is our misery. The only-begotten Son, he has declared the Father. This is our salvation.
And all this Christ does by declaring to us. He is our chief prophet, who fully reveals to us the eternal counsel and will of God for our salvation.
Christ himself is the declaration of God. That Christ came is the declaration that God is faithful. In Christ’s actual coming, he is the declaration that God is powerful, for Christ became flesh and dwelt among us. And he is in his own person the full revelation of the Father. In
Christ’s own ministry he powerfully spoke the Word.
He does this today by declaring in the preaching. Not every word that comes off the pulpit is the Word of God.
The exegesis of the word is the way that we know God.
Thus the preaching must unfold, interpret, and explain the words of scripture, so that Christ is declared; and in that declaration he himself speaks, so that the preaching is in truth the very Word of God. Everywhere in scripture the Word is revealed, and that Word in himself reveals the Father to us. If Christ is not preached, God is not revealed. The only way that we see God is to see him in
Jesus Christ.
This is what Jesus told the Pharisees, who imagined that they were great teachers of the people because they could expound the law in minutest detail. “You take away the key of knowledge,” Christ said to them. “You do not see me in the law and in the psalms and in the prophets; and you do not see, therefore, that God is gracious only in me and that salvation is not the end result of your earnest keeping of the law. You do not see me in the law and in the prophets; and, therefore, the scriptures are a closed book to you and to the people whom you instruct.” Yet again Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). The Pharisees thought that they had eternal life in the scriptures; but what they saw in the scriptures was a way of salvation that involved their scrupulous observance of the law in order to merit with
God, and they were ignorant that the whole law shut off man-salvation and drove to Jesus Christ. The Jews saw in  Moses and his law a way to God. He could be reached by dint of man’s efforts to keep the law. But this is what
Moses did, as does every true prophet: he pointed to Jesus
Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
This also then is the task of all true prophets. This is what John the Baptist did. He declared that the one who came after him was preferred before him because he was before him. This is what the preaching must do today. We do not need a man. Christ uses men. That is true. But that may not be interpreted to mean that we need this man or that man. Israel did not need Moses after Christ came.
The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ. We do not need a man. We need God who became a man to show us the Father, who fully reveals God’s will concerning our salvation, and who declares God to us in the careful exegesis and explanation of the scriptures.
We need nothing besides Jesus Christ. The knowledge of God is the beginning and the end of all blessedness.
The knowledge of God is above all things most precious.
It is salvation itself. In Christ we behold God face to face.
In Christ we are made acceptable to God by the forgiveness of sins and through sanctification of the Spirit and all by his Word. He who lies snugly in the Father’s embrace became a man and dwelt among us, became one with us, in order to save us. In him alone is the way to the Father.
By faith now! In the preaching of the gospel.
Then face to face.
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).
And that is salvation!
—NJL  

In the previous editorial we reacquainted ourselves with
Herman Hoeksema’s first doctrinal controversy. That controversy continued from 1914 to 1920 in Fourteenth
Street Christian Reformed Church in Holland, Michigan.
The doctrinal issue in that controversy was the Christian school. Herman Hoeksema taught that God’s covenant required that families in Fourteenth Street maintain and use Holland Christian School. The result of the controversy was a split in Fourteenth Street, with many members leaving not only Fourteenth Street but leaving also the Christian Reformed denomination altogether. The result of the controversy was also peace in Fourteenth
Street, which peace was God’s gift to his people of unity in his truth.
In this editorial we acquaint ourselves with another father of the Reformed Protestant Churches, Henry
Danhof. Along with Herman Hoeksema and George
Ophoff and others, Henry Danhof opposed his Christian Reformed denomination’s false doctrine of com  mon grace, adopted by the Christian Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo in 1924. Along with Herman Hoeksema and like-minded Christian Reformed men, Henry Danhof started the  Standard Bearer  to expose the errors of his denomination and to set forth the truth of God’s sovereign, particular grace. Along with Herman Hoeksema, Henry Danhof was deposed from the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church. Along with Herman Hoeksema and similarly deposed men and consistories, Henry Danhof signed the Act of Agreement in 1924, which federated the churches and which federation would eventually become the Protestant Reformed
Churches (PRC).
Although by his confession Henry Danhof was one in doctrine with Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant
Reformed Churches, Danhof sinfully separated from
Hoeksema and the PRC in 1925 for apparently personal reasons. Henry Danhof and his congregation in
Kalamazoo, Michigan, led an ecclesiastically independent life with no denominational affiliation for many years.
When Danhof neared emeritation, he and his congregation sought to be reunited with the Christian Reformed  Church (CRC). Although both Danhof and the CRC knew that Danhof and his congregation still opposed the doctrine of common grace, the CRC received them into the denomination. Thus Danhof added to his sin of schism from the PRC the sin of false ecumenism with the
Christian Reformed Church. The emeritus Henry Danhof soon was in trouble with the CRC again for agitating against common grace, which he had promised not to do as a condition of being received back into the CRC. The end result was that the CRC, skittish about excommunicating Danhof from the kingdom of heaven, invented a new way to terminate membership in the church. The denomination simply “erased” Danhof and several members from the membership rolls against their will, all the while insisting that the erasures were not discipline. For the second time in his life, Henry Danhof was cast out of the Christian Reformed Church, that time for good. The aged and sick Henry Danhof ended his life ecclesiastically independent again, preaching to a small group until one
Sunday in the pulpit he succumbed to a tumor behind his eye and died a few weeks later.
Although  Henry  Danhof committed the sin of schism against the PRC so early, he is still considered a father of the Protestant Reformed Churches in the historical sense. Almost alone among the many Christian
Reformed ministers of the day, Herman Hoeksema and
Henry Danhof stood shoulder to shoulder against the hellish doctrine of common grace. Henry Danhof was a founding editor of the  Standard Bearer  , which was a powerful instrument in the formation of the Protestant
Reformed Churches. The churches were established upon the doctrine of sovereign grace that Henry Danhof taught and wrote.
The Reformed Protestant Churches today are the continuation of the old PRC. The Protestant Reformed
Churches have apostatized from their doctrinal heritage by making man’s work the instrument of his salvation.
The doctrine of the PRC today is that if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do. God brought reformation to the Protestant Reformed Churches, not by correcting the apostate PRC but by forming the Reformed
Protestant Churches out of the PRC. Therefore, the
Reformed Protestant Churches claim Herman Hoeksema as our spiritual father. And the Reformed Protestant
Churches recognize Henry Danhof as an instrument that
God used historically in the formation of our mother.
In this historical sense Henry Danhof is a father of the
Reformed Protestant Churches.
The tale of Henry Danhof and the Christian school is gripping, with parts of it almost unimaginable. The history demo nstrates the conviction of our fathers that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant. Our fathers sacrificed all their possessions and were willing to sacrifice their safety and their lives for the sake of having and maintaining the Christian school. Only God’s covenant with believers and their seed could give rise to such conviction.  Henry Danhof ’s first charge as a Christian Reformed minister was Sully Christian Reformed Church in the
Dutch settlement of Sully, Iowa. Danhof served the
Sully congregation from 1910 to 1914. When Danhof arrived in Sully in 1910, the church was in the midst of a tremendous struggle to establish a Christian school.
Therefore, the first major issue that Henry Danhof had to face in his ministry was not common grace in 1924 but the establishment of the Christian school from 1910 to 1914.
It is striking that God made the Christian school the first issue that both Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof had to face. For Henry Danhof from 1910 to 1914, the issue was establishing a Christian school. For Herman
Hoeksema from 1914 to 1920, the issue was maintaining and using the already-established Christian school.
But for both men the first major issue of their ministries was the Christian school. When the Reformed Protestant
Churches look all the way back to our fathers’ beginnings, the one issue that we find is the Christian school. Because the Christian school is the demand of the covenant, the one issue that we find in our fathers’ beginnings is God’s covenant with believers and their seed. What a worthy issue to find at the beginning!
When generations to come look back at the begin  ning of the Reformed Protestant Churches, they will find that the Christian school as a demand of the covenant was also one of the very first issues that the Reformed
Protestant Churches had to face. Within mere months of the denomination’s beginning, the school question arose. Must we establish Reformed Protestant schools, or may we use the Protestant Reformed schools? May we as a denomination be a haven for homeschooling, or is the
Christian school required? Is the good Christian school a demand of the covenant, or isn’t it? These questions are not hard to answer. They are as clear as a sunny morning. But the answering of them is always controversial, for there are always those who will not stand with their own confessions and with God’s covenant.
Nevertheless, God loves his covenant; and time and again in history, he brings the truth of his covenant before his people by bringing before them the school question.
In their struggle with the school question, God brings his people to see the truth and beauty of his covenant with believers and their seed.  When Henry Danhof arrived in Sully in 1910, the school question was the issue of the day. For two years already the congregation had seen the need for a Christian school.
It was at a Men’s Society meeting “few in number” at that early date of February 11, 1908, that the necessity of Christian education was not only considered, but it was decided to call a general assembly for this noble cause.1
These few fathers rightly viewed the school as a “necessity.” They rightly viewed the school as “this noble cause.”
But what was it that made the school necessary and noble?
There was only one thing: God’s covenant with believers and their seed in Jesus Christ. Any other foundation than the covenant of God would leave the school on the shifting sands of man’s will. When the general assembly met to discuss the school in 1908, two area ministers pled the school on the basis of God’s covenant.
These two ministers made a sincere and impressing plea for the covenantal promise pledged in the baptismal vow by the parents toward their children,
God’s heritage. The result was that a society was organized, and at once a School Board was elected.2
Another account of the history highlights the conviction of these fathers that the school was required.
A men’s society was organized to study God’s Word and matters pertaining to the training of the covenant children of the congregation. As a result of these discussions a Christian School Society came into being. This was the beginning of our present
Christian School Society. These pioneers of yesterday gave evidence of conviction that God wills that our children receive a Christian training and that it isn’t merely a matter of choice what kind of training our covenant children receive and we are rightfully proud of the fact that we still, by and large, subscribe to the “world and life view” of our fathers.3
However, between the organization of the society in 1908 and Henry Danhof ’s arrival in 1910, the difficulties began to mount.
A School Society was organized and a School Board was elected, but to build a school was a much more difficult matter for such a small group. Many ways and means were considered but no decision taken at this time. As time marched on the hopeful and high spirit of former days seemed to subside somewhat.
A few more meetings were called by the Board with no results and som etimes it seemed as though the whole matter would die in infancy and the hope to attain the goal of a Christian school would never be realized in Sully.4
Early in 1911 Henry Danhof, then the minister in
Sully Christian Reformed Church, spoke at a general meeting. He taught the Christian school as a necessity.
With that speech positive action was taken to establish a
Christian summer school.
But a covenant God rules and reigns supreme and many fervent prayers were sent up to the throne of grace and these prayers were heard even when it seemed in vain. Not until February 11, 1911, did any action take place. On that date a general meeting was called and our pastor, Rev. Henry Danhof, again pressed the need for a Christian day school. Plans were laid and later realized to start a summer school in the consistory room of the Christian Reformed church, that in this way and by these efforts “used as a stepping stone” to the real goal, namely, a Christian day school, might be obtained. From then on many propaganda meetings were held.5
The summer school met for the summers of 1911 and 1912. By 1913 the parents became convinced that they needed a full-time Christian school. And what was the foundation of their conviction? Nothing less than God’s covenant. Though they faced much opposition from their own members, the truth of God’s covenant with believers and their seed established the determination of these parents to have a Christian school.
These two summer sessions were convincing factors to start not only summer school sessions, but a full fledged elementary school in order that the baptismal vows might be fulfilled according to the demands of our covenant God and that the entire instruction rendered should be in harmony with the
Scripture.  The School Board decided to call another general assembly to see what could be done so as to get a schoolhouse and get started by September of 1913. After prayerful consideration and trust in our faithful covenant God, committees were appointed to raise funds by donations and pledges.
Shares were also sold to be redeemed later. There was much opposition by those who failed to see their covenant responsibilities.
The group, few in number, striving to attain the goal set before them, and with faith in God placed the need of positive Christian training in school as well as in the home before Him, and went forward in the spirit of Nehemiah of old who said, “We, his servants, will arise and build and the God of heaven will prosper us.” Although more opposition arose from the inside than from the outside of the circle, with God’s help the effort of these few was not put to shame. After all, the Lord does not forsake those who seek to follow His commands and shoulder the task set before them.6
Tremendous sacrifices were required if the school were to open. Many of the people lived so far away that sending children to school was virtually impossible. In fact, at the beginning of 1913, it still looked like it would be impossible to open a full-time Christian school. A report of Sully Christian Reformed Church in the January 9, 1913,  Banner  noted,
Other societies, usually found in our church circles, are all there, even a society for Christian Primary
Instruction, although the prospects of the last named are, at least for the time being, not very bright on account of the very large territory over which our people are scattered, more than 150 square miles, not figuring the extremities and the mud roads of Iowa which are almost impassable for horses, not saying anything about children, in rainy weather, particularly during the spring season.7
If the school were to open, those who lived so far away would have to leave family farms behind. This they did for the sake of their brethren and their children. That is, this they did for the sake of God’s covenant.
Several who lived too far away to send their children sold their farms and moved as close to Sully as they could. Many sacrifices were made and those who made them experienced that these sacrifices were rewarded in God’s own time.8
The school opened its doors in September of 1913.  The school had been built upon the foundation of God’s covenant with believers and their children in Christ. This was the only foundation that could weather the storms that were coming. If the school had been built on the foundation of man’s will or merely as a good option for parents, the school would never have lasted after Henry
Danhof left Sully for Dennis Avenue Christian Reformed
Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1914. Only if the school was the demand of the covenant could the parents maintain their conviction to maintain the school against the forces that were soon arrayed against them.
A fierce storm of opposition to the school swept through Sully in 1917 and 1918. World War I had been raging in Europe since 1914. When the United States entered the conflict by declaring war on Germany early in 1917, a wave of anti-German sentiment swept through the
United States. Because some Americans found the Dutch language and culture to be similar to the German language and culture, the anti-German sentiment of the war years was often directed against the Dutch. The Christian school in Sully, Iowa, became the focus of this opposition.
Adding to the danger for Sully Christian School was the fact that the governor of Iowa, William Harding, inflamed the anti-Dutch sentiment in his state by outlawing the speaking or writing of the Dutch language in Iowa.
Harding is probably best known for his infamous
Babel Proclamation in 1918 during World War I, declaring that only English could be spoken and written in Iowa, pitting citizen against citizen and casting innocent Iowans as traitors.9
Two powerful forces were arrayed against Sully Christian School in 1917 and 1918: the howling mob and the government. In the face of these powers, only God himself and his covenant with his people in Christ could save the school. If the school had been built on any foundation other than God’s covenant, the school undoubtedly would have perished. But time and again, in the face of governmental demands to close the school and in the face of angry men who wanted to burn down the school, God’s people in Sully maintained the school as the demand of  God’s covenant. The fiftieth anniversary booklet of Sully
Christian School tells the tale.
The future was to be a period of struggle and anxiety.
It even seemed to be a matter of life or death.
In our neighboring town of Peoria, they experienced serious trouble and the results were that their school and church were both burned down to the foundation by arsonists. Rumors were spread that the Dutch School at Sully was to be next because it was claimed that Dutch was being taught. This was designed to blaspheme our institution, for no
Dutch had been taught in the school for years.
Yet it seemed that the Christian schools were the object of spite work for on short notice the rumors became a reality. A telephone call was received from
Newton, our own county seat, that the school must close its doors at once. The reasons given were that the public was against the school and if we did not close down at once mob rule was inevitable and the building would be burned down. A School Board meeting was called at once to talk matters over and decide what should be done. It was decided to give a vacation and appoint a committee to investigate and discuss the matter with the county authorities.
The committee took action at once and experi  enced a very cold reception from the authorities at our county seat. It was given them to understand that if the school re-opened we could not expect any protection from them. The promise was given that if they were willing to send their children to the public school they would be protected in every way. The committee understood very well that their plight was a very sad one and the very existence of our Christian school was at stake. But the committee appointed did not tarry and was not discouraged so as to give up that easily. At once they went to Des Moines to investigate with our state authorities and got in touch with Governor Harding and insisted on protection from then on. Assurance was given them and that the matter would be investigated at once and a report would be forthcoming in the near future. So all they could do was wait for an answer and before many days had passed, one morning some mourning crepe was hanging on one of the school door knobs bearing the inscription,
“Dead and Buried.”
The promise made by Governor Harding was never fulfilled and not a word was received from state authorities. Again a committee was sent to contact state authorities and this time they were told that the county must give protection. With this glad news the committee went to Newton at once but with the same result—they received no hearing. Therefore, the Board called a general
Society meeting to discuss future plans and the outcome was that it was unanimously decided to open the doors at once, which of course took a lot of courage and conviction. This step was taken only after prayerful and careful consideration and meditation upon the possible consequences of this action. After all, principles were at stake—Christian covenant convictions.
Surely a word of gratitude to our teachers, Mr.
Henry Kuiper and Miss Marie Vos, is not amiss.
They were very willing and ready to teach, even under such adverse and trying conditions. On the 20th day of May all the pupils arrived and school work was resumed on schedule. This was a direct proof that the school was not “dead and buried”, but full of life and courage. Many hearts rejoiced and were thankful that the children could return to school again.
However, some fear was expressed that the real test was yet to come. This soon proved to be true and grim reality. The same afternoon seven men of the county authorities appeared with the request to close the doors at once. Among those who appeared were: the president of the Council of Defence, the County
Attorney, the Sheriff, and another attorney. They tried to impress the Board that it was un-American to have a separate school and that the county could not protect such a school. The officials also advised that they should send their children to the public schools and then they would give protection from every angle.
The spokesman of our Board tried to explain to this committee from Newton that God’s Word was our basis for education and the principles laid down in Scripture our aim and guide. But all this was spoken in vain and they would not promise any protection. The Board stood shoulder to shoulder and told them the School Society had decided to re-open the school and the Board had no right to shut down.
A call was sent through the Society for volunteers to come and guard the school building against mob rule which, according to rumors which reached our Board, was to come that night.
Some 30 men, members of the School Society, appeared to protect the school property although nothing really happened that night. The sheriff had expressed himself by saying, “If anything turns up, boys, just let me know at once and I’ll be there in 20 minutes.” It is possible that this saying of the sheriff had its proper effect elsewhere and, although everything seemed quite peaceable, a vigil watch was kept each night. Two armed guards were placed by turns, but as time went on and nothing happened and all remained quiet, the guards left for home about three o’clock in the morning. One morning, thinking that all had quieted down, they left as usual.
But again we were to be reminded that God’s providence rules everything.
Rev. Haveman rose about four o’clock that morning to prepare himself for the funeral service of George Sjaardema, one of the soldier boys of our congregation. As he entered his study in the parsonage, Rev. Haveman noticed fire in the northeast room of the school across the street. He hurried to the Dan Dieleman home to get help and together they were able to put the fire out. The entire room had been sprayed with kerosene and a fire had been started under Miss Vos’ desk. The fire had burned a large hole in the floor so that the desk had fallen through into the basement. However, it seemed that the fire could not make much headway as the windows had all been left shut except the one through which the firebug had entered. It seemed that the fire did not receive sufficient air to burn fast. Every window pane in the room was cracked but none had fallen out. The hand of the Lord could clearly be observed and it is marvelous in our eyes!
Efforts were made to find out who the guilty party was. Two secret service men with blood hounds were obtained from Des Moines but it seemed that no evidence could be found to prove who the guilty party was. It was felt that the detectives learned more than they would admit at the time and the case remained in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. About two years later the guilty party was caught and convicted and drew a long time jail sentence.
The damage done by the fire was covered by insurance and repairs were speedily accomplished.
School was resumed at once and all went well although guards were placed every night for quite some time. The Lord protected us and no other attempts were made to molest the school.
The trials were not yet ended, but the coming test was of an entirely different nature. In the fall of 1918 our community was stricken with influenza, which swept over our entire nation. Many lives were taken during this epidemic. All schools, churches, and public places were closed for quite some time.
Then in the spring and summer many children were stricken with scarlet fever, but by the good hand of our God, no lives were taken.
As we now look back upon the past experiences and trials we openly confess the Lord turned all to our good. Many prayers were sent up to the throne of grace in these trying times and these prayers were heard and the love for our Christian school has grown among our people.10
In 1920 Henry Danhof would have one more opportunity to speak to God’s people in Sully regarding their school.
At the dedication service of the newly-expanded building,
Henry Danhof was invited back as the main speaker.
In the afternoon Rev. Henry Danhof, the main speaker for the day, gave a message. Rev. Danhof was a former minister of Sully and during his pastorate at Sully the school opened in September, 1913. His topic that day was “The Antithesis”, in which he brought out the contrast between the people of God and the people of the world. The task placed before the people of God is a heavy task, yet a pleasant task.
He also stressed the fact that if we strictly maintained the principles clearly stated in the Word of God we would surely experience opposition of the world, but that the Lord’s blessings also will be certain and sure.
We returned home with happy and thankful hearts to our covenant God for His guiding hand so clearly shown and the work was begun with renewed enthusiasm and high spirits for the year to come.11  The conviction of Henry Danhof and the Christian Reformed parents in Sully, Iowa, in the early 1900s was that the Christian school is a demand of God’s covenant. By grounding the school in the truth of his covenant, God preserved the school through fierce storms. No other foundation could have sustained the school in those years.
Upon what other foundation could fathers have risked their lives and limbs to protect the school? Upon what other foundation could the parents have told the government officials that they could not obey their orders? Only
God’s covenant can answer to those threats to the school.
When Reformed churches today sever the connection between God’s covenant and the Christian school, they kill their Christian schools. When Reformed churches deny that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant, they take away the covenant foundation of the school from under the feet of the parents. What will the parents say when the government someday tells the Christian school to close its doors because anti-Christian sentiment is running high? Those parents will have to obey the unlawful mandate of the government, close their school, and scatter to their homes to homeschool their children.
For them the school is not necessary. It is preferable, maybe. It is the best option, probably. But it is not the demand of the covenant. According to them the demand of the covenant is only Christian content, and the parent can give that in his home. This is the death of the school.
Only if the Christian school is the demand of the covenant by God’s own ordinance can the parents insist on maintaining the school over against the threats that will never stop coming against the school.
The Reformed Protestant Churches must learn from this history. Our mother has already destroyed her schools by her synodical decision in 2009 that the school is not the demand of the covenant. Her schools have no more foundation in God’s covenant when the storms will inevitably rise against those schools. No one in the PRC will be able to rise up and say, “But the Christian school is necessary as the demand of God’s covenant.” No one in the PRC will be able to rise up and say, “We must obey God rather than men,” for God has not commanded the school. All of the PRC will have to rise up and say, “We must close our schools, for they were only ever one option—even if the best option—among many.” The PRC have torn down the covenant foundation of their schools and have left their schools exposed to their enemies.
And what of the schools of the Reformed Protestant
Churches? The threat to the Reformed Protestant schools does not come first of all from our mother, though her example inexplicably seems preferable to some. The threat to the Reformed Protestant schools comes from within our own midst. There are men teaching us that we can do away with article 21 of the Church Order. There are men teaching us that “the demands of the covenant” does not apply to schools but only to the content of Chris  tian instruction. There are families caught up in the homeschooling movement, so that they would prefer to homeschool even where there is a Christian school. There are those who say that they want a school and who use a school but who deny that the Christian school is a “must” of the covenant and say only that it is a “may.” All of this is a threat to the Reformed Protestant schools.
Beloved Reformed Protestant Churches, learn your history. Learn God’s covenant. God requires the school.
Upon this foundation, and upon this foundation alone, can the school be built and maintained.
—AL  

Footnotes:

1 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” in 50th Anniversary: School for Christian Instruction , the fiftieth anniversary booklet of Sully Christian School (no author or publication data given), 12.
2 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 12.
3 Sully CRC 50th Anniversary Booklet , 8. This is not the same booklet as the one listed above.
4 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 12.
5 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 12.
6 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 12.
7 “Sully, Iowa, Items,” in Banner (January 9, 1913).
8 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 12.
9 “William Harding: Making the Case for Perhaps Iowa’s Worst Governor,” in Iowa History Journal , https://iowahistoryjournal.com/william -harding/. 10 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 13–15. 11 “Fifty Years in Retrospect,” 15.

I  n this issue of  Sword and Shield  , a snake gets stepped on, a school is defended against arson, the reward of grace is truly gracious, a project to redefine all Protestant Reformed doctrine is uncovered, and more. Plenty to keep one’s blood warm as one hunkers down amidst the snow.
Mr. Luke Bomers finishes his series on the reward of grace, completing the recovery of this doctrine for the
Reformed faith. We also welcome a new author, Mr.
Braylon Mingerink. Braylon is a high school student at Grace Reformed Protestant School and a confessing member of First Reformed Protestant Church. Braylon has closely followed the doctrinal issues in the reformation that resulted in the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches, and he contributes a staunch defense of the truth.
With this issue we also welcome a new copyeditor to  Sword and Shield  . Mrs. Allyson Ophoff joins Mrs. Evelyn
Langerak and Mrs. Stephanie Lanning in the behind-thescenes labor of copyediting the articles for the magazine.
Evelyn and Stephanie have spent countless hours combing through the articles submitted by the writers to correct everything from spelling to grammar to style to clarity and more. They also work with the typesetter, proofread the typeset magazine, and make sure everything is correct and fits in the given layout. Ally is a welcome addition to the copyediting team.
God has been good to our magazine in many ways.
Not only does he give us much material to write about, but he also gives us those who are willing and able to put that material into a legible form for the benefit of the readers. He truly is the overflowing fountain of all good
(Belgic Confession 1).
May God speed the truths written herein to your heart and the next issue into your hands.
—AL  

Men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.  —1 Chronicles 12:32  

In the last three articles in this rubric, I dealt with Rev.
Martyn McGeown’s series “Preaching Repentance and
Forgiveness” from the blog of the Reformed Free Publishing Association.1
The articles in his series stand in the service of promoting official Protestant Reformed dogma that there are activities of man that precede the blessings of God. This statement of Protestant Reformed dogma was adopted by the Protestant Reformed synod in 2020. The Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) have since qualified and modified the statement, but it still stands in all its naked
Pelagianism as it was originally adopted, and all the qualifications and modifications do not make the state  ment better. Those qualifications—God-wrought, Godworked, by grace—serve only as deception and cover for the false doctrine of the statement.
The theology of the statement takes many different forms and has many different permutations and iterations. But they are all united in the theology’s promotion of man. The Protestant Reformed Churches have committed themselves to giving man a place in his sal  vation in some shape, form, or fashion, whether it be by teaching faith as that which man must do to be saved, repentance as that without which God may not forgive a man, forgiveness of the neighbor as a prerequisite to
God’s forgiveness of the believer, or the godly life as the way to assurance of salvation.
In short, the theology is conditional—a theology of prerequisites. First man must do something—fill in the blank—and then God does something in response—fill in the blank. Unless and until man does what is required,
God cannot and may not bless, assure, comfort, forgive, and the like. It is a man-first-and-God-second theology.
This theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches is also united in being terrified of God’s decree. Reverend
McGeown is typical of Protestant Reformed ministers and theologians in his oblique criticisms, cautions, and warnings against sound, Reformed, decretal theology.
This attack on the decree takes the form of an attack on eternal justification, but all of his warnings and cautions about eternal justification apply equally to the decree in general. The decree makes him nervous and fearful that perhaps the decree will not leave enough room for man, and so he goes about to undermine confidence in the decree and to make decretal theology to appear antinomian. In his series, for instance, he makes this statement:
If God forgave our sins without repentance or before we repented, he would be communicating to us that sin does not matter. We might conclude that God approves of our sin, and it would even encourage us to continue in sin.2
Reverend McGeown is absolutely petrified of the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ. God communicated to us that he forgave our sins before we repented when he said in Romans 4:25, concerning the resurrection of Jesus
Christ, “And was raised again for [because of ] our justification.” Justification is forgiveness, or, better, forgiveness is one side of justification. When God says, “Justification,” he includes in that forgiveness of sins. He forgave our sins at the cross before we repented. And according to 2 Corinthians 5:18–19, he will have that preached in the whole world:
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.  When God says, “Not imputing their trespasses unto them,” he means forgiveness of sins and justification. When he forgave their sins, he reconciled them to himself. All who claim to be ministers, such as Reverend McGeown, are to preach the ministry of reconciliation or they are utterly unfaithful to God, who sends ambassadors into the world to proclaim these glad tidings. God demands that ministers of reconciliation, if they be that, declare exactly what Reverend McGeown and the whole PRC find so offensive. By that same measure there is no ministry of reconciliation in the PRC. The ministry of reconciliation declares that the elect are forgiven! They are reconciled! God is not communicating in this that sin does not matter. He judged his
Son at the cross because sin does matter. The cross stands as the testimony against Reverend McGeown’s invented fear about preaching forgiveness without repentance.
The theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches is apostasy from the historic position of the denomination. These churches would cast out Herman Hoeksema as antinomian and call for a reexamination of all his theology. He loved eternal justification, and he would have nothing to do with man-first-and-God-second theology. He loved decretal theology and was neither nervous nor fearful about it. The theologians of the Protestant
Reformed Churches make an appeal or two to Herman
Hoeksema when it suits their purposes, but they are done with the theology of the man at its essence, which was to give all glory to God. He was accused of being onesided, but the Protestant Reformed Churches are finished with being one-sided. Being apostasy from the positions of their fathers, the dogma of the Protestant Reformed
Churches is also apostasy from the Reformed faith for which their fathers stood.
Reverend McGeown’s attack on the decree stands in the service of his theology of faith, repentance, and forgiveness, all of which for him mean man and what man does in his salvation. His theology is not decretal—that is to say, God first—theology, but it is temporal—that is to say, man first—theology.
I warn that if anyone starts to argue with you about a temporal order, he is up to no good. He is an Arminian.
The Arminians are all about what happens in time. For the Arminian what happens in time is what God therefore decreed. The Arminian loathes the idea that what
God decreed is what happens in time. For the Arminian  time  —by which he means the will and works of man in time—is decisive in salvation. Time and what happens in time are decisive for the Protestant Reformed Churches as well. Time for them is real. The decree is an abstraction.
Reverend McGeown’s man-centered, man-first theology is that justification is by faith and repentance. For him
God does not and God may not forgive sinners unless and until they repent and believe—with an active faith and by
God’s grace, of course. McGeown’s doctrine of justification is that in a man’s mind and conscience he is not justi  fied until he repents. His doctrine is the same as Professor
Engelsma’s doctrine. It is a repentance-first-and-then-remission doctrine, or it is a repentance-first-and-then-justification doctrine. Or, better, McGeown’s doctrine is justification by faith and by repentance. For him man must first repent, and then and only then will God forgive him. God may not and God does not forgive unless man repents. This doctrine of repentance first and then remission is a corruption of the doctrine of justification by faith alone and is the teaching of justification by faith and works. Reverend McGeown’s doctrine that he teaches the churches, that he teaches his church, and that he promotes on the blog of the Reformed Free Publishing Association is a doctrine of justification that is the same in essence as Rome’s doctrine.
He introduces so many distinctions in his series that it is hard to keep them all straight. There is a distinction between faith and repentance, a distinction between repentance and conversion, a distinction between repentance and works, and a distinction between justification and forgiveness. Then when he should make a distinc  tion—between faith and repentance—he mashes them together into a single entity.
In his series he is supposedly explaining Christ’s words in Luke 24:44–49. I quote the passage in its entirety:
44. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48. And ye are witnesses of these things. 49. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.  Reverend McGeown begins his treatment of forgiveness by faith and repentance with an explanation of repentance. It is noteworthy in light of his later classification of repentance as  not a work  that he quotes from the Greek scholar
Richard C. Trench, who says about the word  repentance  that it “gradually advanced in depth and fullness of meaning, till [it came to express] that mighty change in mind, heart, and life wrought by the Spirit of God.”3
I note that Trench also quotes favorably from William
Chillingworth:
But that repentance to which remission of sins and salvation is promised, is perpetually expressed by the word  metanoia  , which signifieth a thorough change of the heart and soul, of the life and actions.4
Thus it is well established that repentance encompasses the whole life. This idea is not some oddity of rabid and radical Reformed Protestant ministers. This is why Luther wrote, as the very first of his Ninety-five Theses, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Matthew 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” And again Luther wrote, as the third of the
Ninety-five Theses, “Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.”
This is also the view of the Heidelberg Catechism in
Lord’s Day 33:
Q. 89. What is the mortification of the old man?
A. It is a sincere sorrow of heart that we have provoked God by our sins, and more and more to hate and flee from them. (  Confessions and Church
Order  , 121)
The Reformation, and with it the Reformed creeds, recognized that repentance involves the whole life.
Repentance is a way of life. Repentance is a description of the works of the believer. Along with this, when the gospel promises salvation to the repentant, the gospel does not do that because repentance is the cause or condition of salvation but because repentance is the mark of God’s children, who are forgiven and to whom God has promised eternal life. By that repentance, as manifested in its fruits, the child of God is made known in the world.
But the important thing for Reverend McGeown is not simply the definition of  repentance  but that definition as he crafts it in order to  declassify repentance as work  . He writes,
If repentance is a “change of mind,” how exactly do we classify it theologically? Confusion in the church world forces us to face that question. Is it something we do, is it something God does, is it a gift to us, is it an activity of man, is it part of our salvation? These questions are asked today.5
Reverend McGeown does not state that there is confusion about the doctrine of repentance only because of the
Protestant Reformed false doctrine of repentance that is necessary in order to receive forgiveness or of repentance as a prerequisite to the forgiveness of sins. Over against this is the clear teaching of the Reformed Protestant Churches that repentance is not faith. That is the issue. The issue is not whether repentance is an activity of man, a gift, or something God does.  The issue is whether repentance is faith  .And if repentance is not faith, then repentance belongs to those things that may be called works.
It is here that Reverend McGeown goes to work on the understanding of repentance. He writes,
Third, repentance is not a work, that is, repentance is not the doing of a good work, such as obedience to the law is a good work.6
It is here that we see why Reverend McGeown in his definition of  repentance  was so concerned to separate it from the life of the believer. He supposes that he can escape the charge against his doctrine of justification by faith and repentance that his doctrine is justification by faith and works. His supposed proof in question and answer 91 of the Heidelberg Catechism for excluding the life of the believer from repentance is foolish. He writes,
Heidelberg Catechism A 91 defines good works, and does not include repentance in that definition: “Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory.”7
His appeal to the Catechism is wrong. Answer 91 in its definition of “good works” is explaining its statement about the “quickening of the new man,” that it means
“to live according to the will of God in all good works”
(Confessions and Church Order  , 121–22). McGeown must remember that the Catechism in Lord’s Day 33 is explaining conversion. The negative side of this is sorrow of heart for sin and to hate and flee from it, and the positive side is to live according to the will of God in all good works.
You could just as easily say that the Catechism is describing the whole life of repentance, by which the child of God becomes manifested in the world. In this case repentance includes not only the sorrow of heart or change of mind but also the good works that are the fruits of this.
I note only in passing that Reverend McGeown quotes favorably from G. I. Williamson’s commentary on the
Westminster Confession:  We could not more radically misconceive repentance than to regard it as a work performed  ...Repentance, far from being a conscious act of obedience well-pleasing unto God and bringing in return his blessing and reward, is rather a consciousness of one’s total inability to please God or to do anything to secure his blessing and reward.8
Obviously, this matter of repentance not being work is very important to Reverend McGeown. He spends a great deal of time making sure no one can think that repentance is work. He even breezes over Williamson’s total corruption of the idea of work in the believer, which
Williamson defines as “a conscious act of obedience... bringing in return his blessing and reward.”
Really! So work brings reward. Well, if that is what a work is, then there are no works in the Christian religion because the very idea that obedience brings a reward in return is anathema. By that measure Reverend McGeown can include the whole Christian life as that which is outside the concept of work, for where in the Christian life does anyone ever consciously obey to bring a reward from
God in return?
But none of this corruption is allowed to detain Reverend McGeown in his pursuit of the idea that repentance is not work. And the question is, why? What purpose does that serve? It serves the purpose of allowing him to teach justification by faith and repentance.
Still pursuing the idea that repentance is not a work,
Reverend McGeown also treats us to his theory that
“repentance is not conversion.” He also reminds us that
“theological precision and distinguishing of concepts are important.”9 And he is not finished making distinctions.
He denies that repentance is conversion, with the obvious purpose to blunt the sword of the Heidelberg Catechism that would be used against his distinction between repentance and conversion. He writes,
The Heidelberg Catechism [LD 33] teaches about the mortification of the old man, which is one part of the two parts of conversion....Repentance is not the same thing as mortification of the old man.10
This is rich! He must take his audience for fools. He had written previously,
When God brings us to repentance, we see our sins as God sees them...and we hate them. Because we hate them, which is a radical change of mind concerning them, we turn from them.11
But now because Reverend McGeown has to distinguish repentance from conversion and the Heidelberg
Catechism stands against him, he simply redefines his terms. But he runs afoul of the Catechism again because in Lord’s Day 33 the Catechism teaches about conversion. As part of conversion the Catechism teaches about the “mortification of the old man.” In its description of that mortification, the Catechism speaks about “sincere sorrow of heart,” “hate” of sin, and “flee[ing]” (let’s say turning) from sin. Previously, Reverend McGeown had written that these things belong to repentance, but now—since repentance is not conversion and the Heidelberg Catechism says that all the things that Reverend
McGeown says belong to repentance belong to conversion—these things must be gotten rid of. This is just theological nonsense—jabberwocky! He is simply inventing distinctions and definitions as they suit his purpose.
What is his purpose? He intends to teach forgiveness by faith and repentance.
He continues his distinction. He writes, “Fifth, repentance is not faith and faith is not repentance.”12 All right, there is something with which we can agree. Faith is not repentance, and repentance is not faith. Amen.
But it is not amen for Reverend McGeown. Having distinguished faith and repentance, he now proceeds to deny the distinction:
Nevertheless, faith and repentance are inseparably connected. Since we believe in Christ for salvation from sin, we necessarily repent of our sins at the same time. We cannot look to Christ in faith for salvation from sin while we hold to our sins. If we have true faith, we change our mind concerning our sins. Thus repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin.  13
Oh, now I see why repentance could not be work, and repentance could not be conversion or mortification of the old man. It is because Reverend McGeown makes repentance part of one coin with faith. He goes on later to write about separating faith and repentance, as though that is what he is all about. But separating faith and repentance is an entirely different thing from making faith and repentance “two sides of the same coin.” A coin is a single entity.
So faith and repentance are now a single entity. At this point there is no more danger of separating faith and repentance than there is of separating heads from tails. The purpose of all his silly, pointless, stupid, and deceptive distinctions is  to make faith and repentance one entity  . You must remember that. Thus when he says, “By faith alone,” he means faith and repentance. And when he says, “Repentance,” he means faith and repentance. It is one coin, these two. He continues and quotes Acts 20:21 to prove his one-coin theory: “Testifying both to the Jews and the Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”14
But that is a corrupt use of the passage. The passage is not teaching that faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. But the passage is teaching—just as every other place in scripture that mentions faith and repentance—two distinct graces of God. The one is faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. We are saved by faith alone.
The gospel that declares Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father likewise calls for faith in Christ and warns all who do not believe that they will certainly perish. That gospel also speaks of the sure and certain mark of God’s children of repentance toward God. But nowhere in the passage—or anywhere in scripture—does it speak about faith and repentance as two sides of one coin.
Reverend McGeown does not care about the separation of repentance and faith. He cares very much that they are two sides of one coin. He goes on to quote from
Calvin, as though Calvin supported this monstrosity of a coin that consists in faith and repentance. Calvin does not say, “Make faith and repentance a single entity,” but he says, “Even though they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished.”15
The theologian can say that about a lot of things. You cannot separate faith and obedience. You cannot separate justification and sanctification or election and calling. But warning against separating these things does not give the theologian license to make them a single coin.
Many things are to be distinguished but not separated. So repentance and faith are not to be separated. But then to go on to make them a single coin is as bad a theology as making justification and sanctification a single coin. You have heresy at that point.
McGeown goes on to pretend that he is still concerned about not separating faith and repentance and that the
Canons support him. He quotes Canons 1.3: “God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings...by whose ministry men are  called to repentance and faith  .”16 Here the article in the Canons does what Calvin said. The article does not separate but distinguishes faith and repentance. But nowhere in the Canons or in the
Reformed creeds are faith and repentance made two sides of a single coin. This is false doctrine. It is the false doctrine of justification and salvation by a repenting faith or by a repentant faith or by faith and repentance.
This is the same false doctrine as Rome. Cardinal Sadoleto said the following about faith:
Moreover, we obtain this blessing of complete and perpetual salvation by faith alone in God and in
Jesus Christ. When I say by faith alone, I do not mean, as those inventors of novelties do, a mere credulity and confidence in God, by which, to the seclusion of charity and the other duties of a
Christian mind, I am persuaded that in the cross and blood of Christ all my faults are unknown; this, indeed, is necessary, and forms the first access which we have to God, but it is not enough. For we must also bring a mind full of piety towards
Almighty God, and desirous of performing whatever is agreeable to him; in this, especially, the power of the Holy Spirit resides. This mind, though sometimes it proceeds not to external acts, is, however, inwardly prepared of itself for well-doing, and shows a prompt desire to obey God in all things, and this in us is the true habit of divine justice.
For what else does this name of justice signify, or what other meaning and idea does it present to us, if regard is not had in it to good works? For Scripture says, that “God sent his Son to prepare a people acceptable to himself, zealous of good works;” and in another place it says, that we may be built up in Christ unto good works. If, then, Christ was sent that we, by well-doing, may, through him, be accepted of God, and that we may be built up in him unto good works; surely the faith which we have in God through Jesus Christ not only enjoins and commands us to confide in Christ, but to confide, working or resolved to work well in him. For faith is a term of full and ample signification, and not only includes in it credulity and confidence, but also the hope and desire of obeying God, together with love, the head and mistress of all the virtues, as has been most clearly manifested to us in Christ, in which love the Holy Spirit properly and peculiarly resides, or rather himself is love, since God is love.
Wherefore, as without the Holy Spirit, so also without love, naught of ours is pleasing and acceptable to God. When we say, then, that we can be saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary cause of our salvation.17
The two sides of Sadoleto’s coin were faith and love.
We are saved by faith alone, as long as we understand that faith is a double-sided coin of faith and love. That is the same false doctrine of Norman Shepherd and the federal vision and their obedient faith. You can see all my writings on federal vision where I prove this.18 The two sides of the federal vision coin are faith and obedience or, as the federal visionists are fond of saying, “Trust and obey.”
Reverend McGeown has labored so long, so hard, and so deceitfully to make sure that everyone understands that repentance is not work and to distinguish repentance from about everything else under the theological heaven, in order that he can make repentance another side of the coin of faith. The importance of distinguishing faith and repentance is the same as the importance of distinguishing faith and love or faith and obedience.
When any of those—repentance, obedience, or love—is made one coin with faith, you no longer have the gospel but what is damned by the apostle Paul as anathema.
Reverend McGeown’s two-sided coin is simply another manifestation of the  Protestant  Reformed  Churches’ appalling apostasy from the gospel. However one classifies repentance, obedience, and love—which in the end are the same—the important thing is that they are not faith. Justification is by faith alone, which is to say for
Christ’s sake alone. Justification is free, absolutely free.  In his ongoing assault on the gospel of free grace and gracious justification, Reverend McGeown turns to yet more distinctions. This time he is going to distinguish between the forgiveness of sins and justification:
In the minds of some, forgiveness of sins is the same thing as justification by faith alone and, since we are justified by faith alone without works (and the same people often define repentance as a work), to connect the forgiveness of sins in any way to repentance jeopardizes the truth of justification by faith alone.
He continues,
Forgiveness or remission of sins is not  exactly the same thing as  justification. Justification is very similar to forgiveness of sins and they are related, but we should distinguish them from one another.19
Of course we should! Let’s distinguish some more!
This should be interesting.
When he mentions “some” and “the same people,” he is talking about the ministers and members of the Reformed
Protestant Churches. We have a controversy with the
Protestant Reformed Churches over the gospel truth of justification by faith alone. The PRC have corrupted that doctrine, as we see with Reverend McGeown’s two-sided coin consisting of faith and repentance. Now we are told that justification is not forgiveness, and forgiveness is not justification.
We will see what slippery McGeown does with this novel distinction; but first, scripture and the Reformed creeds demolish the distinction between justification and forgiveness.
He labors hard to prove that justification and forgiveness are  “not  exactly the same thing  .” He makes appeals to the creeds. I will not trouble you with those appeals. The reply to all of his supposed proof for his distinction is that here is where his coin analogy would work perfectly. Justification is the act of God to declare the elect righteous for
Christ’s sake. That one act—one coin—has two parts to it. First, the forgiveness of sins. Second, the imputation of righteousness. Sometimes scripture speaks of forgiveness of sins, and sometimes scripture speaks of the imputation of righteousness. When scripture mentions the one or the other, it is not distinguishing between justification and the forgiveness of sins any more than it is distinguishing between justification and the imputation of righteous  ness. Rather, when scripture speaks of the forgiveness of sins, it means justification and refers to it by one of its parts. Scripture substitutes the part for the whole. It is like when someone says that a teenager got a nice set of wheels. Wheels stand for the whole car. So forgiveness of sins simply stands for the whole act of justification. And one’s doctrine of justification, then, cannot differ from one’s doctrine of forgiveness. There is one truth.
Scripture uses the words  forgiveness of sins  and  justification  interchangeably. So, for instance, in Psalm 32:1:
“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” The subject obviously is the forgiveness of sins.
It is the forgiveness of sins in the believer’s conscience and daily. In Romans 4:6–7, where the issue is justification, scripture explains Psalm 32:1 as being about justification:
6.  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7.  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Scripture does not distinguish between justification and forgiveness but treats them as one and the same. In
Luke 18:13 the publican prayed—if he prayed for anything—for the forgiveness of his sins: “God be merciful to me a sinner.” And Jesus’ conclusion to the parable in verse 14 was this: “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.” Jesus did not distinguish between justification and forgiveness.
Neither do the creeds distinguish. However, for his distinction Reverend McGeown tries to take the creeds to his side by appealing to article 23 of the Belgic Confession. He writes,
Similarly, the Belgic Confession does not say in
Article 23 that the forgiveness of sins is justification, but that “[in the forgiveness of sins] our righteousness before God is implied.”20
He handles the creeds as deceitfully as he handles scripture. He is a manipulator of men, of scripture, and of the creeds. Article 23 of the Belgic Confession says, “We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied” (  Confessions and Church Order  ,51). This means that we believe that God forgives our sins, and in that forgiveness of sins our justification is implied.
The creed grounds this in scripture: “As David and Paul teach us, declaring this to be the happiness of man, that
God imputes righteousness to him without works. And the same apostle saith that we are justified freely by His grace.” For the Belgic Confession forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness are two sides of one coin—justification.
The better question is, why does Reverend McGeown labor so hard to distinguish what is the same in scripture?
The reason, as always, for Protestant Reformed distinctions is to get man involved in his salvation, in this case in the forgiveness of sins. Scripture is crystal clear that justification is by faith alone. God justifies the ungodly. The ungodly has nothing, including faith and repentance, and has only sin. The one who believes that God justifies the ungodly is justified. Reverend McGeown cannot very well say that justification is by faith and repentance. He would be exposed. So he labors to separate forgiveness from justification so that he can teach forgiveness by faith and repentance. In the service of this false doctrine, his understanding of justification is that it is a one-time event. He writes,
If we have been justified, our sins have been forgiven.
Yet even after justification we commit sin. When that happens, we do not need—strictly speaking— to be justified again...we need to be forgiven.21
Justification is a one-time event. Forgiveness, by comparison, is an ongoing need. Never mind that Jesus said the publican went home justified. These small and inconvenient details cannot be allowed to bother Reverend McGeown.
And we can say based on his next comment that justification is not only a one-time event but is really an abstraction:
We need to be forgiven in our consciousness concerning particular sins so that we know God’s forgiveness and are assured of it.
Now we are in the realm of experience and assurance.
This is where scripture particularly applies the truth of justification, for instance in Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ.” The scripture has spoken of Abraham and of
David and their justification and even their justification over against specific sins and their assurance about God’s forgiveness for those specific sins. But this cannot be allowed to mar the theological reconstruction project of Reverend McGeown.
For him justification for specific sins is not strictly needed. Justification happened once, and now what we need is forgiveness; and this forgiveness gives us the knowledge and assurance of our salvation. He refers to David and writes, “How miserable David was until he repented!” So
McGeown’s thought is, as he wrote earlier, that
when a believer (who has already been justified) commits a gross transgression of God’s law he
“incurs a deadly guilt” (Canons 5:5); yet...such a believer “does not forfeit the state of justification.”22
A man is justified before God and yet does not hear in his conscience that God forgives him his sin. Really, the issue is, how does a man come into the knowledge of his justification? Justification before God is made an abstraction, what is unknown. You have justification but do not know it. But how does justification come into your conscience and experience?
And Reverend McGeown finally gets to the issue: “We want to examine more closely the relationship between repentance and the remission of sins.”23 It was, of course, interesting to see all of his other false doctrine, but this is the issue. And I want everyone to understand that all of his other false doctrine follows from his corruption of the truth at this point  of the relationship between repentance and remission  . To go wrong on this point of the relationship between repentance and remission is to go wrong on the gospel, and then you go wrong on every other doctrine. It is inevitable.
Reverend  McGeown first states the relationship between repentance and remission as a simple matter:
Quite simply, God forgives the sins of those who repent, or God forgives sinners  when  they repent...
That should be enough—God forgives us when we repent—but to dispel confusion, we should explain the relationship further.24
McGeown’s further explanation not only does not dis  pel confusion, but it also creates confusion and further denies the gospel. In his explanation of the relationship between faith and repentance, he first checks all the appropriate orthodoxy-boxes. Repentance is not the ground for remission of sins. We do not earn remission by repenting.
Repentance is not meritorious. Importantly, for a Protestant Reformed audience to whom he is about to teach conditions, he writes, “Repentance is not a condition that we fulfill in order to get or obtain forgiveness.” And he immediately qualifies this:
It is true that repentance precedes or comes before forgiveness, so that God forgives us after—not before—we repent, but that does not make repentance a condition for forgiveness.25
To make sure that his definition of repentance before forgiveness is not viewed as conditional, he defines a condition as “not something that comes before another thing, but a condition is something that we must do  upon which the obtaining of something depends  .”26
But that is not an adequate definition of a condition.
A condition is simply A, without which B does not come.
And that is the conditionalism of Reverend McGeown’s repentance. Repentance is the A without which the B of
God’s forgiveness does not come. God cannot and God may not forgive sinners before those sinners repent. When he says that God gives repentance, Reverend McGeown is not saving the theology from being conditional. Every heretic who has taught conditions has said that man fulfills the conditions by grace.
Now we are beginning to see why he labored so hard to deny that repentance is work and to make sure that justification is distinguished from forgiveness. Forgiveness is that which does not come and the believer does not have until and unless he repents. God cannot and may not forgive until or unless we repent, by God’s grace of course.  And at the conclusion of his long and convoluted explanation of the distinction between justification and forgiveness, Reverend McGeown makes an utterly shocking statement that exposes his theology of repentance and remission as another gospel:
Justification, which is not the same thing as forgiveness, is by faith alone without works, and repentance is  not  a work that we perform in order to obtain any blessing from God.27
Is  forgiveness  by faith alone and without works? This
Reverend McGeown cannot and will not say.
He means in his statement above, first, that his doctrine of repentance and remission is a different doctrine from the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine of justification by faith alone does not have a place in his doctrine of repentance and remission. Since he is dealing with what must be preached according to the command of
Christ, justification by faith alone really has no vital place in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and remission. Indeed, in the practical and real life of the church, his doctrine of forgiveness by faith and repentance replaces justification by faith alone in the preaching of the church.
Job asked, “How shall a man be right with God?” That is the pressing question of the church and of the believer every day. Reverend McGeown’s answer is not justification by faith alone but remission by faith and by repentance.
The second admission of the statement is that repentance is that which is performed, done, an activity that indeed does obtain. Whatever else his doctrine of repentance and remission means, it does not mean the same thing as justification by faith alone. And that is damning for his doctrine of repentance and remission. It is also fatal to his view of what Christ’s actual commission to the church was. Christ’s commission to the church in Luke 24 can without any injustice to the command be understood this way: when Christ said that “remission of sins should be preached,” he meant preach justification by faith alone for the sake of Christ’s atonement and through the mercy of
God and absolutely without works. The works and deeds of the sinner, the activities and acts of the sinner, and the sins and sinfulness of the sinner are not the reason he is justified or not justified or the reason he experiences or does not experience peace with God, nor the reason he has the knowledge of eternal life and enjoys the assurance of his salvation. Christ’s death alone is the reason.
When Christ said to preach remission, he was telling the church to preach him. Remission was to be preached
“in his name” (Luke 24:47). Whatever else that means, it means that all who are united to Christ by a true and living faith have on the basis of his atoning death everlasting righteousness and eternal life in their consciences.
And when Christ said to preach repentance, he was telling the church to preach that calling and sure mark of all his children, whom he has forgiven apart from their deeds, works, and activities. This too is the meaning of
“in his name.” This means that all who bear the name of
Christ and have the forgiveness of sins by the free mercy of God shall become manifested in the world by repentance. That repentance is not merely an inward change of mind, but repentance includes the whole life of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. It is, as Christ said elsewhere to the church, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20). This is not a separate command of Christ to his church in distinction from and in addition to what he taught in Luke 24. Rather, it is Christ’s explanation of what preaching remission and repentance means. His ministers are to teach faith in Christ and remission for his name’s sake, and they are to teach thankful obedience to Christ, beginning in the heart with repentance and being made manifest in all one’s life by obedience to Christ’s commands.
Reverend McGeown wants to make repentance that which the believer performs and without which he cannot be forgiven. He thereby makes repentance a condition unto justification. This is of a piece with his doctrine of faith. In another article on the blog of the Reformed
Free Publishing Association, he actually had the temerity to say that faith is “  not  God’s act” and to mock the doctrine of true faith by making it look foolish, as though we are teaching that God believes for us.28
But his mockery aside, if one is going to err in the doctrine of faith, then I would say, “Err on the side that
God believes for us and not on the side of Reverend
McGeown that faith is ‘  not  God’s act.’” For Reverend
McGeown faith is “  not  God’s act,” but faith is man’s act.
Faith is what man must do to be saved, which of course is sheer Arminianism and not Reformed at all.
The Reformed faith speaks differently. The Reformed faith teaches that faith is God’s act entirely and in all its parts, from beginning to end. Faith is God’s act. Faith is as much God’s act as conversion is God’s act. At one time this was considered good Protestant Reformed language about repentance. Repentance is God’s act. Faith is the same; it is God’s act. The Reformed faith expresses this by saying that faith is the gift of God. He “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also” (Canons 3–4.14, in  Confessions and Church Order  , 169). The Heidelberg Catechism says that I am engrafted into Christ.
To be engrafted is passive. That graft with Jesus Christ is my union with him, and that union is my faith. Is that man’s act? That is God’s act.
I suspect that Reverend McGeown does not believe that union with Christ is really faith. But in the Reformed faith, that union with Christ is the  essence  of faith. And this means that union with Christ is what faith really is.
It is what faith is in an infant, in an adult, and even in my being dead. Faith is union with Christ. I am joined with him and am made a partaker of his riches, gifts, and treasures. And this means that even when, in the language of the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 7, we talk about faith as “a certain knowledge” and “an assured confidence,” we are still talking about union with Christ (  Confessions and Church Order  , 90). The essence of that activity is union with Christ. When we speak of faith in any sense, we mean
Christ Jesus, for the simple fact that faith as to its essence is union with Christ. By faith I am one with Christ, and by faith Christ is in me and I am in him.
This, of course, all bores Reverend McGeown to death because the truth bores him to death, and he cannot wait to get to man and what man does.
Now in this dreadful piece of theologizing, he makes yet another spiritual gift of grace to be a condition. This time it is repentance. Faith and repentance, now two sides of one coin, are that by which a man experiences his forgiveness.
Reverend McGeown’s doctrine of justification is justifica  tion by faith and by repentance. His doctrine is a denial of the gospel, a corruption of the truth of faith, a mangling of the doctrine of repentance, and a displacement of Christ, in whose name repentance and remission are to be preached.
This now is Protestant Reformed theology.  —NJL  

Footnotes:

1 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness.” The seven-part blog series began April 27, 2022 (https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-1-repentance), and ended June 1, 2022 (https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/preaching-repentance-and- forgiveness-7-repentance-and-remission). All of the italics for emphasis in the quotations are McGeown’s.
2 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (7): Repentance and Remission,” June 1, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-7-repentance-and-remission. 3 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (1): Repentance,” April 27, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/preaching -repentance-and-forgiveness-1-repentance.
4 William Chillingworth, “Nine Sermons before Charles,” in R. C. Trench, Synonyms in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1989), 269.
5 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (2): Classifying Repentance (a),” May 2, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-2-classifying-repentance-a.
6 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (2).”
7 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (2).”
8 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (2).”
9 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (3): Classifying Repentance (b),” May 6, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-3-classifying-repentance-b. 10 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (3).” 11 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (1).” 12 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (3).” 13 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (3).” 14 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (3).” 15 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:597. 16 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (3).” 17 James Sadolet, “Sadolet’s Letter to the Senate and People of Geneva,” https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_sadolet.html. 18 Nathan J. Langerak, “Revisiting Norman Shepherd,” Sword and Shield 1, no. 14 (April 2021): 10–16; “Revisiting Norman Shepherd (2),” Sword and Shield 1, no. 15 (May 2021): 15–19; “Revisiting Norman Shepherd (3),” Sword and Shield 2, no. 1 (June 2021): 16–20. 19 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (4): Forgiveness of Sins,” May 11, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/preaching -repentance-and-forgiveness-4-forgiveness-of-sins. 20 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (4).” 21 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (6): Justification by Faith Alone,” May 23, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-6-justification-by-faith-alone. 22 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (6).” 23 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (6).” 24 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (7): Repentance and Remission,” June 1, 2022, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-7-repentance-and-remission. 25 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (7).” 26 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (7).” 27 McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (7).” 28 Martyn McGeown, “Passive Faith?,” November 15, 2021, https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/passive-faith.

I take note of a comment from Facebook that was brought to my attention.
Facebook is a place where many say things frankly. And this post is a frank admission. The poster is Gary Vander
Schaaf. He is a very well-read member of the Protestant
Reformed Churches. The discussion on Facebook was regarding various Protestant Reformed doctrines, such as good works, reconciliation, forgiveness, assurance, justification, and sanctification. The discussion, as discussions do on Facebook, meandered around for a while as various other posters contributed their two cents regarding these doctrines.
But then this from Gary:
Eternal Justification as taught by Hoeksema has been rejected by some PR professors and ministers.
It is important to notice that I said “as taught by
Hoeksema” since all PR ministers to my knowledge hold to the view that the cross and resurrection accomplish and seal a justification that is certainly before my believing.
This rejection of HH’s views on such basic ideas as election and justification means that virtually all theological ideas (sanctification, repentance, forgiveness of sins, you name it) will have to be reworked.
Thus, the spate of articles and speeches and sermons on topics that were once considered the A, B, C’s of faith. You will want to read David Engelsma’s book
“Gospel Truth of Justification”, especially chapters 12 & 13, where the differences between his views and those of his teacher are made explicit.
Just one example. Compare DJE to HH.1
HH first... “We do not become righteous before
God in time, by faith, but are righteous in the tribunal of God from before the foundation of the world. God beholds us in eternity, not as sinners, but as perfectly righteous, as redeemed, as justified in Christ (Num. 23:21, Is. 49:16, Rom. 8:29,30)...
And this indeed, is the comfort of faith. Faith in
Christ takes hold upon eternity, and knows that there is no condemnation, that there never was condemnation for them who God hath justified”
(Triple Knowledge  , v. 2, p. 337).
This is the view that you [the former poster] put into words above, both as to its content and to the great comfort—our only comfort—we draw from it. And this shows, too, that your mom was right, that this is the truth as she was taught it, and that she in turn taught you.
Now hear DJE, “Implied by the reality of justification in time by means of faith is that it is a mistake for a Reformed preacher or teacher when treating of justification, to put eternal justification first and foremost in his sermon or lesson...The main message and issue is not eternal justification, but justification by faith—justification by faith alone” (  Gospel Truth of Justification  , p.259).
As Rev. MMG has noted on this site, here is a polite rejection of HH’s view. Polite, to be sure, but a rejection all the same.
And so the PRC finds itself in a period of transition, where everything needs re-examining and restatement.
First of note regarding this post is the frank acknowledgment that Herman Hoeksema’s view of eternal justification has been  rejected  . But then it must also be noted that Herman Hoeksema’s view of the decree has also been rejected, and with it the decretal theology of Herman
Hoeksema has been rejected. Decretal theology was the theology of Herman Hoeksema, and so the theology of
Herman Hoeksema has been rejected by the Protestant
Reformed Churches.
Second, the one who led the way in this rejection was
Prof. David Engelsma. Hoeksema taught that we do not become righteous in time; we are righteous eternally.
Prof. David Engelsma calls the placing of this reality first in a sermon and in teaching “a mistake.” As others have noted, this  is  the rejection of Herman Hoeksema’s view.
Third, and most fascinating of all, is the frank admission that the Protestant Reformed Churches, having rejected Hoeksema on the decree, are “in a period of tran  sition.” In this period of transition, “everything”—everything—“needs re-examining and restatement.”
This is what Protestant Reformed ministers and professors have been doing. They sold the people the story that they were faithfully following Herman Hoeksema, but they had rejected him and were reexamining and restating everything in his theology.
With this assessment of Gary, I absolutely agree.
Let the Protestant Reformed Churches be done with the charade that they are faithful disciples of Herman  Hoeksema. They are transitioning away from him. Transitioning away from Hoeksema, they are transitioning away from the truth and the Reformed faith. Rejecting the Reformed faith, they have rejected God and are working hard to promote man. The Protestant Reformed
Churches have rejected God at the heart of the gospel— the decree and justification by faith alone. This project of reexamination and restatement of all of theology is simply the working through of their rejection of the truth as their father taught it to them. They are the foolish children who did not heed the instruction of Solomon (Christ), who said, “My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother”
(Prov. 1:8).
Will anyone hear?
—NJL  SOUND DOC TRINE  Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.  —Titus 2:1  

Footnotes:

1 Note that DJE is Prof. David J. Engelsma, HH is Rev. Herman Hoeksema, and MMG is Rev. Martyn McGeown.
1 Martin VanderWal, “True Repentance,” Sword and Shield 3, no. 1 (June 2022): 36–39; “True Repentance (2),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 2 (July 2022): 17–19; “True Repentance (3),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 3 (August 2022): 15–18; “True Repentance (4),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 4 (September 2022): 23–26.

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.  —Romans 7:12  Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  —Romans 7:7  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.  —1 Corinthians 15:56  Whence knowest thou thy misery? Out of the law of God.  —Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 2  In the same light are we to consider the law of the decalogue, delivered by God to His peculiar people, the Jews, by the hand of Moses. For though it discovers the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof, yet as it neither points out a remedy nor imparts strength to extricate him  from misery, and thus, being weak through the flesh, leaves the transgressor under the curse,  man cannot by this law obtain saving grace.  —Canons of Dordt 3.4–5  As seen in previous articles, the necessity of faith and repentance is the necessity of the grace of God.1 That necessity is rooted in the counsel of God. From eternity God determined both the end of his elect people in the eternal life of heaven and all their way to that end. According to that way determined in his counsel, God determined his gifts to his people, including faith and repentance, worked by his sovereign grace in them. That necessity is also the necessity of the death of Christ, their mediator and head, on the cross. His blood was the price of their redemption from the dominion of sin. His blood purchased the breaking of the power of sin; their repentance; and the gift of faith to redeem them from their unbelief, in which they were conceived and born. The necessity of faith and repentance is also the necessity of the operation of the Holy Spirit. Working according to the will of God and according to the redemption that belongs to his people in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit works all things in all, including repentance and faith, both as the will and the acts of repenting and believing.
This necessity extends fully to the believer’s entire life of repentance and faith. This necessity extends also to all the believer’s fruits of his repentance and his faith. The believer’s entire salvation—both his justification and sanctification; his regeneration and conversion; his beginning, his way, and his end—is entirely of God’s grace alone. Salvation is entirely without works and entirely without merit. All grace is sovereign, particular, unconditional, and irresistible. The working of God’s grace is never subject to the will of man.
This sovereign, irresistible, particular, and unconditional grace must be seen as one unbroken stream that runs through the regenerated child of God. This stream runs from the throne of God through the mercies of
Christ and is applied by the Holy Spirit to the whole nature of the child of God. This stream runs through his whole nature into his whole life as a child of God. The stream of grace controls him in his worship of God and his whole life of gratitude to God. Grace governs him in his whole pilgrim’s way and leads him all the way into the eternal glory appointed to him from the foundation of the world. That stream may not be broken or divided.  There are two ways in which this stream of grace is being broken and divided.
The first way is obvious. That way is dividing grace according to its fruits and effects. There are some fruits and effects of grace that are made to be contingent upon what man does. The grace of forgiveness is made contingent upon repentance or upon repentance and faith. Continued forgiveness is made contingent upon the willingness of the forgiven sinner to forgive others. Blessings of communion and fellowship with God are made contingent upon acts of worship and devotion, such as prayer, reading of scripture, and attendance upon the means of grace.
Although this first way is ground well-trodden in the recent controversy, it is worth noting some reasons for this division. The first is the alleged biblical ground for such a division, namely the promises of God in their grammatical form, which is often conditional. Put generally, if God’s people seek him, they shall find him. The argument follows: since this promise of God must be true, then finding God is contingent or dependent on his people’s activity of seeking him. Whether the relationship is expressed by time before and time after or cause and effect or merit and reward, God’s grace is brought under man’s control. A second reason for this division is to make room for man as a creature and for man as having sig  nificance and importance as a creature. Because man is important as a creature, his will and behavior are important. God’s grace recognizes the importance of man’s will and behavior. To ensure the integrity of man’s will and behavior, that is, his creatureliness from God, grace must take into consideration who and what man is. If grace does not properly recognize man’s importance as a creature, then man is said to become a stock and a block or a wooden puppet controlled by strings.
The second way of breaking the stream of grace is less obvious but is just as detrimental to the truth of God’s abounding grace. This way is to distinguish between salvation and assurance of salvation or between justification and assurance of justification. To be more specific, the division is between salvation as objective and salvation as subjective.
The second way breaks the stream of God’s grace in
Christ into two streams: an objective stream and a subjective stream. The objective stream is God’s grace for man’s salvation apart from all his conscious experience of salvation. This stream includes the grace of election. As election is eternal and unconditional, set in God’s counsel from before the foundation of the world, election is above time and history. In that election, or predestination, man is appointed to salvation and the way of salvation. In this objective stream is also the death of Christ according to
God’s sovereign and particular decree. At the cross the elect were made acceptable by Christ’s atonement. The death of the Son of God was the payment for all their sins. Their guilt was removed. Their standing before God as acceptable was fully accomplished in Christ. Both election and the death of Christ on the cross were accomplished away from and apart from the involvement of the elect. The elect were not personally present in eternity or at the cross. They were not conscious of those acts of God and of the Son of God incarnate.
Because the elect were not present and personally conscious of their election and the death of Christ on the cross, those acts are said to be  objective  . In them salvation is certain. It is guaranteed and sealed. This salvation needs only to be applied to the elect.
The application of salvation to the elect in time, when they are personally present to receive this salvation, is declared to be an entirely different matter. This application is still gracious. It still entirely depends on the grace of election and the grace of the cross of Christ. But this grace flows in a separate stream. While the objective stream of grace flows around, over, and under the elect, the subjective stream of grace flows into the elect. As it flows into the elect, this stream reveals a different character. It might flow much or little. It might flow not at all into some areas. It has limitations.
What are these limitations? What are the controlling factors that are present? Why is the first, objective stream of grace so full and free but the second, subjective stream is so narrow and controlled?
Because this second stream of grace is said to be adapted to man as a creature. This is grace that must be able to fit into him as a creature who has a limited mind and will. Because he can think and will in a cer  tain direction or pathway that he determines, grace must be adapted to the operation of his mind and will. He can only receive as much grace as he himself determines.
What about his assurance of justification? It depends on whether and how much he forgives one who has sinned against him. What about his communion and fellowship with God? If man consecrates himself much, he will have much communion and fellowship. If he consecrates himself little, he will have little communion and fellowship.
The amount of grace, little or much, that flows into the heart and soul of a man and gives to him the consciousness of his salvation and fellowship with God depends on how the man conducts himself. The stream of grace may flow widely and abundantly into his soul, if he thinks and lives according to the will of God in all good works. But if that man is spiritually lazy and works not at all in the things of God’s word or kingdom, then grace will only trickle into him. His conscious experience of assurance may be very little or not present at all.
It is here that grace becomes subject to the will of man.
How much grace will he receive? It depends on what he does. Where is the grace for that man to do more than he has been doing? He is sent back to himself. Do more. Believe more. Think more. Read more. Pray more. Study more.
Two great difficulties manifest themselves with this approach.
The first great difficulty is that this approach must always work backward to destroy the truth about grace. It is truly impossible to draw limits to the subjective stream of grace that are under the control of the elect and not have those limits apply to the objective stream of grace.
The apprehension of grace in one stream must and will effect the apprehension of grace in the other stream. For grace is ultimately one. Its unity is in its head, Jesus Christ.
The second great difficulty with the notion of two streams of grace is that it does not hold for all Christians.
On one side are elect who do not struggle with respect to their assurance of salvation. From observing them outwardly, one might conclude that they ought to struggle.
They appear to be weak, yet they seem to have no struggle with assurance. On the other side are elect who are diligent in their use of the means of grace. They know and love the word of God. Their prayers reflect both a sense of
God’s majesty and glory and childlike devotion and rest in him. Their speech reflects a deep spirituality. They demonstrate a devotion to God that endures in spite of hardship.
But they do not convey a deep sense of assurance. They can speak of deep doubts and fears, deep struggles of faith.
Scripture also addresses these differences. Hannah, the mother of Samuel, is identified in holy scripture as a woman who feared the Lord. Scripture places her in stark contrast to her adversary, Elkanah’s other wife, Peninnah. Yet Hannah was greatly distressed by the opposition of her adversary, leading Hannah to pour out her soul before the Lord in his temple. On the other side of the spectrum was Samson, who was often led alternatively by his lusts and by his personal seeking of revenge against his enemies. Nevertheless, he is listed in Hebrews 11 as a hero of faith.
How must these differences be appreciated? What do they truly signify? What is the difference between Hannah and Samson? What is the difference between the deeply religious and the superficial and shallow? What is the difference between those who possess deep, unbroken assurance and those who struggle to have any assurance at all?
Comparing persons to persons must end in complete confusion and the heresy of merit. In that confusion man will seek what is pleasing to his flesh. He will devise his own way. He will make the objective into the subjective to gain power. He will labor to put grace under his control. He will indeed pay homage to free grace, as required by scripture and the Reformed creeds. But he will split off another stream of grace in order to have it under his control. Scripture becomes a collection of examples. Be like these. Do not be like those others. Be like these by having a strong faith. Be like these who show great holiness. Follow the plan because the results must certainly follow. Such an approach must yield a system of merit and deny grace as grace.  Only one comparison is proper: the comparison of God’s word between law and gospel. The authoritative standard before man is the word of God. It is that perfection of the word of God that is represented by the law on the one side and the gospel on the other side. Who was
Hannah before the law? Who was she before the gospel?
Who was Samson before the law? Who was he before the gospel? Who is the child of God before the law? Who is he before the gospel?
What a difference this only correct comparison makes!
Whence knowest thou thy misery?
Out of the law of God.
The law must reduce everyone to the same level. The law must reduce the strongest and the weakest children of God to nothing but miserable sinners, lost in sin and under the wrath and curse of God. The law must make clear that the need of grace is total. It must also make clear that grace simply cannot at all be under the con  trol of the miserable sinner. By all that he is and all that he does, he constantly makes himself unworthy of any blessing or benefit of God. He deserves only God’s wrath.
Grace must truly be gracious through and through.
This reduction of man by the law constantly applies to the child of God throughout his entire life in this world.
The doctrine of the law, God’s perfect word, is always applying its force to man, always showing him his true misery apart from Christ. The law of God, explained and applied according to scripture in Lord’s Days 2–4 of the
Heidelberg Catechism, does not last only until salvation by faith in Christ as explained in Lord’s Day 7. The law of God does not only come to the believer in Lord’s Days 34–44 as the knowledge of how he is to show his gratitude for his salvation.
Throughout the entire life of the child of God, the law applies its force. Such is the teaching of the Heidelberg
Catechism in Lord’s Day 33. In teaching the doctrine of the mortification of the old man, the application of the law to the believer’s heartfelt sorrow over his sin is his during his whole life. Repentance must be the character of the life of the Christian. Such is also the teaching of
Lord’s Day 44. One of the reasons for the strict preaching of the law of God is the knowledge of how far short the people of God fall, to make them all the more earnest in seeking the remission of their sins in the blood of Christ.
Another reason is that they must learn to know more and more the depths of their depravity.
The power of the law is to show the power of sin. The strength of sin is the law. The law gives the knowledge of sin: “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7).
For the sake of true repentance, the mortification of the old man, the law of God’s word must be the law that is certainly and truly applied to the child of God throughout his whole life. The law must be taken up in its normative force. It must be applied as the law, that is, as that which requires and demands, which threatens and judges as guilty and unworthy of God’s fellowship. The law must be so applied that the elect child of God brings before God the confession of his sins in deep humility of heart. His confession must be out of the depths of his heart: God be merciful to me, a sinner.
The law cannot be a mere abstraction. It cannot be observed merely from a safe distance. The law cannot be just an idea that contributes to another idea, that one is a sinner, who has the following idea that he somehow, some way needs the savior, Jesus Christ, to save him from an abstract condition or distant idea.
Scripture demonstrates that the law has a powerful effect when it is applied by itself alone. It stimulates sin. Although the law in itself is righteous and good, when it comes to the sinner who is dead in his trespasses and sins, it rouses and stimulates sin. The entire history of the nation of Israel can be summarized as both the Israelites’ failure to obey God’s law and their perversion of that law in order to provoke
God to anger, which anger brought about their judgment.
Another, similar effect of applying the law without
Christ and the gospel is that the law of God is abused in order to establish self-righteousness. Scripture shows this most clearly in the sect of the Pharisees. Scripture also shows that self-righteousness in the outward observances of the law, which were condemned by the prophets as abominable in the sight of God, incurred his wrath. Malachi 2:2 is but one example.
If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the L ord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
The reason that the effect of self-righteousness is similar to the arousal of sin is that both are sinful rebellion against God’s law. The most powerful demonstration of this is hatred of Christ, the true fulfillment of the law of
God, which hatred followed through to the crucifixion of the righteous Son of God on the cross.
But the most important effect of the law of God is that which is categorically denied by the Canons of Dordt in the third and fourth heads of doctrine. In speaking of the law of God, given by Moses in the form of the ten commandments, Canons 3–4.5 proceeds with a contrast. These effects of the law are identified: “It discovers the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof.” Immediately after that, the article denies any power with respect to grace. “Man cannot by this law obtain saving grace”
(Confessions and Church Order  , 167). No grace is obtained.
No kind of grace. No aspect of grace. No form of grace.
The same article of the Canons explains why saving grace cannot be obtained by this law: “Yet as it neither points out a remedy nor imparts strength to extricate him from misery, and thus, being weak through the flesh, leaves the sinner under the curse...” There is no remedy pointed out by the law. It only grips with its demands, holding its hearers accountable. The law imparts no strength. Contrary to Pelagius, the law never says, “You can do it.” As vast and weighty as the law’s threatenings and judgments are, shown also in their execution (for example, Sodom and Gomorrah), there is no strength in the law to obey the law, no matter how strong the deterrents are spoken or shown. The sinner is simply left under the curse.
The weakness of this law means that the law itself cannot work the grace of repentance. According to the depravity of man, the law will work rebellion. It will work self-righteousness. It will even work self-despondency.
But it cannot work true repentance. It will not work a sorrow that is holy and Godward.
True repentance can only be worked through the holy gospel, the gospel that shows the mercy of God in Christ
Jesus. True repentance is worked only by the grace of God in Christ accompanying that gospel. Only the gospel proclaims the true repentance that truly abhors sin and self as sinful for the sake of God’s mercy. Only by the gospel is true turning from sin for the sake of turning to God to seek his mercy in the forgiveness of sins.  —MVW  

In this series of articles, we have been considering the reward of grace according to the definition that I have proposed: namely, that the reward of grace is the wages of
Jesus Christ, which is freely bestowed by God in election and which superabundantly replaces all that the children of God lose in this life as they follow after Christ.
In the previous two installments, we examined the basis and essence of this reward.1 Christ by his perfect work as head and mediator of the covenant (the basis) merited eternal life (the essence) for all who belong to that covenant by divine election. By this I do not mean merely that
Christ merited eternal life so that all the members of his covenant have a general entrance into the everlasting kingdom of heaven. Rather, I mean that every specific detail in that glorious kingdom has been merited by Christ. The very name and place that each of his people possess in that kingdom are earned by Christ  personally  . What his people enjoy in heaven is graciously given to them  apart from  their works. In other words, heaven is an inheritance.
Many pay lip service to this doctrine. However, they confuse the whole matter as soon as they start talking about degrees of glory in heaven. As we observed last time, it seems as though the whole church world pants after this doctrine, especially as this doctrine relates to one’s own good works. “More good works,” the church says, “means more reward in heaven.” If the ministers had any courage, they would say what they really think: “Your works gain you blessing. Now get busy!”
In this final installment I will contend against this idea that degrees of glory in heaven are according to good works. Such a conception fails to reckon honestly with
God’s decree of election. Such a conception fails to reckon honestly with the superabundance of God’s grace in Jesus
Christ. I will also connect the reward of grace to another important principle that governs all of scripture’s teaching concerning the reward. What is this principle? Loss.
The reward is used by Jesus Christ to comfort his church, which must always endure loss in this present age.  I insist that it is improper—even detrimental—to teach that the reward of grace is proportional to good works.
Nor am I alone in this. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Herman Veldkamp wrote,
I do not deny that in heaven there are degrees of glory, but that is the way on earth already too. That this has something to do with rewards, I do not believe at all.2
And in his paper on degrees of reward, Craig Blomberg asserted,
I do not believe there is a single NT text that, when correctly interpreted, supports the notion that believers will be distinguished one from another for all eternity on the basis of their works as Christians. What is more, I am convinced that when this unfounded doctrine of degrees of reward in heaven is acted upon consistently...it can have highly damaging consequences for the motivation and psychology of living the Christian life.3
Rather than to teach that the reward is proportional to works, I contend that the only way to speak about the reward of grace is in connection with election in Jesus
Christ. This is the election theology of the reward. This is why I include in my definition that the reward of grace
“is freely bestowed by God in election.”
That election is the only proper starting point for the reward of grace is the clear testimony of scripture.4 God chooses the inheritance. “He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved” (Ps. 47:4).
God chooses who receives that inheritance. “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11). And God chooses the place that each of his children possesses in that inheritance. “For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him” (Isa. 64:4). When the Son of man returns in his glory, he will announce the glory of this election to the whole world and will say to the sheep at his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34).
That the kingdom has been prepared from the foundation of the world implies that every aspect of that kingdom is already determined. The place that each of God’s children will have in that kingdom is predetermined.
Their places are determined without their works and only of God’s good pleasure. “For we are his workmanship”
(Eph. 2:10). When the saints receive the kingdom, they receive that which they possessed already in eternity, not what they worked for in this life.
All of this is reflected in God’s choice to make Israel dwell with him in Canaan. The land of Canaan was God’s to give, for the land was absolutely his property: “The earth is the L ord’s, and the fulness thereof ” (Ps. 24:1).
In his good pleasure he chose to make Canaan his abode:
“For the L ord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it” (132:13–14). And in his good pleasure, God chose Israel above all the nations of the earth to receive this land: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance” (33:12). The way in which God gave
Canaan to the Israelites made clear, without doubt, that it was his free gift to them. He redeemed them from bondage. He typically and symbolically gave them the land through the passover lamb, whose blood covered their sins. He baptized them in the Red Sea. He opened the way into Canaan through the Jordan. He gave Israel the victory over the land through the angel of Jehovah. Then he apportioned the land himself, choosing by lot where each tribe should settle. And God was the one who determined the allotment.5
In the New Testament the election theology of the reward is inferred from the apostle’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 about the nature of the body of Christ. God determined the place of each member of the church.
“Now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him” (v. 18). And he tempers the body together so that each member works for the well-being of the other members. The members do not choose their places and functions. God does. Certainly, there is a difference between one member and another member. But, as Cocceius said,
The difference is not the different proportion of merit, nor does it argue a discrepancy in justification; it will be in accord with the grace of God, by which Christ was given a body in which God’s manifold wisdom might be displayed.6
I reiterate my main contention: when the reward of grace is taught as the place that each elect child of God possesses in the eternal kingdom and everlasting covenant of God, it must be taught from the viewpoint that this reward has already been determined in eternity. This reward is not determined by good works, but it is determined by election.
I observe that in this matter the emphasis of our
Reformed fathers was upon election as well. Herman
Hoeksema wrote,
In the covenant God has  prepared  some of His people to do great things, to be special witnesses of His name, to fight the kingdom of darkness in a special way. And just because God has  prepared  some of His children for special works, so that they do more than others and suffer more than others and bear the brunt of the battle more than others, they also shall have a special place in glory. They were in suffering more than others. They were despised more than others. They were in tribulation in a special sense of the word. God  prepared  Elijah to do great things. But he also fought more than all the prophets of his time. God  prepared  His prophets, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, for special work. But they also went through special suffering and tribulation. God  prepared  the apostles and the martyrs to be faithful in a special sense of the word. And they suffered more than others. And so it shall be at the time of Antichrist. Not all are equally strong among the children of God. Not all are equally fit to testify and bear the brunt of the battle. It is not because they themselves are less faithful; not as if the stronger would have any power of their own.  No, God has prepared them, and even prepared their works, also their special works.  But what now shall become of these? Shall they all be lost? Shall in the day of judgment all these works dwindle away in the general bliss of God’s people? Of course not; their works shall follow them...And those whom
God  prepared  to do more work than others and to suffer more than others may thank the Lord God for this great privilege. For their works shall follow them also in the new creation.7
Prepared...prepared...prepared—this is the all-important emphasis of election theology. God prepared all things according to his good pleasure. In the context of suffering and intense labor, all that the believer does on earth has been prepared for him and worked in him by God.
Concerning this idea Herman Hanko wrote,
By his grace God works in every one of his people so that they fulfill their calling and purpose in life, whatever that may be. In doing this, God sovereignly and graciously shapes and fits each saint for his place in glory—and for his capacity for glory.
Thus the reward is in direct proportion to his works, but both the works and the reward are of grace.8
This is what Hanko taught: in accordance with the name and place that God gives to each saint in heaven by election, God also perfectly molds and forms that saint in this life for his eternal life. This is the essential matter.
Regarding the matter of the reward being in direct proportion to his works, it is my judgment that this is an unneces  sary and improper extrapolation from the truth of election.
That the believer should think about the reward in terms of his good works is foreign to Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31–46. When the king commends the sheep on their deeds of love toward him, they respond by asking when they had done such things. They were not focused on their good works at all.
Not too long ago, a wise woman whom I know wondered aloud if God’s people are ever really conscious of their good works. I appreciate her thought. It echoes the teaching of this parable. It also accords with what Hanko wrote regarding the parable:
This denial of the saints is also indicative of the fact that although the saints did these things, they were not conscious of them, because a good work that is genuinely a good work is done with complete self-forgetfulness. Those works that are good are done only to the glory of God...He [the child of God] is completely oblivious to the fact that he has done any  thing good because his motive is the glory of God and thankfulness to God for the great salvation given him in Christ, though he is a wretched sinner.9
However, the ecclesiastical assemblies in the Protestant
Reformed Churches (PRC) could only speak about the reward in connection with good works. The ecclesiastical assemblies—Hope Protestant Reformed Church’s consistory, Classis East 2020, and Synod 2020—all supported the doctrine of the “Reward of Grace” sermon that the reward is according to works.10 Hope Protestant Reformed
Church’s consistory asserted, “Scripture and the Reformed confessions teach  plainly  that the reward of individual believers is in proportion to the good works that they perform in this life.”11 Both the classis and the synod declared,
“Use of the words ‘according to’ to connect the reward of grace to deeds done in faith...is biblical.”12
As proof for their decisions, the Protestant Reformed ecclesiastical assemblies cited  Matthew 16:27,  Mark 10:29–30, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 22:12, and Belgic Confession article 24.
But what do these passages say?
The Mark 10 passage reads,
28. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, 30. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.  This text was cited as justification that the reward is proportionate to good works.13 But in Mark 10 Jesus
Christ was not teaching a reward of proportion. He was teaching a reward of superabundance! By following after
Christ and his gospel, every disciple loses in this life and receives persecutions besides. In fact, he loses all—all that does not pertain to Christ and his gospel.  All  may include spouses or children or friends.  All  may include possessions or houses or lands. This is pitiful. Yet when the disciple has Christ, he has more than he can fathom!
A hundredfold! Superabundance!
I say again that this text does not teach a reward of proportion. It was Peter who expected a reward of proportion when he said, “Look at all the things we have done. What shall we receive?” Peter’s conception of the reward—which is the conception of our flesh—was a crass and mercantile thing. Jesus exposed that wicked conception of the reward by declaring that  all  his disciples shall receive freely of his grace and goodness. They shall receive the reward not because they have done enough.
They shall receive the reward solely because God has joined them to Christ, so that they share in the bounty that Christ has earned.
The citations from Matthew, Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation are all similar in doctrine. Matthew 16:27: “The Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Romans 2:6: “Who [God] will render to every man according to his deeds.” 2 Corinthians 5:10: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” Revelation 22:12: “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”
In all of these verses, the context clearly indicates that scripture is speaking about a  judgment.  The verbs of interest may vary. The verbs of interest are translated in the
King James Version as “reward” or “render” or “receive” or “give.” Frankly, I don’t care how you translate them.
What is important is that the texts are speaking about a judgment—  the  judgment in the day of the Lord.
And this judgment distinguishes between  two different groups  . What stands between the two different groups is God’s grace in Jesus Christ. What stands between the two different groups is the cross. On the one hand, there are those whom God has elected into Jesus Christ.
When Christ takes his place on the glorious judgment seat, he manifests the elect as righteous and holy because they have his perfect work imputed unto them. On the other hand, there are the reprobate, in whom God has no pleasure. Christ manifests them as unrighteous and filthy because they never had him. The basis of this judgment is not what they have done in their lives, but the basis is whether or not they have Christ’s perfect work according to God’s divine decree.
I hear the objection now: “But the Greek says  κατὰ  !You deny the clear teaching of the text that the judgment is  according to works  .”
Indeed, the whole of scripture insists on this. But note well that every rational, moral creature will be judged  according to  works, not  by  works. When scripture speaks of  according to works  in connection with the judgment, it highlights the specific function that men’s works have in the theodicy of God. God will use the works of men to demonstrate and vindicate his righteous judgment, such that his glory and honor are acknowledged by every rational, moral creature.
The simple teaching of these texts must be mangled in order to draw out that the reward is according to works, such that the believer receives more or less glory based on his deeds. What these texts set forth is the nature of God’s judgment, not the nature of heavenly life. And the natural contrast in these texts is between elect and reprobate, not between different kinds of believers.
What about article 24 of the Belgic Confession? The article reads, “We do not deny that God rewards good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts.”14 At the very least, does the article not establish a connection between good works and the reward?
The teaching of the Confession must be understood in light of all that God gives his people by his decree of election. For example, Alsted wrote,
Eternal life is felt by us in this world, but it is after this life that it touches us fully and in this sense it is divided into imperfect and perfect, inchoate and consummated.”15
In connection with Alsted’s statement, Heppe added,
“What believers already possess in germ here on earth, is imparted to them [in heaven] in its perfection.”16 What ties the spiritual life that the believer experiences on earth together with the fullness of his life in heaven? Election!
Election is the fountainhead from whence flow both the  “inchoate” and the “consummated.” The beginning of eternal life that the believer now enjoys shall culminate in that everlasting life with Christ in heaven. The good works that the believer now enjoys shall culminate in his reward of grace from Christ in heaven.
If one speaks about the relationship between good works and the reward, this relationship makes no sense unless it is rooted in what God has decreed for his people by their election in Jesus Christ. Good works and the reward must never be abstracted from election. They are included in election.
Therefore, what does it mean that “God rewards good works” and “through his grace... crowns his gifts”? To use the figure of the Confession, the reward comes upon a life of good works like a crown comes upon a head that is first prepared with anointing oil. The oil does not cause the head to be crowned. The oil does not determine the crowning at all. But God pours the oil, and then God places the crown. And through these actions he gives his covenant friend-servant a name and a place in the kingdom of his Son.17  Thus far I have shown that the reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ, which God freely bestows in election.
What remains is that the reward “superabundantly replaces all that the children of God lose in this life as they follow after Christ.” This aspect of the definition rightly describes how the church should use the reward in her preaching and pastoral care.
There is a wrong way to use the reward. The “Reward of Grace” sermon used the reward in a wrong way. This was acknowledged in 2020 by Classis East of the PRC when it sustained the objection of a protestant against the sermon. The sermon asserted that the reward is according to good works, so that “the less number of works, the less of a reward one receives.”18 In response to the sermon, the protestant asked,
If this is true that we are rewarded less of a good work the less the reward and more of a good work the more the reward, how is a child of God to find his comfort and his assurance in that?19
Classis East concurred with the protestant and stated that the sermon was “susceptible to the interpretation that the believer is left with no comfort or assurance of grace.”20
But the right doctrine of the reward always leaves the believer with comfort and assurance.
In this life the child of God experiences loss. In Matthew 16 Christ instructs his church about this loss that they must endure as his disciples.
24. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.21
Psalm 45 echoes this exhortation of Christ:
10. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; 11. So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.
The calling to follow Christ means that his disciples must forsake their old lives. Throughout their lives they must die to themselves, mortifying the flesh and the deeds of the body. Disciples of Christ must forsake the world.
They may also be required to forsake family and friends.
They may lose possessions. They may exhaust themselves for the cause of Christ and his gospel. They may even be required to lay down their lives for his sake. All these things bring sorrow and grief. An outstanding example of all this was Moses. Moses forsook his place among aristocracy as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter in order that he might bear the reproach of Christ, “for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward” (Heb. 11:26).
All of this is so eloquently summarized by Luther:
Once you have become a Christian and have a gracious God and the forgiveness of sins...a certain result will be that you will have to do much and suffer much on account of your faith and your Baptism. As [Jesus’ sermon on the mount has] shown in detail, the devil himself, together with the world and the flesh, will attach himself to you and torment you from every side, making the world seem too narrow for you. If we were left to be stuck in this, without Word or consolation, we would despair and say, “Who wants to be a Christian or preach or do good works? You see what happens to them.
The world tramples them underfoot, defames and slanders them, and tries every kind of villainy and evil trick on them, finally robbing them of their honor, their property, and their life. All Christ can call me is poor, troubled, hungry, meek, peaceable, afflicted, and persecuted! Is this supposed to last forever and never change?”22
In these narrow circumstances Christ promises his reward to encourage his church.23 These circumstances are explored in more detail below.
First, Christ gives the promise of the reward to the church when she is threatened by apostasy, so that the church might take heed and expend herself to fight against that apostasy.
This is the explicit teaching of 2 John 8. After warning about many deceivers and antichrists in the world, the apostle exhorted, “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.” To the church at Pergamos, the risen Lord said, “Watch! Do not remove the sentinel of discipline and give evil men a place in your assembly! And those who overcome shall have their reward.”24 To the church at Thyatira, the Spirit exhorted, “Root yourselves in the objective truth of God’s word, and do not drift away in the subjective experience of man! And those who overcome shall have their reward.”25 And Herman Hoeksema, in connection with the dead church at Sardis, warned,
Many a church has fallen asleep in our day...Shall we remain faithful?...We shall, if, by the power of the grace of God, we fight the good fight even unto the end.
Watch...that no one take your crown!26
It is appropriate for the church to exhort and encourage herself with the promise of the reward in these late hours, when apostasy tightens its grip upon the church world. In times like these a few elders and deacons may be called to stand up against ministers, professors of theology, and even entire denominations. To those few the consolation of the reward comes. And such an exhortation and encouragement will be most appropriate when
Babylon sweeps down upon the faithful remnant to shed its blood.27 Take heed that you lose not the truth but that you receive the reward!
Second, Christ gives the promise of the reward to the church when she faces persecution for his name’s sake. That the church of Christ must suffer persecution is expected. Paul wrote in Philippians 1:27–29, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of
Christ...And in nothing terrified by your adversaries...
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.”
In Romans 8 Paul wrote,
16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Belgic Confession article 37 speaks of the faithful and elect who are “condemned by many judges and magistrates as heretical and impious” because their cause is the cause of Christ.28
The early church father Irenaeus even spoke of the reward of the saints as “the reward of their suffering.”29
Sometimes, persecution comes upon the entire church.
Other times, persecution comes upon certain members of the church, whose spouses or children or parents belittle them for the truth’s sake and call them wicked.
To his persecuted saints Christ said in Matthew 5,
10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
To the saints at Smyrna, who would be persecuted by the devil, Christ exhorted, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life!” (Rev. 2:10). And to those who endure loss from enemies, Christ exhorted,
“Love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” (Luke 6:35).
That the reward may be used to encourage the church in times of suffering is observed in the writings of the early church fathers. In a letter to Athanasius and his church at Alexandria, an ecumenical council wrote,
You have undergone many severe and grievous trials; many are the insults and injuries which the Catholic Church has suffered, but “he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.” Wherefore even though they still recklessly assail you, let your tribulation be unto you for joy. For such afflictions are a sort of martyrdom, and such confessions and tortures as yours will not be without their reward, but ye shall receive the prize from God. Therefore strive above all things in support of the sound faith, and of the innocence of your Bishop and our fellow-minister Athanasius.30
After one of his expulsions from Alexandria, Athanasius wrote to the bishops of his province, saying,
For this is what they thirst after; and they continue to this day to desire to shed my blood. But of these things I have no care; for I know and am persuaded that they who endure shall receive a reward from our Saviour; and that ye also, if ye endure as the
Fathers did, and shew yourselves examples to the people, and overthrow these strange and alien devices of impious men, shall be able to glory, and say, We have kept the Faith; and ye shall receive the crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love Him. And God grant that I also together with you may inherit the promises, which were given, not to Paul only, but also to all them that have loved the appearing of our Lord, and Saviour, and God, and universal King, Jesus Christ.31
Third, Christ gives the promise of the reward to those whom he has called faithfully to rule his church and preach his gospel.32 Such labor is often wearisome and thankless, if not plagued by opposition. They must promote and defend the truth regardless of the cost. Sometimes they labor night and day to bring God’s word, only to be called the spawn of
Satan. Paul described in 1 Corinthians 4 what he endured as a faithful minister of truth: hunger and thirst and nakedness, buffeting, lack of dwelling, reviling, persecution, and defamation. He was treated as the scum of the earth.
Such laborers scripture consoles with the promise that they have a reward. In connection with the fields of harvest, Christ said to his disciples, “He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together” (John 4:36). Peter said to the church, “The elders which are among you I exhort...Feed the flock of
God which is among you...And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Pet. 5:1–4).
Athanasius illustrated this legitimate usage of reward in a letter to a fellow minister named Lucifer, who had labored diligently to defend the truth against the fierce opposition of the Arians:
O truly Lucifer, who according to your name bring the light of truth, and have set it on a candlestick to give light to all. For who, except the Arians, does not clearly see from your teaching the true faith and the taint of the Arians. Forcibly and admirably, like light from darkness, you have separated the truth from the subtilty and dishonesty of heretics, defended the Catholic Church, proved that the arguments of the Arians are nothing but a kind of hallucination, and taught that the diabolical gnashings of the teeth are to be despised...But I know and believe that the Lord Himself, Who has revealed all knowledge to your holy and religious spirit, will reward you for this labour also with a reward in the kingdom of the heavens.33
Fourth, Christ gives the promise of the reward to those who labor as slaves in this world, whose gain from their labor is little to none. 34 The reward is used to encourage them as they diligently serve their masters. For example,
Colossians 3:
22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: 24. Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord
Christ.
Although a slave may gain nothing from his earthly masters in this life, yet as a slave of Jesus Christ he gains everything in the life to come.
Finally, Christ gives the promise of the reward so that the church may pray with ever-greater intensity, “Come,
Lord Jesus, come quickly!”35 The church who hears about all the catastrophic events that must shortly come to pass will not work herself into a frenzy. Rather, as she becomes more and more conscious of her present misery and tribulation and suffering in the midst of the world, she looks forward to the manifestation of the glory of her bridegroom and the time when she will be ever with him. Thus the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”  A marvelous promise is the reward of grace. It superabundantly replaces all that the child of God loses in this life.
The reward is superabundant because it is unspeak  able glory. The eye has beheld the flowering fields and the radiant sun and the towering peaks, but it has observed nothing comparable to the sights of heaven. The ear has heard the melodious birds and the thundering clouds and the babbling brooks, but it has heard nothing comparable to the sounds of heaven. The believer has seen the glory of Jesus Christ evidently set forth in the preaching. The believer has heard the resounding of his savior’s fame in the gospel. Yet what things God has prepared for him have not entered his heart.
The reward is superabundant because it is eternal.
Light affliction—this is what the apostle called being troubled on every side, perplexed, persecuted, cast down, and scarred by the world’s hatred of Christ.
Momentary affliction! Indeed, such tribulation is heavy and grievous, but it works a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.
Superabundance implies that there can be no proportion between the believer’s labor on this earth and the reward of grace. This correct doctrine of the reward is liberating to the believer. He is freed from all his furious calculating about gaining his place in heaven. Rather, he trembles that God has so loved him from eternity that he has chosen for him a place in his new and splendid creation forever. It is a place that is wholly other than the believer’s wearisome pilgrimage on this earth.
—Luke Bomers  

Footnotes:

1 Luke Bomers, “A Reevaluation of the Reward of Grace (1),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 5 (October 2022): 31–36; “A Reevaluation of the Reward of Grace (2),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 6 (November 1, 2022): 34–39.
2 Herman Veldkamp, Children of the Lord’s Day: Notes on the Heidelberg Catechism , trans. Harry Kwantes (n.p.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1990), 1:230.
3 Craig L. Blomberg, “Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 2 (June 1992): 160, https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/35/35-2/JETS_35-2_159-172_Blomberg.pdf.
4 Election is also the emphasis of the creeds: “The faithful and elect shall be crowned with glory and honor” (Belgic Confession 37, in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes , 6th ed., vol. 3, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds [New York: Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996], 435–36; emphasis added). 5 Homer C. Hoeksema, Unfolding Covenant History , vol. 4, Through the Wilderness into Canaan , ed. Mark H. Hoeksema (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2003), 357.
6 Quoted in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources , trans. G. T. Thomson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 709.
7 Herman Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh!: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation , 2nd ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Associ- ation, 2000), 510–11; emphasis added. See also page 531.
8 Herman Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Jesus’ Parables , 2nd ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Associa- tion, 2004), 315.
9 Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom , 406. 10 Rev. David Overway, “The Reward of Grace,” sermon transcript, in Acts of Synod and Yearbook of the Protestant Reformed Churches in Ameri- ca 2020 , 107–17. 11 Acts of Synod 2020 , 129; emphasis added. 12 Acts of Synod 2020 , 36, 138. 13 “Hope’s consistory understands it [the reward of grace] to mean the degrees of glory spoken of in Scripture (...Mark 10:29–30)” ( Acts of Synod 2020 , 137). 14 Belgic Confession 24, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom , 3:412. 15 Quoted in Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics , 709. 16 Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics , 708–9. 17 I use this illustration for the sake of explaining the words of the Confession. Yet we must not forget that even babies who die in infancy rule together with Christ. And they rule having done no works in their earthly lives. 18 Acts of Synod 2020 , 120. 19 Acts of Synod 2020 , 121. 20 Acts of Synod 2020 , 138. 21 These words are oft repeated in the gospels. See Matthew 10:38–39, Mark 8:34–35, and Luke 9:23–24. 22 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works , vol. 21, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat , trans. and ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 290. 23 “By eternal life we mean...that happy and blessed life, which God promises to the faithful as the end, reward, and gain for all their miseries and toils ” (Walaeus in Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics , 707; emphasis added). 24 See Revelation 2:12–17 and Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 97. 25 See Revelation 2:18–29 and Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 113. 26 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 131. 27 See Hoeksema’s manner of exhortation in Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 704. 28 Belgic Confession 37, in Creeds of Christendom , 3:436. 29 Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 , vol. 1, The Apostolic Fa- thers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus , ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 561 (V.32.1). 30 “Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Church of Alexandria,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church , ser. 2, vol. 4, St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters , ed. Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, and Archibald Robertson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, n.d.), 121. 31 “To the Bishops of Egypt,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , 4:235. This letter was written by Athanasius after his expulsion by Syrianus in AD 356. 32 See Matthew 10:41–42, Mark 9:41, and 2 Timothy 4:7–8. 33 “Letter LI: Second Letter to Lucifer,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , 4:562. 34 Herman Hoeksema, Exegesis of Colossians (Grandville, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, [1997?]), 91. 35 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 27.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  —Romans 12:1  

Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?  —Psalm 12:4  The words of Psalm 12:4 indicate a specific kind of the great sin of idolatry.
There are different kinds of idolatry. The sin of idolatry must not be limited to naming certain beings and elevating them to the status of divinity. Idolatry must not be limited to ascribing to these other beings the virtues that belong to the one true God. It must not be limited to making physical representations of these beings and putting them in temples or other holy places, presenting to them gifts and offerings, and bowing down to worship them instead of the one true God.
Idolatry is also the substitution of man for God. Idolatry is this substitution in two distinct ways that aggravate the sin before God. The first way is common to all idolatry. Rather than giving to God the glory of his sovereignty, attending to his word, and having God as one’s only God according to his word, man determines the god he will worship and serve. Because man must determine rather than
God, the god or gods which man chooses to serve will most definitely not be the one true God. In this determination man establishes himself as sovereign, taking God’s place for himself. The second way of substitution is that man gives to himself glory and honors himself as the creator.
As the creator!
With his words man takes the prerogative of the creator. With his tongue man will prevail against the living
God, who speaks his word of power and truth. With man’s speech he will make his own world in which God is not sovereign. Man will make his own world in which he is free to do as he pleases. He will make his own world in which he makes himself ruler. He will make his own world in which he freely oppresses and abuses those over whom he claims this power. He considers the works and the fruits of his oppression as accomplishing his own power and glory.
He enriches himself in his position and control. He sees the fruit of his labors in the fearful and slavish submission of those whom he oppresses. He has dominance. He has control of his world. He has gained his followers to act after him, to speak after him, and to think after him.
In taking the prerogative of the creator for his own advantage, the idolater takes from God the glory of God’s truth and sovereignty. The idolater sets up his own world by his words in conflict with the truth that belongs to
God. The idolater sets up his world that is in conflict with the sovereignty and truth of God that God alone is the creator and ruler of heaven and earth. The idolater sets up himself in conflict with God and also sets up his world in conflict with the world over which God reigns and rules.
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Gen. 11:4)
And Balak said unto him, Come, I pray thee, with me unto another place, from whence thou mayest see them: thou shalt see but the utmost part of them, and shalt not see them all: and curse me them from thence. (Num. 23:13) 6.  They helped every one his neighbour; and every one said to his brother, Be of good courage. 7.  So the carpenter encouraged the goldsmith, and he that smootheth with the hammer him that smote the anvil, saying, It is ready for the sodering: and he fastened it with nails, that it should not be moved. (Isa. 41:6–7)
And he shall speak great words against the most
High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws. (Dan. 7:25)
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? (Rev. 13:4)
This form of idolatry has been a cornerstone of worldly philosophy.
Such idolatry is the philosophy of idealism.  To understand what idealism is, it is helpful to go to one of the chief sources of this philosophy, the philosophy of
Plato. The so-called “cave allegory” is given in book 7 of his  Republic.  The book begins with the following:
And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: —
Behold! Human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the first and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.1
Plato then wrote of one of these human beings being freed from the confines of the cave and finding his way out of the cave. After the painful process of accommodating his senses to the world into which he has emerged, he is able to know and understand the source of the shadows that he has seen in the cave. He also comes to understand that what he thought was real while confined to the cave, the light and the shadows, were only the effects of the reality he did not see before, the reality that was outside the cave.
Plato wrote of two additional movements of this human being who has been freed from the cave. First, this enlightened individual goes back into the cave to try to explain to his former fellow prisoners what he has encountered outside. His fellow prisoners, still stuck in the cave, remain unenlightened. They cannot seriously consider that what they are being told is true. All they know and understand are the light and shadows that they see in front of them.  This freed individual also moves to different and higher levels of reality. He becomes accustomed to the truth that there is more than one level of reality. As he learns to accommodate his senses to these different levels, he is able to reach more of them, until finally he reaches what is ultimate.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear
Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly, God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.2
In addition to this movement from inside the cave to outside the cave and this movement beyond and upward, there are additional features in the above quotations that figure into idealism as a philosophical tendency. Plato is the human being about whom this allegory centers, not as a philosopher but as  the  philosopher. The world of knowledge is above the world of sight, and Plato has the ability to access this world of knowledge in order to come back to the world of sight with what he has learned. The world of knowledge is vastly superior to and controls the world of sight. Finally, in this world of knowledge, one is able to find what is unavailable in the world of sight: “the idea of good...inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right.” In short, God is to be ascertained and known in this world of knowledge, and the knowledge of him is to be brought back to the world of sight as ultimate truth.
From the above it becomes clear why so many in
Christianity gave Plato a place in the kingdom of God.
It also becomes clear why Plato’s teaching was seen to be a basis for the doctrine of common grace. His teaching seems to be exactly the teaching of scripture. Why can’t the God of the holy scriptures be this truth that Plato identified, the truth that is eternal and the truth that is above all? Why could God himself not have revealed this truth to Plato by way of general revelation?
That such an influence of Plato’s philosophy carried through to dominate Western thought is clear from the preface to Plato’s  Republic  by Charles M. Bakewell:
Plato’s own philosophy, if one may hazard a definition in a single sentence, may be said to be a transforming of the Socratic tentative quest for universal definitions in the sphere of conduct into a metaphysical theory of reality, which enabled him to extend the Socratic principle to the interpretation of nature as well as of man, and to bridge the gap between the relativism of the “flowing philosophers,” as he humorously called the
Heraclitans, and the absolutism of the Eleatics, for whom the real, as object of reason, must be fixed and eternal.3
“Fixed and eternal.” What so easily can be called God and God’s counsel.  There might yet seem to be a very great gap between
Plato’s cave allegory and the idolatry identified before.
There might seem to be an even greater gap between
Plato’s cave allegory and Western philosophy and even
Western Christian philosophy, and perhaps a greater gap yet between that allegory and Christian theology. How much time has passed since Plato has come and gone.
How much difference there is between Athens and Jerusalem or Athens and Rome or Athens and Leiden or
Athens and Grand Rapids.
But there is no gap at all.
The bridging of this gap is not common grace as a doctrine. The bridging of this gap is not the many Christians’ thinking that Plato is in the kingdom of heaven because of his wisdom.
The bridging of this gap is due to a similarity of basis, of method, and of end that deals with the general philos  ophy of idealism. Idealism takes many different shapes.
Its content also may differ widely. But the end is the same: a higher, more fixed and firm reality than what is commonly enjoyed and understood to be the reality of this life, which is apprehended through the physical senses. The method is the same: the use of rational argument with a presupposed basis. The presupposed basis is that there must be a controlling factor on a higher level and that human thought is able to and does penetrate to this higher level through the use of reason, coming to conclusions from premises laid out. That is, just as one argues logically from premises to conclusion, so can one argue from one realm to a higher. Lastly, the basis is the same: human thought and human reason.  Scripture exposes idealism as idolatry.
First, all idealism overturns the clear distinction made by the word of God between the creator and the creature.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”
(Gen. 1:1). “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (v. 27).
Because of its basis and method, all the “truth” about
God that is “discovered” through the thoughts of men depends on those men themselves. The world of knowledge depended on Plato’s ability to think of it and to form arguments about it. Plato did not access “truth” as a human being staggering out of the darkness into the light. Plato made “truth.” He imagined it. Plato’s
“world of knowledge” was not more real than the “world of sight.” His world was significantly less real. A general acquaintance with the company of philosophers in
Western civilization yields a staggering amount of sig  nificant disagreement among them. This disagreement gives the lie to the notion that by their thoughts they were accessing the same realm as Plato’s, let alone one another.
Second, idealism denies the truth of the inspiration of scripture and the necessity of scripture to give the true knowledge of God. “The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21). For Plato to be able to argue with his cave allegory to the true and living God for the attainment of fellowship and friendship, scripture must be denied as necessary to salvation; and the name of Jesus Christ must no longer be the only name under heaven given among men, whereby they must be saved (Acts 4:12).
Lastly, and from a strictly logical standpoint, idealism is an ongoing logical fallacy. It is always assuming what needs to be proved and cannot be proved. Idealism assumes that it can argue to what is more real from what is less real. But it can never prove that anything is more real. Nor can idealism prove that its basis is real.
It must always be assumed. From another viewpoint, it is impossible to prove that what a man might imagine or think about is more real than the man himself who imagines or thinks it. Though Glaucon could agree with Plato over and over, Plato’s cave allegory does not become more real. Ahab and Jezebel’s institution of Baal worship upon penalty of death did not make Baal real and Jehovah not real. Majority decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies may become settled and binding according to article 31 of the Church Order, but those decisions cannot make scripture and its truth more or less real.
Just as surely as idolatry is the bowing down of man before his gods of wood and stone, so also is man’s worship of his own imagination. Just as vain, just as helpless, and just as much under the wrath of God.
The indictment of idealism as idolatry must be brought to bear on much of what passes for theology even in Reformed circles.
Is idealism being entertained when debate ensues about eternal justification, justification at the cross, or the sinner’s justification by faith in the forum of his conscience? Why is one appealed to over against the other?
Upon what ground can one stand to be able to pass judgment on one over against another? To suppose that one is going to be more real or less real than the others?
Is idealism the reason that the authority of scripture alone is forsaken for the authority of men and their thoughts and ideas to prevail? When men try to rationalize and build their theology on their experience and knowledge, they oppose the word of God as the sole basis for all truth; and they carry on the same method as idealism. When leaders in churches take their flocks away from the word of God with their own judgments and determinations, they pit their own imaginations against the word of God.
What about debating which is more real, God’s counsel or time and history? What makes it necessary to choose one over the other? Upon what ground can a man stand in order to pass judgment on one or the other?
Idealism casts its long shadow upon much of Christian thought. Idealism enters into arguments about
God’s existence. René Descartes postulated the existence of God on his own, beginning with his famous dictum,
“I think, therefore I am.” Idealism enters into theology by arguing to God’s perfections from man’s reflection of them. Idealism enters into much thought about the after  life: it supposes heaven is a great deal like earth, except that it will be perfect; everything evil will be removed, and what was enjoyed on earth as good will be brought up to an ideal form. Ideal bodies, ideal environment, ideal enjoyments.
To be continued with the consequences of idealism.
—MVW  

Footnotes:

1 Plato, Republic (New York: Scribner Press, 1928), 273.
2 Plato, Republic , 277.
3 Plato, Republic , xiii.

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.  —Romans 11:36  The doctrine of man in relation to the infallible fruits of election has become a battleground in pursuit of the truth in the controversy between the
Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) and the Protestant
Reformed Churches (PRC). This doctrine of salvation, though such a simple doctrine, has been corrupted and distorted, twisted and turned in man’s pride. The Protestant Reformed Churches have been doing exactly that.
They have taken the simplicity, joy, and freedom of the gospel and have formed it into no gospel at all. Their doctrines of man and of the activities of faith are doctrines of bondage and corruption and are ultimately from the devil.
(For how can anything contrary to the gospel not be from the devil?) One might ask, what are the infallible fruits of faith, and what is their place in the life of a Christian?
What about repenting? What about obeying in relation to the experience of God’s favor? In this article I hope to make plain the simplicity of this doctrine and the simplic  ity of the gospel and furthermore to push and preserve the
Reformed faith.
For the past years I have heard a lot about man in my former denomination, the  Protestant  Reformed
Churches. “Man does stuff, you know: he does repent, he does believe, he does do good works. He must do these things to be saved.” And I have heard, “I want to be told in sermons what to do”—give me a list of things I need to do in my life of holiness to check all the boxes. And
I believe this was because ministers and professors were seeing unbelievable worldliness and wickedness in their congregations, so they thought, “Let’s bring the law, and then we will see the people bring forth the fruits of faith.”
As Professor Cammenga said, “God uses the preaching of the law...positively, as a means of grace.”1
What these men are blind to is the fact that you can’t incentivize or legislate holiness because man is nothing of himself. Only God can work holiness in his people, and this work is infallible. The PRC have perverted this doctrine by claiming that God justifies, but I sanctify myself—by his grace, of course. How did the PRC get all the way to this point? I believe God’s Spirit left the PRC a long time ago, and I am of the generation that arose and knew not the Lord.
In 2003 a sermon statement of Rev. Ronald Cammenga was protested by Marvin Kamps to his consistory at Southwest Protestant Reformed Church, and in May 2004 the protest was brought to the floor of Classis East.
Classis agreed with Cammenga’s statement and upheld it. This statement has since become the official dogma of the PRC.
It is not enough for salvation that God has sent his
Son, Jesus Christ, into the world. It is not enough, that there is a Jesus. It is not enough, that this Jesus was born of a virgin; that this Jesus lived a perfect life; that this Jesus taught and defended the Word of God; that this Jesus suffered under the wrath of God in an atoning death; that this Jesus arose with his body from the grave on the third day; that this Jesus is ascended in power at the right hand of
God in the heavens. Not enough for salvation. God must not only have sent Jesus into the world, but
I must come and you must come to Jesus. I must become one with him so that I enjoy his fellowship and share in his salvation. For salvation it is necessary that I come to him. And if I do not come to him, there is no salvation and no enjoyment of the blessings of salvation.2
Christ is not enough. I don’t know what you think when you hear or read that Christ is not enough, but I shudder at this doctrine. I hate it and can’t stand it for a moment; it makes me spiritually sick when I read it.
I have pity on those who can stand this doctrine for a moment. Yet this has been an official dogma for eighteen years in the PRC. Christ’s perfect work on the cross was not enough for our salvation. Christ’s full satisfaction for sins on the cross was not enough for our salvation. There is something yet that man must do for salvation.
This is semi-Pelagianism at its finest. “Of course,”
Protestant Reformed people will say, “we are justified by faith; of course we are saved by grace; of course Jesus died for our sins;  but  you and I must come to Jesus, and if we do not come to him, we do not have salvation.”
God desires to save his people; he does everything in his part for salvation; but now man needs to do his part for salvation.
What then does Romans 6:23 mean to the PRC, when the verse says that “the gift of God is eternal life”?
They have to deny it. The Protestant Reformed Churches just cannot accept a gift. They don’t know what a gift is.
They add man wherever they can and look to slip him into their doctrine. Eternal life is a gift of God, and we cannot lose that gift. God’s gift to his people is eternal life in heaven with him, and getting that gift is not depen  dent upon how well we obey or how much we repent, but eternal life is entirely a gift.
The PRC’s dogma is that Christ is not enough and grace is not sufficient to save. Those who disagree with the PRC’s dogma may not say, preach, or write anything against  Christ is not enough  . The PRC has adopted this semi-Pelagian theology into their preaching and writings, and it is blatantly evident. They have so completely destroyed the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of us in the PRC thought that this destruction of the gospel started with sermons in Hope Protestant Reformed
Church, but it had started way earlier than that. The
Protestant Reformed Churches have been so sick for a long time, and their members have been too blind to even see it. The denomination has displaced the perfect work and sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. It is true that the gospel was found in the PRC many decades ago, but now
God’s judgment is upon these churches. God’s judgment is making itself known as the marks of the true church fade away. Out of  Christ is not enough  developed man-first theology.
But here is the truth of the gospel that God mercifully gave to the Reformed Protestant denomination: Christ is enough, and he is the perfect sacrifice. There is nothing man must do. This doctrine is nothing new. It is the old
Reformed paths as taught by Herman Hoeksema.
Those who say that the PRC and the RPC teach the same doctrine must recant that saying. There is a fundamental doctrinal difference between the PRC and the
RPC, and that is who man is and who God is. For the
PRC it is  Christ is not enough  and  man must do  . Christ did his part, and now man must do his part for salvation and for his experience of salvation. For the RPC Christ is everything, and man is nothing. There is nothing man must do to be saved; that work of salvation was completely finished on the cross by Jesus Christ.
I ask each Protestant Reformed person who reads this, what do you believe? Where is your gospel and your hope? If it is  Christ is not enough  , then stay in the PRC.
Openly confess that doctrine with all your heart and proclaim it unashamedly, being willing to lay down your life for  Christ is not enough  . If this is not your gospel, then I urge you to come out from that bondage and hear the gospel that Christ is everything and you are assured of your salvation. Your comfort in life and in death is Jesus
Christ, and he alone is your comfort—not how much working or obeying you do. Christ is your comfort, and his work was enough.
As you can see, since 2003–4 God has been removing his Spirit from the Protestant Reformed Churches.
And now you see professors and ministers writing and saying things as shocking as Professor Cammenga’s statements, and it is at a speed I did not see coming. It is as though after reformation came, God pushed them down the slippery path they were on, and now they can’t wait to deceive you.
So what about these inevitable fruits of election? In
Canons of Dordt 1.12, we have these words:
The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God—such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc. (  Confessions and Church Order  , 157)
These fruits of election are worked in the heart of the elect child of God through the Holy Spirit. That these are infallible fruits of election means that these fruits are  inevitable  in the child of God. The child of God can’t help but sorrow over sin, hunger and thirst after righteous  ness, and have filial fear. The child of God must do these things, and he will. This  must  is not a must of possibility.
This  must  is not a must of  you have to do this, and if you don’t you will not get  or  you have to do this to get that  .Absolutely  not  ! That is not the gospel; that is not the good news of the gospel, but man’s words. This  must  of the gospel is a  must  of inevitability. The man who is elected and engrafted into Christ must walk in these fruits because
God preordained the elect to walk in them (Eph. 2:10; see also Phil. 2:13). The elect child of God  will  walk in these fruits all his life long. What a gospel that is! The child of God  may  ,must  , and  will  walk in repentance. It is absolutely impossible that the Spirit take abode in the heart of one of his children and then not work the willing and joy to walk in obedience to God. What freedom that is for the child of God! No more working to get, just resting in the finished work of Christ. That is the liberty of the gospel that has been lost and perverted in the Protestant Reformed Churches.
Let me prove to you that the perversion of the simple gospel has been full steam ahead. What do men in the
PRC preach, write, and defend?
When criticizing the doctrine of the RPC and claim  ing that it is “unchristian” and “un-reformed,” Professor Engelsma wrote, “I refer specifically to their denial of the necessity of repentance in order to receive from
God the forgiveness of sins.” “Repentance precedes forgiveness.”3
Reverend McGeown wrote, “One of the problems with an emphasis upon eternal justification is that justification by faith becomes simply  a realization that we were always justified  ...This leads to the extreme view that we were always saved, never lost.”4
Reverend Key preached, “John also understood that the experience of that covenant fellowship with God and the joy of his fellowship, which is by faith, comes also only in a particular way of life.”5
These statements are shocking. How can one dare say these words and then boldly confess to be Reformed?
How can one dare to bring this pitiful doctrine to the throne of God? Repentance can only and will only ever be a fruit. Repentance and confessing sins can and will only be good works of the child of God. The only thing we do is sin, sin, and sin some more. Our debt grows and grows.
An emphasis on eternal justification? Do Reformed
Protestant people actually believe that? Yes, Reverend
McGeown, we do believe that. That is the whole comfort of the believer: that he was predestinated and perfect in the sight of God from the beginning of the world. Man never had to do anything to realize that he was saved; he has always known his salvation through the bond of faith, which is also an assured confidence.
Faith is not the only way to experience God’s covenant fellowship; there is a certain way of life you have to live too? For Reverend Key there is a certain way of life you have to live; and if you don’t live a certain way, you won’t experience God’s covenant fellowship with you. This is heresy. God gives you faith, and through faith you have all your assurance. You can’t do anything to add to or complete your assurance, but faith  is  assurance and confidence that you are saved and that you have covenant fellowship with God. Our particular way of life is good works, which are the fruits of our faith—fruits that come out of our assurance and confidence. We can’t merit fellowship with God because of what we do, for what can we merit? Faith is our bond with Christ, by which all his blessings are bestowed upon us; and the child of God can’t help but live in the joy of God’s fellowship. Sin interrupts it, of course, but the child of God never loses
God’s fellowship. How can he lose that fellowship? The
Spirit lives in him always! Who can take the Spirit out of the heart of the believer? Satan? Our flesh? That can’t be, for we know that Christ overcame the devil and our flesh.
We have experience through faith alone.
Why all this emphasis on good works and something that is not fulfilled in Christ? It is so that man can creep in and have some place in his repenting and have some doing in his salvation. Protestant Reformed men take the good work of repentance; and, though they do not say the word  merit  , they make that good work of repenting to merit. They teach that God makes our repenting merit forgiveness, and we do not receive or consciously experience forgiveness  until  we repent. Again, though repentance is worked by God, this does not mean that repentance is not a good work or that we have an excuse not to repent. Though worked by God, we do repent; and it is a fruit, though men try to tell you otherwise. The
Belgic Confession says in article 24 regarding our good works that they are fruits:  These works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace; howbeit they are of no account towards our justification  . For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good. (  Confessions and Church Order  , 53–54; emphasis added)  This section of article 24 clearly states that we are justified before we can ever do a good work. Being justified means that we are made legally righteous before
God. How can a totally depraved sinner be made righteous before God? We go back to the Belgic Confession for the answer. Article 23 says in its opening sentence,
“We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied” (  Confessions and Church
Order  , 51). Our being legally righteous before God has to do with the remission of sins. For the child of God to be justified, his sins must be forgiven and blotted out. On the cross Christ took and bore upon himself all the sins of his people in totality. There is not one sin that we now have to repent for that was left out on the cross. Christ is a complete and perfect savior. Christ paid for and covers all of our sins. God looks down upon us in love and in mercy before we can ever repent. God forgives us because he sees us in Christ. God never looks down upon his people in wrath or anger, for all that anger and wrath was poured out upon Christ on the cross. We are not justified in time or at a certain point in our lives, but we have been completely and eternally justified.
We have been taught by our mother church that God accepts our imperfect works of repentance, obedience, and any other fruit; and by that we have experience of our salvation. The fact is, God cannot accept something that is not perfect, which means that God cannot accept any work except it is sanctified in Christ. The problem is that the PRC took those works and made it possible to have experience by them. We cannot experience God’s favor more by doing more, but good works are the fruits of having God’s favor upon us. Our works are filthy and disgusting, and the only work acceptable to God is Christ’s work. Christ is the one who gives us experience, and we have experience when we have faith. This is laid out in the
Canons of Dordt 5.9–10. We cannot perform anything that will give us more experience of salvation. So what is our comfort? It is this: God, who is rich in his mercy, looks down on us as a just and faithful God and says to us, “I love you, and you are mine, and I will never leave nor forsake you.” Day after day we sin and sin; yet God is merciful, God is gracious, and God is just. This is grace upon grace.
The Belgic Confession goes on to teach that if we relied on our repenting, for example, we would have no hope or comfort in our Christian walk. Article 24 says this:
Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus, then, we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed, if they relied not on the merits of the suf  fering and death of our Savior. (  Confessions and
Church Order  , 55)
It is impossible to find any good work, no matter how good of a work it is, as a part of our salvation. If our remission of sins relied on our repenting, then we would never do enough, much less know if we did enough repenting. In fact, we would be like Martin Luther, confessing every specific sin to God and then leaving the confessional only to walk right back in and say, “I have not repented perfectly. Lord, forgive me.” This is bondage and not how the work of repentance is manifested in the life of a Christian.
This is shown in the example of a baby. A baby has never done one good work nor repented for the sins that he has committed. God does not now work in some different way in an adult or have some different election for an adult. That would be impossible for God. For we know the doctrine of the Trinity: God is one person with one mind and one saving work. Not one person with two minds and two different saving works of election. Absolutely not.
Furthermore, with regard to election, article 16 of the
Belgic Confession states that the elect have been “elected in Christ Jesus...without any respect to their works”
(Confessions and Church Order  , 41). God cleansed us in eternity; he forgave us in eternity; and he elected us in eternity without any of our repenting or any activity of faith. Everything was foreordained in eternity and accom  plished on the cross. This means that all man’s activities are in response to what God has done. And if you think this makes man a stock and a block, then you do not know the gospel of Christ. Man can and will only ever respond to what God has done. Man without God is dead in sin and under the reign of the old man in his body; but through the cross and Christ alone, we are made new and are now no more under the bondage of sin, the law, and the old man but under grace. Under grace.
This is the gospel, the good news that leaves the child of God with unbelievable hope, peace, and comfort. Yes, there is the issued command to repent; yes, we do repent; but never do we base the obtaining of our forgiveness on that repenting, whether that means entirely or consciously/experientially. We love our repenting, and we love our good works; we just do not want to be saved by them or have them be the basis of our salvation. We now therefore don’t command God’s people to sin more so that grace may abound, and we do not tell them that it doesn’t matter if they commit sin because their sins are forgiven already. Of course not. Knowing that you have been elected does not make you desire to live like the world, nor can you, because you are elected in Christ.
The gospel says, “Live freely in the gospel. Live a life of thankfulness and love for the Lord God your Father.”
When the child of God hears that gospel, he will inevitably bring forth every good work because God put those works in his heart in eternity. The child of God does not hear the words “Live freely and live a life of thankfulness” as a command that he must do to be saved but as a manifestation of the working of the gospel in him and as evidence that he is saved. What a gospel that is! It is grace for grace. The works we produce, our election, our assurance—these are all of God’s grace. Then when we thank God for working that grace in us, we see God’s grace again in giving us thankfulness.
The PRC’s doctrine of obeying and repenting has been sliced and whirled together into a blended-up shake full of code words, good Reformed language, and man. You don’t even really know what exactly is being said, but when you hear it, it all sounds good and Reformed. You hear words such as  cross  ,Christ  ,grace  ,faith  ,believing  ,God  worked   , etc., as ministers think they can maneuver their way around into preaching the gospel. They think they can use good Reformed language to cover their preaching of man. In addition to this blended-up shake of false doc  trine, the PRC look to have a “balanced, full-orbed gospel.” What? A balanced, full-orbed gospel? What gospel is that, which is no gospel at all? The Protestant Reformed ministers bring Christ into their sermons and proclaim him; but as soon as they do that, they pump the brakes, and in comes man and what he needs to do. By the end you will have heard a “balanced, full-orbed gospel” full of code words and Reformed language and, of course, man.
Giving man a place, even just a little place, in his expe  rience of salvation or even in a part of his salvation is lethal. It is a doctrine that comes in like a silent, venomous virus and destroys a denomination. Satan uses this deadly virus in such a devious and slippery way that it comes unannounced and is undetected by almost any soul. Satan is on a mission to slaughter the sheep, and yet he does it so quietly that the sheep are oblivious to what is going on. He lures the sheep in by using language that the sheep hear often, which is good and lovely Reformed language, but then he puts his little twist on that Reformed doctrine. Satan adds man into the gospel: man and what he has to do to experience the favor of God; man and what he has to do to be forgiven. Satan craftily makes it sound good by saying that your obeying is all of grace and all God-worked. He makes sure his lie comes in not looking like a lie but looking like the gospel. Satan has masterfully lured in the sheep and has them suffocating spiritually by his silent, deadly virus. The sheep are dead before they even knew they were sick.
To say that man has to obey to experience the fellowship of God is blasphemy. This means that the more you obey, the more fellowship with God you have. It also means the opposite: the less you obey, the less fellowship you have with God. But obedience is a result of what
God has done for you. Why do the PRC keep talking about obedience? Because they believe that sanctification is man’s work. Rather, obeying is a fruit and only a fruit of being in fellowship with God. Obeying can only ever be a fruit and the result of what Christ did on the cross.
To make God’s fellowship conditional on how much you obey makes your obeying no longer a fruit but a work. A man with this belief will be constantly tossed to and fro due to the uncertainty of knowing whether he has done enough obeying. I ask someone who is entrenched in this doctrine, how are you doing in your spiritual life? Have you obeyed enough to experience more of the fellowship of God? Isaiah 64:6–7 says that even if we could “do” something, “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.”
Our obeying is nothing short of filthy rags; and to bring to God our filthy, bloodstained rags of obeying is utterly anathema to the most high majesty of God. We cannot so much as produce and bring to God one acceptable good work, for everything we do is polluted and tainted with sin.
The PRC have even gone so far as to permit the doctrine of a conditional covenant, though they will not use the term  conditional  . Reverend Key said this in a recent sermon on 1 John 4:7–11:
He [John] knew that his salvation was entirely of grace by Christ and was his through faith. But
John also understood that the experience of that covenant fellowship with God and the joy of his fellowship, which is by faith, comes also only in a particular way of life, a life which reflects the love of God. And specifically, the Holy Spirit accomplishes that work and brings it to expression in us and through us. He brings to expression in us and through us that radiation of divine love by the use of means. God brings to completion his sovereign work in us by the use of commands.6
Reverend Key corrupted the doctrine of the covenant. The establishment, maintenance, perfection, and enjoyment of the covenant are all gifts from God. God has a unilateral covenant. It is one-sided and all of God.
The covenant never is nor can be bilateral. But to Reverend Key and the PRC, the enjoyment of the covenant is dependent on what man does in his life. They make the covenant bilateral. They put you under bondage by harping on the fact that if you do not live a particular way of life, you will not experience God’s fellowship. They make God’s fellowship a potential with this doctrine.
But it is an impossibility that the child of God does not live in fellowship with God. The life of the child of
God is inevitably a life of good works. Through faith we know and experience our fellowship with God. And faith’s object is always Christ. The confessions beautifully teach us that our election will bring us fellowship and the experience of it before we even do a good work because faith is a certain knowledge and an assured confidence.
Isn’t that true? You grow up and know God’s forgiveness, and you know God’s drawing you to repentance. That is because of election theology, which is gone in the PRC.
Canons 1.7 reads,
This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His
Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace. (  Confessions and Church Order  , 156)
We are irresistibly called by God’s grace and given all the benefits of salvation. In question and answer 31 of the Heidelberg Catechism, we read that Christ preserves us in “the enjoyment of ” our salvation (  Confessions and
Church Order  , 96). The Catechism makes it so clear that when we are elected we have “the enjoyment of ” all the benefits of salvation. The life of fellowship with God is the great blessing of being members of God’s covenant. Those who are elected are brought into the covenant and never leave it. Your sins cannot take you out of the covenant.
God still loves you when you are sinning all day long.
Isn’t that the most amazing and gracious thing? That is
God’s promise to his people throughout scripture. Being in the covenant means we never lose God’s fellowship with us, nor do we do anything to experience it, for we already experience God’s fellowship with us. Though sin interrupts that fellowship, we as God’s people can never lose it. That is impossible. We experience God’s fellowship with us by faith alone in Christ alone. Through faith we are given all the blessings of salvation on account of what Christ has done for us. Our particular way of life is thankfulness to God, and that thankful living is the fruit of being in fellowship with God.
And here is the biggest difference for me between the
RPC and the PRC. In the PRC you have to work to get something or feel something from God, whether it be his favor (because you are told you don’t always have it) or whether it be assurance or peace (because you are told you can’t just have that as a free gift; you must do something).  No  ! The glorious truth of thankfulness has been restored.  Stop working  ! Salvation, and the blessings of salvation, is finished! Rest in Christ’s work! There is freedom; there is joy. It seems, as they say, “too good to be true.” That is the good news of the gospel. The whole life of the elect child of God is a life of fruits. The “good” that a child of God does never benefits him or gains him anything but is the result of what God has done and works in him.
I urge the members of the PRC to get out from this bondage. Leave Babylon and the yoke that she places upon you. Come hear the gospel of Jesus Christ! Be freed and liberated in the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ that he has done it all and there is nothing left for you to do unto salvation.
I write this article not out of pride, nor do I write this thinking that I am better than anyone. I am the chief of sinners and completely deserving of hell. I write this article out of love for those in the PRC and with great thankfulness to God for opening my eyes when I am so undeserving. I love my mother church, and I love the members there, but I hate the doctrine that she promotes and defends. I have sorrow over those who are in the
PRC and hear from Sunday to Sunday that Christ is not enough and that there is still something man has to do to experience God’s favor. I have sorrow over those members because of the great and glorious joy I have in hearing the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I have joy in hearing that all of my sins are forgiven and that no matter what I do,
I cannot lose the favor of God. I may lose the sense of
God’s favor when I sin; but I can never, no matter how unfaithful I am, lose that favor. I now know that this does not make me careless and profane, but it makes me willing and wanting to serve Christ. I have joy in hearing that
Christ is my all in all and that I do not add anything to my salvation. I have joy in knowing that I do not work to experience God’s favor but that I already have it through faith. There is no greater joy than to hear the gospel and to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. Look to Christ for your salvation and for your hope, for he alone has the words of eternal life.
“Peace if possible; truth at all costs.”  —Martin Luther
—Braylon Mingerink  Reformed Believers Publishing 325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315  FINALLY, BRETHREN, FAREWELL  Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you  .—2 Corinthians 13:11  Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.  —Psalm 119:37
I  mpossible prayer!
Man has filled the world with vanities. Vanities are concrete lies. Vanities are evil that appears good, corruption that seems whole, misery that offers itself as joy, death that pretends to be life. Vanity is a sweet and beautiful poison full of sin, death, and hell. As soon as you look at vanities, they will bite like an adder and strip you of all that is good, joyful, living, and lovely. Man created vanity in the beginning, and vanity is the object of man’s longing: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Man gave ear to a lie that he would be as God, and man created that lie in his mind when he saw that the fruit was good to make one wise. Man turned from God to vanity; and he can never turn again from vanity, but he must bring vanity to its bitter end in hell. Constantly, man creates in the whole world and in all of history vanities: vain riches; vain glory; vain pleasure; vain philosophy; vain religion. Wherever one turns and in every sphere of life, man has filled the world with vanities. To turn your eye from one vanity is to turn your eye to another: a lying wonder; a sweet poison; a delectable hell; a pleasing death. To turn your eyes from them would be to go out of the world. And yet even in your seclusion, the world of vanities would press itself upon you; for the soul, mind, and flesh of man are full of vanities.
Turn my eyes! The windows of the soul. With the rest of the senses, the eyes are that by which man receives and perceives the world about him. Through the eyes the world streams into his soul. Man had light. He beheld all in the light of the glory of God and pressed all into the service of that glory of Jehovah God. But what a vain creature he has become. He turned his eyes from God to vanity. The very light that is in him has been turned into darkness. He is full of darkness and thus of enmity against God and of love for the vanity of this world. To that world also the believer belongs by nature. His eye is naturally evil, and with it he is insatiable in his desires for the world’s vanities.
Turn my eyes! Not that he would not see. For he is in the world. It is impossible for him not to see vanity. But seeing, that I may turn away in disgust and abhorrence; that seeing, I might not admire and desire but hate.
Wonder of grace! Quicken thou me in thy way. Oh, a prayer for an entirely new way of seeing and an entirely new life. Flood my eyes with the light of the glory of God; cause me to see thy way; teach me; give me understanding; incline my heart to thy word. Not a life of the love of vanity but of love for God. Not a life walking in vanity but a life walking in Jehovah’s statutes. Jehovah’s statutes are the way through the world that the believer must walk. To observe the commandments of Jehovah he considers a very great good. In that way quicken me! Cause me to live, cause me to walk, cause me constantly by thy almighty power and grace to live in the way of Jehovah God.
Quicken thou me because I have yet the flesh, which is full of and lusts after nothing but vanity. To have confidence in self is itself vanity of vanities. Do thou quicken me. Do thou turn my eyes. For thou art my God, and I am thy servant.
Confidence in God and his promise.  —NJL  

Footnotes:

1 Ronald Cammenga, “Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Not: Preaching the Commands of the Gospel,” speech given for a Protestant Reformed seminary conference on preaching, October 29, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQDzWX__Mvk&list=PLxmaZMLHKEvS 1gOlZGG37F0T5fwHEd_Sc&index=3.
2 Ronald Cammenga, “Jesus’ Call to the Weary (1),” sermon preached in Southwest Protestant Reformed Church, October 12, 2003. See agenda of Classis East September 8, 2004, 9. 3 David J. Engelsma, “The RP Church: Failing to Hold the Traditions,” letter to his family (March 31, 2022), in Sword and Shield 3, no. 1 (June 2022): 9–10.
4 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (5): Forgiveness and Justification Distinguished,” May 16, 2022, https://rfpa.org /blogs/news/preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-5-forgiveness-and-justification-distinguished. The emphasis is McGeown’s.
5 Steven Key, “Radiating Divine Love,” sermon preached in Loveland Protestant Reformed Church on June 5, 2022, https://www.sermon audio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=65221658432493.
6 Steven Key, “Radiating Divine Love.”

The editors and board of Reformed Believers Publishing are pleased to present to our readers another Letters Edition of  Sword and Shield  .We recognize that our correspondents have many options for writing their views today, including social media posts and comments on blogs. Those forums are able to accommodate correspondence in real time, while it takes some time for letters to be compiled and published in the print format of a magazine. We appreciate our correspondents’ willingness to put in the effort of writing a letter and then their patience as they wait for it to be published.
One advantage of having one’s letter published in  Sword and Shield  may be that a magazine tends to preserve material well. Some years or even decades from now it may be difficult to lay one’s hand on that one particular social media exchange, but one can still pull the maga  zine off the shelf. So keep the letters coming. The Lord continues to lay many issues before his people for us to understand and judge from his word, which issues have been debated before in the history of the church and will undoubtedly be debated again. Your letter may profit not only this generation but also generations to come.
We continue to hear from our readers that Letters
Editions are among the most anticipated issues of  Sword and Shield  . We trust that this issue will also be of interest to our readers, dealing as it does with vital matters of the
Reformed faith.
May God speed the truths written herein to your heart and the next issue into your hands.
—AL  LET TER:  SWORD AND SHIELD  Revs. Andrew Lanning, Nathan Langerak, and Martin
Vander Wal:  August 10, 2022
Dear Editors of the SWORD and SHIELD:  Being conscious of the reality that writing is a very risky activity, I write nevertheless with confidence and Godly,
Christian concern. I request the publication of the letter in its entirety in the next  Sword and Shield.  Lying on my desk is a copy of the letter of June 4, 2020 I sent for publication in the July 2020 issue of the
SWORD and SHIELD. More than two years have passed since the initial publication of the SS. I have read it immediately, faithfully, critically and with discernment. Two years means that 24+ editions of the periodical have found their way into the hands of many who are members of the
Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC).
“FROM EDITOR LANNING” was posted in each issue of S and S. The post ended with hope of the Editor that the SWORD and SHIELD would speed into the hands of the readers. It did. Thanks for the periodical sent me without payment.
I have discarded most of the 24+ issues of the  SWORD and SHIELD  . If I had kept the two years, the 24+ issues of the SW0RD and SHIELD, with the intention of binding them, it would be a 8.5 x 11 inch 700 page book.
Astounding!
I found the content and subjects to be repetitious. I also found much of the polemic to be hateful, and filled with manufactured and unnecessary name-calling. The slanderous and libelous nature of the articles would not continue to be of interest to me in the continuing history of the PRC and other ecclesiastical or cultic organizations.
It is obvious to all that the SS is a periodical that has simulated unmitigated antagonism and hatred. The writing is a form of hateful criticism. I believe that my warning in my letter of June 4, 2020, against a polemics aimed at persons and not at the theology of writers and opponents has not been heeded. The diatribes by certain writers in many issues of the SS are so obvious that readers of the
SS must agree.
It is obvious that the warlike style and approach promised by Editor Lanning in the June 4, 2020 SWORD and
SHIELD is the outstanding characteristic of each issue and in many ways a dishonorable aspect of the writing.
The editorializing of Editor Lanning and Associate
Editor Nathan Langerak is evidence of their vengeance.
The disagreement of AL and NL is vengeful and not the
Godly critique expected and required of Reformed and  Christian theologians who differ in Theology and Biblical
Dogmatics.
The Apostle Paul was a vigorous and godly apologist saved by his Lord Christ on the road to Damascus. The converted and eternally saved Apostle Paul warred unswervingly, diligently and faithfully against the errant theology of the Judaists, the enemies of Christ. I refer especially to the dispute and the instruction by the Apostle
Paul in chapters 1-3 of the Epistle to the Galatians. The instruction by Apostle Paul was orthodox but was rejected by the Galatians; Paul was not vengeful because of the unfaithfulness of the Galatian proselytes. The Apostle Paul overflowed with love for fellow believers in Christ who had fallen from the truth. Paul was not angry when he said “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you...Galatians3:1”.
Paul teaches, “...let us by love serve one another...” Galatians :13.” Simple and powerful instruction.
In Romans 12:19 the Apostle Paul says, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Cf. Deuteronomy 32:35, Hebrews 10:30)
The sacred precept and admonition of Jesus recorded by Luke speaks unconditionally and lovingly to every one of the children of Christ. “...as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them like wise. Luke 6: 31.”
We should cease using our pens for angry name calling and instead turn our eyes upon Jesus and pray for each other.
“...bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. Matthew 5: 44”
By the mercy of Jesus Christ,
Agatha Lubbers  REPLY  Miss Lubbers, I am happy to see your letter. You were the first reader ever to send a letter to  Sword and Shield  for publication. The first issue of the magazine was published
June 1, 2020, and your letter was dated June 10, 2020.
Yours was also the first letter to be published in  Sword and
Shield  (see volume 1, issue 3).
I am even more happy that you have faithfully and discerningly read every issue of  Sword and Shield  since then. May your tribe increase.
Having read the magazine faithfully since its begin  ning, you offer your evaluation of the writing in  Sword and
Shield  : repetitious, hateful, slanderous, libelous, hateful criticism, polemics aimed at persons, diatribes, warlike, dishonorable. I know that many share your assessment.
Readers, you have heard the evaluation of one faithful reader. Now I say, “Let the other readers also judge.”  Sword and Shield  is readily and freely available to everyone in print and online. I would suggest that the reader might first read Jeremiah 5 and Matthew 23 before he reads  Sword and Shield  . The discerning reader will then undoubtedly write a letter to the editor asking why our magazine is so tame and soft-spoken.
Miss Lubbers, you also offer your judgment of the persons of Rev. Nathan Langerak and me: personally vengeful, whose critique of the PRC is ungodly, un-Reformed, and un-Christian. To that I say, “Let God judge.”
Friend or foe, we are happy that you are reading.
—AL  LET TERS: REPENTANCE  Hello  Sword and Shield  Editors,
I compose this letter to you regarding our recent controversy about the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. I will also briefly discuss the other closely related topic of God’s forgiveness of us and our forgiveness of the neighbor.
I write this letter for two reasons. First, I have heard many sermons and read many of the recent  Sword and
Shield  articles relating to this issue, and I still am not certain that the teaching of the Reformed Protestant Churches
(RPC) on this issue is entirely correct. This doubt is accentuated by my recent readings of renowned theologians, such as Calvin, Ursinus, and Herman Hoeksema, which seem to suggest that they held to a different position. Second, I have also researched this issue extensively by looking at Bible passages that directly talk about repentance and forgiveness, and I was surprised by some of my findings.
So, I have decided to share my thoughts on these issues.
I will be dividing the paper into two parts. In Part One, we will look at some Bible passages that discuss repentance and forgiveness. In Part Two, we will examine the writings of some of our Reformed fathers about these issues.1  Part One:
God’s Word on Repentance and Forgiveness  Forgiveness of Sins: Definition and Ground  So that we both have a clear understanding of my posi  tion on forgiveness and repentance, I will begin by defining the term under dispute, i.e., the forgiveness of sins. The gospel according to Luke is very helpful in this regard. In
Luke 1:76-77 we read, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission [forgiveness] of their sins.” This passage speaks of John the Baptist, who was Christ’s forerunner. As Christ’s forerunner, he would prophesy to the Israelites of the remission (forgiveness) of their sins in the coming and death of Christ.
This passage, therefore, teaches us that forgiveness refers to the knowledge of salvation. It refers to our conscious possession of our salvation (the experience and joy of salvation, our fellowship with God). Thus, we know of our salvation when God forgives us of our sins.
Also, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 teach us that the forgiveness of sins can be thought of as our redemption.
However, it does not refer merely to the abstract reality that God has blotted out all the sins of his people for
Christ’s sake. Rather, as we learned in Luke 1:77, forgiveness refers to our knowledge of our salvation. Thus, it is the application of that redemption to each child of God. It is the knowledge that Christ died not only for his people, but for me.
Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 (along with other passages, such as Romans 5:1), also teach us the sole grounds of forgiveness. Nothing that the sinner does (whether that be his repentance, believing, or obedience) is ever the cause or grounds of his forgiveness. Rather, God eternally willed that he would forgive us our sins in Christ, and he merited this blessing in time by his Son’s death on the cross. It is by this redemption on the cross that God’s people also know of their salvation when God works faith in their hearts.  Forgiveness of Sins and Repentance:
The RPC’s Teaching  Now, I will describe how repentance relates to forgiveness.
It is in this concept that I differ from the current teaching of the RPC. The RPC teach us that we have forgiveness  without  repenting. On page 43 in the March 15, 2022, issue of the  Sword and Shield  , Reverend Langerak quotes from Professor Engelsma: “‘In fact, the implication of the theology of the editor of ‘S&S’ is that the sinner has forgiveness without repenting. This, apparently, is now the gospel-message of the Reformed Protestant Church’ (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken).”
Reverend Langerak replies to Professor Engelsma,
“Yes, indeed. That is what we teach. We teach that there is forgiveness without repenting. We teach that repentance follows forgiveness.”  Forgiveness of Sins and Repentance: I Kings 8  I diligently searched the Scriptures, and I have concluded that the Scriptures may teach something different than the current RP position. Some of these Bible passages have been used before in this argument about forgiveness and repentance, but I want to shed some new light on these texts.
First, I will examine a passage found in the historical books of the Old Testament: I Kings 8 (parallel passage in II Chronicles 7). In this text, the temple has just been completed, and now the nation of Israel is dedicating the temple. Solomon, as king of Israel, prays to God that he may be pleased to dwell in the temple and to hear his prayer for Israel. He brings several petitions to God in his prayer, several of which deal directly with the issue of repentance and forgiveness.
I will give one example. In I Kings 8:33-34, we read,
“When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house: then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which thou gavest unto their fathers.”
I want to point out several ideas from this passage.
First, Solomon testifies what would happen to the nation of Israel if they departed from God and walked impenitently in sin: they would provoke God to anger. In the Old
Testament, God showed this anger by physical, visible signs that caused great harm for his people. In this case, God would cause Israel’s enemies to defeat them in battle and capture portions of the land of Israel. For the true believers in Israel, this punishment was God’s chastisement of them.
For the reprobate in Israel, God used this punishment to harden them in their sin.
Second, Solomon contrasts God’s anger with his forgiveness of Israel. This forgiveness of Israel as a nation also would be accompanied by external signs. In the passage that I am discussing, God would again restore the lands that God had given to Israel’s enemies in his anger.
Third, and this is the crucial point, Solomon teaches
Israel what they are called to do when God is angry with them: to confess their sin and repent in dust and ashes.
Only when God caused Israel to repent would he forgive them of their sins and show His favor to them once again.
So, I believe that this passage teaches us that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, so that God does not show his favor toward his people while they walk impen  itently in sin. However, this repentance is  not  the cause or the reason that God would forgive his people. Rather,
Solomon gives the one ground of forgiveness at the close of his prayer in I Kings 8:51-53: “For they be thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest forth out of
Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron: that thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of thy servant, and unto the supplication of thy people Israel, to hearken unto them in all that they call for unto thee. For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of
Egypt, O Lord GOD.”
Thus, Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of his people  only  for the sake of his covenant that God established with them. God is not a reactionary God who has to plead and beg with his people and who must wait upon his people to repent. Rather, he is the God who is eternally faithful to his covenant. Since he is our God, he also wills that his people know his love for them. Though for a time God may sovereignly will that his people walk in sin, he will infallibly cause them to see their sin, to repent of their ways, and be forgiven by him.
This ground of forgiveness would be clearly seen by the
Israelites as they offered sacrifices in the temple. All these sacrifices pointed to the one sacrifice of Christ in whom there is forgiveness of sins. The Israelites would know that
God would hear and answer all their prayers not because of anything in themselves, but only for the sake of Christ, who is the head of God’s covenant.  Forgiveness of Sins and Repentance: Jeremiah 36:1-3  I will briefly mention another passage from an Old Testament prophet. In Jeremiah 36:1-3, God commands Jeremiah to write a word of rebuke against Judah on a roll of a book. Jeremiah is to write in this roll of their impending destruction at the hands of the Babylonians.
I bring this passage up because of what God says in verse 3: “It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.” Notice here especially that God says he  may  forgive Judah their sins.
Considering the many corruptions of this text and similar ones, we must state that this promise was a particular promise. God here is not desiring that all members of Judah, head for head, repent and be forgiven by him. Rather, this promise is for the elect in Judah alone. For the elect alone, God would infallibly cause them to truly repent of their sins and have a renewed sense of his favor because that was his eternal will for them. For the reprobate in Judah, God hated them with an eternal hatred. God would use Jeremiah’s warning of their impending destruction at the hands of the Babylonians to harden them in their sins.
So, the phrase “I may forgive them” was God’s word of hope for the elect in Judah. This “may” does not indicate that God’s forgiveness was uncertain, as if God didn’t know whether he would decide to forgive Judah or not. It certainly does not mean that God’s forgiveness depended on
Judah’s repentance. Instead, it is a promise to God’s people that when they heard Jeremiah’s warning and by that message were made truly sorry for their sins, that God would certainly forgive them. When God’s people were brought to repentance, they could freely ask God for forgiveness being fully confident of his mercy.
God also through the mouth of Jeremiah teaches that
God does  not  forgive his people while they walk impen  itently in sin. Rather, God chastises His people. God’s whole purpose in repentance is so that every day the child of God looks to him alone for all blessings, but especially for the forgiveness of his sins (and thus, his assurance of his salvation). Thus, it is only when we live a life out of repentance that we can know God’s favor.  Forgiveness of Sins and Repentance: Psalm 51  In the ancient heading attached to this psalm, we learn that it was likely composed by David after he had committed fornication with Bathsheba and God had sent Nathan the prophet to rebuke him. After hearing the rebuke of
Nathan, David realized that he had sinned against God, and now in this psalm, he prays that God will forgive him.
Throughout the psalm, David uses many different expressions whereby he asks God to forgive him his sins. I want to focus on two of these expressions. First, in Psalm 51:8, David implores that God would “make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.” Second, in close connection with the previous expression, in verse 12, David asks that God would “restore unto me the joy of my salvation.”
So, what does David mean by the breaking of his bones?
Certainly, it doesn’t refer to a literal breaking of his physical bones by God. Rather, it refers to a spiritual breaking of his bones. David felt this breaking of his bones as God was chastising him for his sin with Bathsheba and after he was rebuked by Nathan the prophet. This expression shows the tremendous grief and anguish he felt after God caused him to see how wicked his sin truly was. He realized that his sin was so great that his soul was in danger of hell if he continued impenitently in his sin.
Seeing how his sin had robbed him of all his joy and brought upon him God’s heavy hand of chastisement, he prays that God will restore this joy of his salvation by forgiving his sin. David teaches God’s people that by a fall into sin, we grievously wound our consciences, and for a time may even completely lose the sense of God’s favor. This joy of our salvation can only be restored when God causes us to see how he is chastising us for our impenitent walk of life and makes us repent in dust and ashes.
However, once again, I want to reiterate that repentance is  never  the cause or the reason that God forgives us. David himself confesses this in the psalm. He does not pray that God will forgive him because of something that he has done. Rather, in Psalm 51:1, he prays that God will forgive him “according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies.”
Thus, every child of God prays along with David that
God forgive us our sins because he is our covenant God.
God wills that we know his favor and infallibly works a sense of this favor in our hearts. So, to assure us of our salvation, he cuts down all our pride and impenitence. He causes us to see how much he hated our sin by crucifying his own Son on the cross. There at the cross God also shows how much he loved us by sending his own Son to die in our place. And so, with the eye of faith, we also rejoice, knowing that in
Christ alone all our sins are forgiven.  God’s Forgiveness of Us and our Forgiveness of the Neighbor: Matthew 6:14-15  Now, I will move on and talk about another closely related topic: the relationship between God’s forgiveness of us and our forgiveness of the neighbor. One of the clearest passages on this relationship is given in Matthew 6:14-15.
Here, Christ says, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
One position on this text is that it refers to both the child of God and the reprobate. As the fruit of God’s forgiveness, the child of God will inevitably forgive his neighbor. For the reprobate, God has eternally willed his destruction, and so He does not forgive him. As evidence of his reprobation, the unbeliever refuses to forgive his neighbor when they sin against him.
However, I believe that Christ was teaching something more than this, though the above idea is certainly true. The reason for this is the context in which Christ makes these statements. Immediately preceding our passage, Christ recited the Lord’s Prayer. Christ taught us how we must begin our prayer: “Our Father which art in heaven.”
We must ask, who can pray to God as their Father in heaven? The answer to this question is crucial in determining what Christ means in verses 14 and 15 of this chapter.
My answer is that only God’s people can pray to God as
Father.
By virtue of his being made in God’s image, Adam was the son of God. However, by his fall, Adam rebelled against
God and corrupted his whole nature. Since Adam was the head of humanity, all men by nature became children of the devil, and so are no longer children of God (see John 8:44, Ephesians 2:2, 3). Thus, they have no right to pray to God as their Father because he is not their Father.
However, God for Christ’s sake has adopted us unto sonship, so that we are again the children of the Highest.
Now, we can truly pray to God as our Father in Christ and be fully persuaded that he will hear all that we ask of him in true faith. Thus, it is the child of God that Christ is talking about in verses 14 and 15.
Christ instructs us in these verses of the attitude we must have for God to hear our prayer. We must not hold any malice, hatred, or anger against the neighbor. Instead, we are called by God to always desire the neighbor’s salvation and to forgive them when they repent of their sins.
So, does this mean that God does not forgive us our sins when we walk in sin by holding anger or malice against the neighbor? Yes, I believe that is exactly what Christ means.
However, when God causes us to repent of our sin and to again desire to forgive the neighbor, that is not the reason or grounds of God’s renewed forgiveness of us. Rather, by bringing us to repent of that sin, God forgives us. And as the inevitable fruit of God forgiving us, we have the renewed desire to forgive the neighbor.  God’s Purpose in Sanctification: Ephesians 2:10  We must ask, why does God not assure us of our salvation
(forgive us) while we walk impenitently in sin? The answer can be found in Ephesians 2:10. In this verse we read, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” In the previous two verses, the apostle Paul had developed the wonderful truth of justification by faith alone. He showed that we are not saved by works, but we are saved by faith alone.
In this verse, the apostle Paul shows us the proper place of good works in the child of God’s life. We are not saved by good works. Rather, we are “created in Christ Jesus  unto  good works”. This word “unto” indicates a purpose. That purpose is God’s eternal will for our sanctification. As we read in this verse, God has “before ordained that we should walk in good works.” In other words, God saves us in order that we may glorify his name by walking in all good works.
By this walk, we show ourselves to be God’s children and we are a good witness to the world (see I Peter 3:14-16).
So, when we walk impenitently in sin, we rebel against
God’s will for our lives as his people. We show our hatred of
God and the neighbor, and we grieve the Holy Spirit (see
Ephesians 4:30). Thus, the testimony of the Holy Spirit that we are sons of God only arises as we walk in thankfulness before God, and not while we walk impenitently in sin.
However, I also want to emphasize that sanctification is not something that we do, but rather it is the work of the
Spirit alone. He is the one who causes us to walk in all good works. It is also the Holy Spirit who, when we walk in sin, causes us to repent and to again live rightly before God. All glory must go to God in our sanctification.  Conclusion  In this letter, I have stated my ideas on what the Scripture teaches about forgiveness and repentance, both negatively and positively. Negatively, God’s Word teaches us that
God does  not  forgive us because we repent or that he waits on us to repent. Rather, God wills our repentance, and so he also infallibly works this repentance in our hearts. It is by that repentance that we look away from ourselves and we find all our salvation in Christ alone.
I also deny that God forgives us because we forgive the neighbor. Instead, we can forgive the neighbor only when we know in our hearts that God has forgiven us.
Positively, I have attempted to prove the following three ideas from God’s Word: (1) that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, (2) that a sanctified life of repentance is necessary to experience God’s favor and (3) that God only forgives us  as  we forgive the neighbor. I have tried to show that these ideas are not conditional, and they do not rob God of his glory. Rather, these beliefs give all glory to
God alone as he works in us by the Spirit.
I am concerned that the RPC may deny these ideas.
For, as I showed at the beginning of this letter, I believe that forgiveness refers to the assurance of our salvation.
So, this whole debate boils down to one simple question: do I have the assurance of my salvation while walking impenitently in sin? The answer is no. That is why David prays to God that he would restore unto him the joy of his salvation.
The necessary implication of teaching that we have forgiveness without repenting, therefore, is that we do have the assurance of our salvation, even while walking impenitently in sin. And I believe that idea is contrary to the teachings of our Reformed fathers and to the Word of
God itself.
I pray that God will use this letter to further develop his truth on these issues. And if I am in the wrong, I pray that
God will cause me to repent of my false beliefs.
Yours in Christ,
Jacob Moore, member of Second RPC  REPLY  I do not agree with the theology of the letter. The theology of the letter did not come from my preaching and writing. Neither did it come from an independent study of scripture, the creeds, and the Reformed fathers. The theology came from the Protestant Reformed Churches.
The theology of the letter is the theology of the Protestant
Reformed Churches’ doctrinal statement that was adopted by Classis East. The writers of the doctrinal statement were never examined for the conditional theology that they espoused, and they were never disciplined for that conditional theology. The theology of the doctrinal statement is that to have fellowship with God, two things are necessary: God’s grace and man’s obedience.
I rejected that theology before I was suspended from
Crete Protestant Reformed Church. I preached against it and wrote against it until the elders threw me out and, in the process, lied and bore false witness against me.
The doctrine written in the letter in its main contentions is the doctrine that is the antithesis of what I believe the Reformed creeds and faith and thus also scripture teach. The doctrine is the antithesis of what I preach and,
I would maintain, what I have preached for my entire ministry in the main points of my doctrine. It is because of the clash between the truth of the gospel and the false doctrine espoused in this letter that a reformation has taken place. The letter brings up and espouses the points of doctrine that were the cause of the reformation.
The writer says, “I compose this letter to you regarding our recent controversy about the relationship between repentance and forgiveness.” But I remind him that he is a member of the Reformed Protestant Churches.
There was no controversy in the Reformed Protestant
Churches about these things. We were contentedly eating and drinking the gospel and busy rejecting the lie taught by the letter. With the letter there is now a controversy about the very issues over which we separated from the Protestant Reformed Churches. These points of doctrine are not issues that came up later through the writings of the Reformed Protestant Churches, as though we had a reformation and then some new points of doctrine were brought out. The points of doctrine rejected by the letter were fundamental to the reformation of the church of Jesus Christ that resulted in the formation of the Reformed Protestant denomination. This denomination has been in existence since 2021. The writings of members and the writings and preaching of the ministers of the Reformed Protestant denomination have been voluminous and clear on the issues that are raised by the letter, and they have with one voice rejected the theology espoused by the letter. We had a controversy with the
Protestant Reformed Churches but not among ourselves.
With this letter we now do have a controversy in the
Reformed Protestant Churches. The letter is a rejection of the doctrinal reformation of the Reformed Protestant denomination and all her theological convictions, as those are expressed by the writings and preaching of the members and ministers. At the heart of the matter is  contingency in justification and thus also in the covenant of grace  . Or to state the matter a different way: the heart of the matter has been  contingency in the forgiveness of sins and the believer’s assurance of his salvation  . The letter is virtually a lengthy statement of current Protestant Reformed dogma. That current Protestant Reformed dogma teaches that there are activities of man that precede the blessings of God. That current Protestant Reformed dogma denigrates—is terrified of—the decree and the reality of salvation at the cross. That current Protestant Reformed dogma teaches that there is not salvation until man performs his part. The letter brings in again all the Protestant
Reformed arguments, all its talking points, and the letter quotes against us many of the same quotations that we have already dealt with and answered in our controversy with the Protestant Reformed Churches while we were still members and afterward when we were evicted.
The letter is the equivalent of a member of the Protestant Reformed Churches writing in to the  Standard Bearer  today and saying, “I wonder if the Protestant Reformed
Churches might deny the historical Reformed faith that justification is by faith alone and that the assurance of our salvation is likewise by faith alone.” The Protestant
Reformed Churches with malice aforethought, repeatedly and forcefully, have denied these things and have taught that a holy life of obedience is necessary to experience the covenant of grace, that faith is assured by its works, and that repentance is necessary unto the forgiveness of sins.
A response of the editors of that magazine, if they actually would publish the letter, might be, “Where have you been, and why did you not leave with the rest of them?
This battle has been fought. Do you not know that we believe that there are activities of man that precede the blessings of God?”
Or the letter is the equivalent of a member of the
Protestant Reformed Churches in 1926 writing in to the  Standard Bearer  and suggesting to the editors that per  haps the Protestant Reformed Churches might deny the historic Reformed faith that there is something called common grace and then going about to prove that there is common grace. The response of Herman Hoeksema could have been, “Where were you for the last couple of years?”
Or perhaps the letter can be likened to a letter written to Herman Hoeksema in 1955, suggesting that maybe the Protestant Reformed Churches denied conditions in the covenant and then setting about to demonstrate that the Reformed fathers, scripture, and the confessions do teach that there are conditions in the covenant. The response could be, “What?”
The letter is nothing but a grief to me. Do we now have to go through this all again and with our own people and so soon? Why are we so scared of the gospel? Why do we want to go back to the rotten theology that we left that made salvation in all its joys contingent on what man does? We would be as dogs returned to their vomit and pigs to their wallowing.  The letter says the issue is  whether one has assurance while walking in impenitent sin  . But this is not the issue.
The issue is whether by holiness of life, including the act of repentance, one has the assurance of salvation. The issue is whether forgiveness of sins waits on the believer’s acts of repentance, love, and obedience. This is the issue.
The issue is contingency in salvation; and because we are in the realm of assurance and experience, the issue is contingency in the matter of justification and contingency in the covenant of grace.
The Protestant Reformed synod of 2020 set down the
Protestant Reformed dogma of salvation when it said that there are activities of man that precede the blessings of
God.1 The ministers and theologians of the Protestant
Reformed Churches add all kinds of qualifications and denials to camouflage the nakedly Pelagian theology of the statement in order to deceive the simple, but the raw statement in all its ugliness stands. There are activities of man that precede the blessings of God. God may not forgive me until I repent. God will not forgive me unless I forgive my neighbor. A holy life of obedience is necessary to experience the favor of a reconciled God. All of these teach contingency. The ministers and theologians do not use the word  contingency  , but they should. Repentance, faith, forgiveness, and love all function as contingencies in these statements. And I find nothing really all that different in this letter. An offensive word perhaps is elided or changed, but the theology is the same.
I will respond to the letter at length, even though I could simply say, “Where have you been? Of course we deny the things that you set out to prove. A new denomination was brought into existence by Christ over these very issues. The issue is not whether repentance is necessary. That is a red herring. There are many things that are necessary. Repentance is necessary, good works are necessary, faith is necessary, the glory of God and the honor of
Jesus Christ are necessary, division in the church is necessary, and false teachers and heresies also must come. It is how one defines the necessity that is the issue. Necessity must be described in light of God’s sovereignty, predestination, the irresistible power of the grace and will of
God, the will and work of the Holy Spirit, and the perfect salvation of the elect church and the judgment of the world at the cross. If one believes that the decree of God is merely an eternal blueprint of that which will be built and made real in time, and if one believes that the cross of Jesus Christ merely provided the objective basis for salvation that will be made real in its application to the elect, then that person will never understand Reformed theology. Election is salvation in eternity, so that I was always saved. The cross is my salvation, so that I was saved at the cross. All that happens in time is the revelation and outworking of those two realities of my salvation before I was born, thought one thought, or performed one activity. So I say again, the issue is not whether faith, repentance, and good works are necessary. The issue is whether repentance is necessary  as a contingency  in the experience of justification. This is what Professor Engelsma, Reverend McGeown, Professor Cammenga, Reverend Koole, and Reverend Overway made the issue. We repent unto our justification, and without repentance God may not forgive us, and with repentance God may forgive us. This is the theology that we reject. And if the Reformed Protestant Churches do not, then why did any of us leave?”
I will respond to the letter, not with joy or relish but with great sadness of heart. I hate the theology now taught in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I am set against it. I hate that theology when it rears its head in the
Reformed Protestant Churches. I am set against it and if necessary will lose my place in these churches in opposition to that theology.
In my response I do not intend to answer all the quotations that are given from the Reformed fathers. Giving long lists of quotations is a tactic that has been used against us before. Against that tactic I say that we can quote back and forth until the cows come home or Jesus
Christ returns. I respect, I agree with, and I learn from the
Reformed fathers. I would say about the particular quotations that are included in this letter that I agree with most of their words. But the Reformed fathers did not face the issues and men that we now face. The lie has advanced in its subtlety, and it is that subtlety that we oppose. Calvin used the word  condition  . That was found to be unsatisfactory, and the term was rejected as implying Arminianism. It is illegitimate for a proponent of Arminianism to dredge up out of Calvin all his uses of the word  condition  as supposed proof that he taught conditions. Calvin hated conditions in salvation. Likewise, Hoeksema used the phrase  in the way of  , but whatever he meant by it was not how the men today are using the phrase. It is completely illegitimate for men to dredge up quotations from
Hoeksema as though he supported this wicked theology of contingency. The Protestant Reformed Churches when they use the phrase  in the way of  mean contingency— that without which another thing does not come—and
Hoeksema absolutely rejected that thought. He said, and
I paraphrase, that if he ever thought that God forgives sins because a man repents—that he repents unto his forgiveness, to use the language of today—then the man had better not repent. That is because Hoeksema did face in one form the very theology that we are facing today. It is the theology that in a certain and vital sense man is first in the matter of repentance. Rev. Hubert De Wolf said that in defense of his false doctrine in his Formula of
Subscription examination before the consistory of First
Church in the early 1950s. The Protestant Reformed
Churches at one time in their history hated contingency and rejected it in one specific form. They rejected in that the idea that in a certain and vital sense man is first. Prof.
David Engelsma has revived that theology; and following his lead and using his language, the whole Protestant
Reformed clergy is unable and unwilling to teach any  thing else but that there are activities of man that precede the blessings of God. It is this theology that the letter also espouses and, I might add, ably attempts to defend.
The letter writer says,
Also, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 teach us that the forgiveness of sins can be thought of as our redemption. However, it does not refer merely to the abstract reality that God has blotted out all the sins of his people for Christ’s sake.
Rather...forgiveness refers to our knowledge of our salvation.
The writer is in the process of teaching that the forgiveness of sins “refers to our conscious possession of our salvation (the experience and joy of salvation, our fellowship with God).” With this understanding of forgiveness,
I agree. Forgiveness of sins is that by which we have joy, peace, happiness, blessedness, covenant fellowship with
God, assurance, and hope in eternal life. What I disagree with is that in that context one would call the power of the death of Christ to blot out our sins “merely...the abstract reality.”
First, the experience of salvation cannot be opposed to the death of Christ by “Rather.” The death of Jesus
Christ was the blotting out of sins. The death of Jesus
Christ accomplished salvation. The death of Jesus Christ was not abstract in any sense at all.  Abstract  means an idea, quality, or state as opposed to what is concrete. The death of Jesus Christ was concrete. I absolutely reject in any sense that the death of Jesus Christ was abstract. It was more real and concrete than you are today. In this description of the death of Christ, I find the Protestant
Reformed idea that the death of Christ did not actually save. The Protestant Reformed Churches teach this in their insistence that the death of Jesus Christ provided the objective basis of salvation but did not actually save us at the cross. Salvation is still at that point an abstraction until it comes into the sinner’s possession. But the question is, did Christ save us at the cross? Was I saved at the cross, so that I am more saved there than I am saved now, since my salvation there was a concrete and perfect reality? The answer is yes. Christ said that it is finished.
I was saved at the cross. I was justified and made perfect there at the cross.
And along with that, I find in the statement what I also regard as a Protestant Reformed distinctive that salvation exclusively means the experience of it. The decree is a blueprint. The cross is an objective basis. Perhaps the
Protestant Reformed will go on to say that we are united to Christ as an objective reality. But to know and experience salvation, to have and to enjoy salvation, you must do something—repent, believe with an active faith, and obey God.
I do not know any other way that someone could say that the cross of Jesus Christ is “the abstract reality.” I find the very words offensive in connection with the cross of
Christ. You cannot extol that cross too much. And calling it an “abstract reality” denigrates the cross. The apostle
Paul’s attitude toward the cross is stated in 1 Corinthians 2:2: “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” There is nothing worth knowing, and all wisdom and knowledge are nothing but foolishness, apart from the knowledge of Jesus
Christ and him crucified. I regret daily that I do not know and extol highly enough Jesus Christ and him crucified. Galatians 6:14 also speaks of the apostle’s glorying in the salvation—the actual salvation—of the child of
God at the cross: “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.”
The correspondent goes on to write, “Rather, God eternally willed that he would forgive us our sins in
Christ, and he merited this blessing in time by his Son’s death on the cross.” Herein perhaps lies the crux of the matter. The writer throughout does not seem to acknowledge any other sense of forgiveness than the forgiveness in our consciences. That forgiveness he makes contingent on repenting. God may not and God does not forgive apart from our act of repenting. But God did not only eternally will that he would forgive, but he also did forgive.
He forgave perfectly and completely all my sins before the world was. He did so for Christ’s sake, who was with
God as the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8: “All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Jesus Christ was actually slain before the foundation of the world. The cross was already in the decree as that cross perfectly accomplished salvation. And God did not only merit the blessing of forgiveness at the cross, but he also forgave our sins at the cross, when the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world was crucified on Calvary and raised again the third day because of our justification. So the apostle wrote in Romans 4:24–25: 24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our
Lord from the dead; 25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
The imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness to us and thus also the forgiveness of all our sins are based on the forgiveness of sins at the cross. We are forgiven of
God at the cross of Christ. We are perfectly forgiven at the cross. Our forgiveness in eternity and our forgiveness at the cross are perfect, whereas in our consciences doubts arise and our justification is imperfect on account of the flesh and the imperfection of our faith. It is because of this forgiveness eternally and at the cross that messengers are sent into the world to declare these glad tidings. The forgiveness that comes to us in the gospel and gives to us the knowledge of our salvation cannot have any different explanation than the forgiveness in eternity and at the cross. There is one forgiveness. What is ours in eternity and at the cross comes to us and becomes ours without works at all, including works of obedience and repentance.
And I further see in this language of the letter the attempt, although not explicit, to distinguish between justification and forgiveness. It is as though justification is something that is without works; but forgiveness is experienced and so is with works or, as they say, in the way of faith and repentance. Justification and forgiveness are not to be distinguished. The Protestant Reformed theologians—I use the term loosely—and ministers teach this stupid distinction. Especially Reverend McGeown is fond of it and preens himself on having made it. But forgiveness is simply one part of justification. Sometimes scripture says justification, and sometimes scripture speaks of a part of justification—forgiveness—for the whole truth of justification. Sometimes scripture speaks of not imputing, again using a part for the whole. But whether we speak of forgiveness, not imputing, or justifying, we are talking about the same doctrine: justification. That justification is by faith alone and absolutely without works.
Now, insert the word  justification  everywhere the letter speaks of forgiveness. For instance, that repentance is necessary for/unto our justification before God. Now you have Roman Catholic doctrine. Forgiveness is apart from works, as is justification. Scripture makes plain that these are one and the same doctrine. In Psalm 32 David spoke of the blessedness of the man whose sin the Lord forgives: 1.  Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2.  Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
This is a clear statement of forgiveness: transgression is forgiven, and iniquity is not imputed. The apostle Paul said in Romans 4:6–7 that this passage proves his doctrine of justification: 6.  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7.  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
This is a statement of justification, the imputation of positive righteousness, and the apostle proves it by reference to a passage that speaks only of forgiveness. Justification and forgiveness are the same doctrine. They are both absolutely without works.
In this same light the author of the letter points to my quote “We teach that there is forgiveness without repenting.” He ignores the scriptural texts on which that statement is based. Chief among them is 2 Corinthians 5:18–19: 18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
All things are of God. The apostle meant by that eternally, from God’s decree. All things are of him. God and the decree of God are the necessity of all things, and the unfolding of that decree is the explanation of all things.
And then the apostle applied that to reconciliation. God reconciled the world to himself. That reconciliation happened because God was not imputing their trespasses unto them. So we can say that this reconciliation is because of the forgiveness of sins. God forgave all their sins at the cross of Jesus Christ and so reconciled them to himself before they were born or heard a syllable of the gospel or repented or believed. They really, truly, actually had that forgiveness. That word that they have really, truly, and actually the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God is the word of the gospel. The word of the gospel is not that God forgives your sins if you repent and if you believe. The word of the gospel is that God reconciled his people to himself and forgave all their sins; now repent and believe. Repentance is indeed necessary but not for forgiveness, and that holds true for our knowledge of forgiveness or for the forgiveness of our sins in our consciences too. Whatever the necessity of repentance, it is not for/unto the forgiveness of sins. We have forgiveness. We will have that in our consciences as well without works, including the works of repentance. We have that by faith only because by faith we are engrafted into Christ and are partakers of his riches and gifts. That is the thing about repentance. It is not faith. However good and necessary repentance is, it is not faith. We have forgiveness by faith alone and without works, including the work of repentance.
Now, this is also the teaching of the Holy Spirit in
Romans 5:1–2: 1.  Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2.  By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Peace with God is reconciliation with God. Or we can say the experience of God as a reconciled God. He reconciled us to himself. We have this because we are justified—which means forgiven—by faith only and without works. By Christ—only on the ground of his righteousness and our justification for his sake by faith alone without works—we have access into the grace wherein we stand. A more thorough statement of the experience of salvation by faith without works—including the work of repentance—can hardly be imagined. We have God as our God, we have peace with God, and we stand in God’s grace for Christ’s sake alone by faith alone and without works—including the work of repentance.
As I said, the issue is not whether repentance is necessary. Rather, the issue is whether repentance is the contingency of justification—which the letter calls forgiveness.
The letter writer repeatedly posits a relationship between repentance and forgiveness that consists of dependence.
He denies that this is the case, but that is how repentance functions in the letter: without repentance God may not forgive us. But such is not the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. Rather, God forgives out of his free mercy by faith only and without works, including works of repentance. And God manifests his children in the world by repentance. Repentance is a manifestation and an attestation of the children of God, who are forgiven.
And the necessity of this repentance is not for justification, forgiveness, or the experience of salvation, but the necessity of this repentance is the eternal will of God.
This is the teaching of Ezekiel 33:11: “Say unto them, As
I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” The pleasure of God in the text is that the wicked turn from his way (repent) and live.
The life of the text is the life of the justified who live with
God and who stand in his grace and who have peace with him. That is God’s eternal good pleasure. God does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked. He desires that the wicked live. That pleasure of God is not an impotent wish. It is not a will of God that is contingent on repentance, so that God may not grant life until the wicked repent. The pleasure of God is the sovereign and powerful will of God, who does all his pleasure infallibly. Because it is the will of God, God works that. There is no relationship of dependence between repentance and life. There is the necessity of the will of God. The issue, again, is not the necessity of repentance but whether repentance is necessary for justification, for life, and for fellowship with God.
The letter writer turns to 1 Kings 8:33–34 to prove his point that repentance is necessary for justification, which
I say is to teach that justification is contingent on repentance. The passage reads, 33. When thy people  Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house: 34. Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which thou gavest unto their fathers.
He interprets the passage this way: “Only when God caused Israel to repent would he forgive them of their sins and show His favor to them once again.”
This statement I reject as flowing from the false doctrine that repentance is necessary for (the contingency of ) forgiveness. The statement loses sight completely of the unchangeable nature of God, of the decree, of the faithfulness of the promise of God, and of the organic conception of the covenant. I find that the statement also arises out of the Protestant Reformed idea that there are activities of man that precede the blessings of God. These activities are supposedly God-wrought and God-worked.
The activities here are to repent and to pray. And then, and only then, would God forgive. But Israel was a nation of elect and reprobate. God was always and ever favorable to Israel as the elect heart of the nation. In his favor
God always forgave his Israel. He never beheld iniquity in
Jacob. Because he forgave elect Israel, he instructed Israel to pray, repent, and by implication believe. God was not saying that this was what Israel had to do before God would forgive Israel. But he told Israel to pray and repent because in the midst of the severe chastisements, that is how God’s elect people were distinguished from the reprobate shell, and that is also how God’s forgiveness of his people became evident.
Considering the same passage, the letter writer says,
“So, I believe that this passage teaches that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, so that God does not show his favor toward his people while they walk impenitently in sin.”
I find the statement chilling and utterly reject it. I have heard statements like this from Protestant Reformed ministers, and I find that they teach a totally different
God than I believe in. The Protestant Reformed Churches say that they do not have losable grace, but they do. They lose the grace of God daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and perhaps eternally because they do not repent. Listen:
“God does not show his favor toward his people while they walk impenitently in sin.” You have grace when you repent. You do not have grace if you do not repent. This is conditional, contingent theology expressed clearly by the correspondent.
He supposes that he escapes the charge. He writes his characterization of conditional theology: “God is not a reactionary God who has to plead and beg with his people and who must wait upon his people to repent.” But this is precisely the kind of God that he is proposing when he says that God does not show grace to his people while they walk impenitently in sin. To state it differently, God does not show grace to his people until they repent. The grace of God is contingent on their repenting. That the writer says that this repentance is caused by God does not free him from the charge of conditional grace. It really only exacerbates the problem, for now God cannot do something (show grace) until God does something else first (cause the people to repent). God gives God a condition. Which is pure nonsense, and the name of God is only used at that point as a justification and an excuse for man’s having a condition.
God is the God who brings to pass. God does not show grace when his people repent. God shows grace eternally and unchangeably. In his eternal and unchangeable grace toward his people, he brings to pass his will for their salvation. Applying this to forgiveness, he brings that to pass; he forgives by faith alone without works, including works of repentance. He also causes them to repent, but not so that he can show grace or so that he can or may forgive, but because he willed it and works it so that they become manifest in the world as his children saved by grace. No matter how much the elect in Israel sinned, they could never  not  have the grace of God; they could never forfeit their state of justification; and thus also God infallibly renewed them to repentance—not in order that they may be forgiven and not so that God might forgive them, but because Jehovah had forgiven them all their sins.
In the same vein the writer says, “Though for a time
God may sovereignly will that his people walk in sin, he will infallibly cause them to see their sin, to repent of their ways, and be forgiven by him.” I suppose the statement could pass muster by itself. But in light of what he has written before and after the statement “and be forgiven by him,” he means consequently or thus. That is also what he wrote in a previous version of the letter:
“He will infallibly cause them to see their sin, to repent of their ways, and  thus  be forgiven by him” (emphasis added). I do not know why he took out the word  thus  in his final letter, but he should have left it in because it expresses exactly the theology of the letter. The word  thus  means consequently. There is a relationship of dependence expressed by the word. So forgiveness is the consequence of repentance. That is the theology of the whole letter, regardless whether the word  thus  is included or not.
And that is the expression of the theology that I reject regarding repentance and forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of sins is not the consequence of repentance. Forgiveness is not even the consequence of faith. And so when the correspondent says that repentance is not the cause or ground of forgiveness, that does not mean anything. It is simply an empty denial. Repentance is functioning in his theology as that without which forgiveness does not come, and forgiveness is the consequence of repentance.
This is teaching that forgiveness is contingent on repentance. But whether you repent or not is not the expla  nation of forgiveness. Forgiveness is the work of the free mercy of God.
And this brings up the larger point that the theology espoused in the letter, along with the theology of the
Protestant Reformed Churches of which it is a part, does not know what the word  and  means. God calls us to repentance  and  faith. God grants faith  and  repentance.
The writer says that God “will infallibly cause them... to repent of their ways, and be forgiven by him.” Now, that word  and  in all these instances is a verbal coupler.
It joins together two things without stating the relationship between them. But this theology takes  and  to mean result or consequence, so that repentance  and  forgiveness come to mean forgiveness that is the result of repentance or forgiveness that is a consequence of repentance or repentance that is unto forgiveness. But result or consequence is not the meaning of  and  when repentance and forgiveness are placed together. The word  and  indicates two works of grace. The one is to forgive without works, including works of repentance. The other is to work repentance as that by which God’s children are manifest in the world. But the concept of repentance for forgiveness—and I add the similar concepts of repenting in order that you may be forgiven and repenting and consequently being forgiven—is nowhere in scripture or in the Reformed creeds. The practical effect of that false doctrine is that the one going to God for forgiveness inevitably looks somewhere else besides Christ. He looks at his repentance specifically, and then there can be no stability or confidence before God.
The author of the letter contradicts his own theology later when he writes,
The Israelites would know that God would hear and answer all their prayers not because of anything in themselves, but only for the sake of
Christ, who is the head of God’s covenant.
That is correct. Before the Israelites went to God in prayer, they were confident of forgiveness. There is real, actual forgiveness at the cross of Christ, and because I trust that mercy of God to me in Christ, then as the ungodly I go to him. I do not go as the repentant, as the believing, or as the obedient; but I go as the ungodly, confident that God justifies the ungodly.
The letter writer turns next to Jeremiah 36:3 to prove his doctrine of justification contingent on repentance, which he phrases as repentance being necessary for forgiveness and which others have stated as repentance being unto forgiveness or repentance in order that we may be forgiven. Jeremiah 36:3 reads, “It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.” The correspondent writes, “Notice here especially that God says he  may  [bold and underlined by the writer] forgive Judah their sins.”
I do not have any doubt that he picks up on the word  may  because it was chosen by Professor Engelsma to express his doctrine of conditional justification: that we repent in order that God may forgive us. I attacked that specific word in my writing against Professor Engelsma.
So contra Reverend Langerak, we now supposedly have proof that in fact scripture does teach the concept that we repent in order that God  may  forgive us. But I reject that as emphatically as I did against Professor Engelsma. The letter writer’s picking up on that word  may  is telling for his whole theology. Forgiveness is contingent, and you do not have it until you do something. He gives his own interpretation of the word  may  : “God also through the mouth of Jeremiah teaches that God does  not  [bold and underlined by the writer] forgive his people while they walk impenitently in sin.”
I reject this interpretation of the text. It can be heard on Protestant Reformed pulpits every Sunday, and it fills
Protestant Reformed writings. Besides, the interpretation does not state the real point of the author, which is that
God does not forgive his people unless and until they repent. This is supposedly taught because the text says that God  may  forgive Judah. He may only forgive when
Judah repented. Forgiveness was contingent on repentance. God’s act was contingent on man’s act. And the correspondent says with emphasis that there was  not  forgiveness while Judah walked in impenitent sin. This is the expression of the conditional justification theology of the letter. I say that there was forgiveness while Judah walked in impenitent sin; and if there was not forgiveness while
Judah walked in impenitent sin, then Judah would forever perish in her sins, and God’s will and purpose would be unfulfilled, made shipwreck on man’s failure to repent.
The translation of the text in question is as follows:
“Perhaps the house of Judah will hear all the evil that I think to do to them in order that a man turn from his evil ways, and I will pardon their iniquity.” The word
“perhaps” expresses a wish or desire. The wish or desire here is the wish and the desire of God. It is the divine wish; it is his infallible purpose. You can understand the text this way: “It is my infallible purpose that Judah hear the evil that I think to do and that a man repent.” The word comes to all, to the whole house of Israel. God’s purpose is particular, namely that “a man,” one chosen of God, repent. The text is about God’s sovereign purpose that his people repent. His people were part of, indeed the elect kernel of, the house of Israel. They were the true Israel of God, and they were the true house of
Judah. God was not at all expressing that he did not forgive while Judah walked in impenitent sin. He was not expressing that he would forgive when Judah repented.
He was expressing his sovereign purpose for his people’s salvation, which includes their repentance. He willed then that in the writing of all the evil that he would do to the house of Israel, his people in the house of Judah would hear. They would hear not only with the ear but with the hearing of faith. That hearing of the man who repents is not merely hearing the judgment but hearing in that pronouncement of judgment that there is only one way out, and that is the promised righteousness of
Jesus Christ. God’s will was that they hear judgment and hear that God’s gracious will was that they repent, and so they repented. What the King James Version translates as “that I may forgive” means “and I have forgiven.”
It is a form of the word  forgive  that is called the prophetic perfect. It was a word of God that was so sure that when the prophet spoke it, it was as though it had already happened. So that prophetic perfect can be translated without any violence to the words as “and I have forgiven.” All the activity of writing and causing to hear and causing to repent came out of God’s free mercy that forgave. He forgave Judah. That was the reason Judah was not destroyed. That was why God granted repentance to life. He forgave! He never did not forgive. This is what Canons 5.6 means when it says that we never
“forfeit the state of justification” (  Confessions and Church
Order  , 174). The elect child of God is always, constantly forgiven. Thus Jeremiah 36:3 does not teach what must take place—repentance—before God  may  forgive. But the verse teaches what God’s purpose and forgiveness work in his people, namely repentance and the knowledge of their salvation.
It is in light of the writer’s doctrine that God does not forgive while his people walk impenitently that I also point out his statement “Rather, God chastises.” So the full statement is “God does  not  forgive his people while they walk impenitently in sin. Rather, God chastises His people.”
I find this statement to be of a piece with the one made earlier: “So, I believe that this passage teaches that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, so that God does not show his favor toward his people while they walk impenitently in sin.” This is chilling and cruel theology.
I find these statements Christless, graceless, and decreeless. The theology behind this statement is brutal and leads to brutality in the church. If God deals with his people in this way, then he is not the God I know; and if we deal with each other in this way, then the church will be nothing but a bloody den of cruelty. So the thinking goes, I do not forgive, and so I chastise, which means nothing more than loveless beating up of the neighbor. It is what the servant in Christ’s parable who was forgiven a great debt did to his fellow servant who owed him a little debt. He beat him up. There is no love in that statement whatsoever.
First, the statement that God does not forgive (or show grace) while his people walk in sin is simply wrong.
As the passage in Jeremiah 36:3 teaches, he has forgiven, also when Judah was walking in sin. God’s forgiveness of his people belongs to his unchangeable will. They can never, no matter how much they sin and how little they repent, ever forfeit the state of justification.
Second, if God does not forgive but chastises, this is horrible. The judgment is not chastisement any longer but punishment by a holy and just God on men who deserve it. The very facts that God forgives and his people never forfeit the state of justification make it so that God chastises and does not punish. If he judges and does not forgive, then he damns. God chastises because he forgives.
The writer concludes his treatment of Jeremiah 36:3 with this statement: “Thus, it is only when we live a life out of repentance that we can know God’s favor.”
I have treated this concept at length elsewhere, so I will be brief. The thought is completely contrary to the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the practical appli  cation of that doctrine to the conscience and life of the child of God: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly...” and “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 4:5; 5:1). God does not justify working people, penitent people, or loving and obedient people. He justifies those who do not work but believe on him who justifies the ungodly. God justifies ungodly, disobedient, and loveless people. These people, being justified, have peace with God. They know the favor of God, to use the language of the letter writer. They know that favor without works.
I also point out in this connection that the letter writer has been arguing that repentance is necessary to have the favor of God. Now he adds yet another condition to salvation, and that is a life out of repentance. The whole godly life now is a condition to know the favor of God.
Rather, we live our lives out of faith in the gospel. Those lives are lives of repentance, so that we hate sin and love righteousness. We have the favor of God without works; and having that, in thankfulness we live in that favor. We do not live and we cannot live before God without the righteousness that is imputed without works. Repentance and the whole life of repentance are the manifestations of my faith and thus my knowledge of God’s favor that I have apart from works of repentance.
The author of the letter turns next to Psalm 51 to prove conditional theology. He focuses on two phrases in the psalm: “Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice” and
“Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation” (vv. 8, 12).
Regarding the first phrase, the letter writer simply makes up a scenario to fit the theology that he is advocating.
He writes,
This expression shows the tremendous grief and anguish he felt after God caused him to see how wicked his sin truly was. He realized that his sin was so great that his soul was in danger of hell if he continued impenitently in his sin.
This scenario stands in the service of making David’s plea the plea of the one who did not know the forgiveness of God apart from his act of repentance. The correspondent writes, “This joy of our salvation can only be restored when God causes us to see how he is chastising us...and makes us repent in dust and ashes.”
But this is entirely false. First, the scenario does not fit the historic record of scripture. David prayed in Psalm 51 as the man to whom Nathan the prophet had said that God forgave. David thus prayed in the knowledge of God’s mercy and the forgiveness of his sins. He was praying as the impenitent who realized all of a sudden the peril in which he stood. He was praying as the forgiven man to whom the Lord imputed no iniquity and whose transgressions the Lord had forgiven. God broke David’s bones when he was ignoring his sin, and God troubled
David in his sin. Those broken bones God began to heal the moment Nathan said that God forgave David. What
David was praying in this passage was for the gospel that alone heals broken bones. He was not praying from the standpoint of one who does not have God’s favor and who comes into that favor as he repents. David was praying from the standpoint of a child of God whom God forgave but whose bones the Lord had to break. That expression is expressive of the wound of the conscience that does not heal immediately. Thus David spoke of the lingering, ongoing, continual need of the gospel of Jesus
Christ that God justifies the ungodly.
Second, the letter writer makes the expressions in
Psalm 51 about David’s repentance, but they are about the ongoing need of the gospel. We need that gospel every day, week, month, and year. The joy of salvation given to a wounded conscience is not received by repenting but by hearing, or we would say by faith only. What is specifically heard is the glad tidings of the gospel and the joy of salvation to the ungodly whom God justifies.
The letter writer can say in defense of his theology “that repentance is  never  the cause or the reason that God forgives,” but that is not the issue. In the letter and in his explanation of this passage, repentance is that without which God does not give salvation’s joy. Rather, God restores salvation’s joy by causing us to hear the blessed news of the gospel.
The writer goes on to treat the fifth petition of the
Lord’s prayer. He finds in this petition a ground for his doctrine that God does not forgive—that is, give us his grace—until we forgive. He writes,
So, does this mean that God does not forgive us our sins when we walk in sin by holding anger or malice against the neighbor? Yes, I believe that is exactly what Christ means. However, when God causes us to repent of our sin and to again desire to forgive the neighbor, that is not the reason or grounds of God’s renewed forgiveness of us.
Rather, by bringing us to repent of that sin, God forgives us.
Here again is a statement of the theology of the whole letter: God does not forgive unless and until we forgive. God does not forgive unless and until we repent. Repentance—God-wrought, of course—is the contingency of our forgiveness. This is an expression of the Protestant Reformed idea of repentance and forgiveness. Anger against the neighbor turned off the spigot of grace. Repentance turns the spigot back on. But we never forfeit the state of our justification. We are always forgiven of God. The perfectly acceptable and Reformed explanation of the passage in Matthew 6:12, “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” is Lord’s Day 51.
Christ was not teaching in this petition what we have to do to have forgiveness. He was rather teaching the sure relationship between God’s forgiveness of his people and their forgiveness of their neighbors. These two forgivenesses are the same in character, and the one is the inevitable fruit of the other. God forgives us, and the evidence of this grace in us is that we forgive the neighbor. That is Reformed.
Following his treatment of the Lord’s prayer, the writer moves on to Ephesians 2:10. His theology of the
Lord’s prayer is that God does not forgive our sins and thus assure us of our salvation while we walk in sin. So he asks, “Why?” He finds the answer to this question in
Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” The two previous verses in Ephesians 2 read, 8.  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9.  Not of works, lest any man should boast.
About these verses he writes, “In the previous two verses, the apostle Paul had developed the wonderful truth of justification by faith alone. He showed that we are not saved by works, but we are saved by faith alone.”
By limiting these verses to justification, he guts the meaning of the text. All of salvation—union with Christ, regeneration, faith, calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification—is not by works at all but by faith alone. That is because all of salvation is in Christ, and we become partakers of Christ by faith alone; and being joined with Christ, he is made to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30).
The writer’s purpose for limiting the glorious state  ment of the apostle about our gracious salvation becomes clear when he writes,
In this verse [Eph. 2:10], the apostle Paul shows us the proper place of good works in the child of God’s life. We are not saved by good works.
Rather, we are “created in Christ Jesus  unto  good works” [bold and underlined by the letter writer]. This word “unto” indicates a purpose. That purpose is God’s eternal will for our sanctification.  However, works are not included in sanctification any more than they are included in justification. Works are the fruit of sanctification that is wholly by grace and not at all by works.
He writes, “Thus, the testimony of the Holy Spirit that we are sons of God only arises as we walk in thankfulness before God, and not while we walk impenitently in sin.”
But this does not follow from his previous statements.
His previous statements mean that we can be justified and not know that we are sons of God. This knowledge comes only after we obey. So he means that we do not have the assurance that we are sons of God until and unless we obey.
This I deny. I have peace with God and thus the assurance that I am God’s and he is mine by faith and without works. By grace I am saved and not by works.
Because I am Christ’s and because I am made a member of Christ, the Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a son of God and an heir of the world. This same Spirit produces in me fruit of my salvation, which is obedience. Salvation and the experience of salvation and the assurance of salvation, which to me are the same thing, are not contingent.
There are two contingencies in this letter: “Repentance is necessary for forgiveness” and “A sanctified life of repentance is necessary to experience God’s favor.”
I deny both of these contingencies. The reformation that led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant
Churches fought over these ideas that we rejected. I charge those ideas that are argued for throughout the letter with teaching contingency and with turning again to Protestant Reformed false doctrine. When I wrote that we have forgiveness without repentance, then I threw out repentance  as a condition  . And it should stay out. The theology of the letter is thoroughly Protestant
Reformed. The word  condition  is not used. The word  condition  is denied. But repentance and obedience function as conditions: they are those things without which
God may not, cannot, and will not forgive. To that all I say that if God does not, may not, cannot, and will not forgive me until and unless I repent, then I better not repent, for my repentance in that case is nothing but wickedness.
It is this doctrine espoused and argued for in the letter that we reject and with us does the whole Reformation.
John Calvin said it best:  Repentance cannot be the cause of the forgiveness of sins  :and we also did away with that torment of souls—the dogma that it must be performed as due. Our doctrine was, that the soul looked not to its own compunction or its own tears, but fixed both eyes on the mercy of God alone.2
We likewise have done away with that dogma of repentance as that which is due. And if that holy and godly work of repentance cannot be a condition unto justification and the knowledge of our salvation, then nothing can. We have abolished the dogma of anything that is due for salvation and the assurance of God. We are justified and have peace with God by faith only because of the mercy of God in the cross of Jesus Christ.
—NJL  Dear Editor,
Thank you for your response to my letter in the February 15, 2022 Letters Edition of Sword & Shield. I found that every time I read your response, and the more I studied the explanation of the order of salvation that you set forth, I was impressed with the awe, beauty, harmony, grace, and most splendid and excellent glory of God’s work of salvation. I thoroughly appreciated the main objective of your response to direct us, especially in our consideration of the order of salvation, to see on the foreground the glory of God, who is the beginning and the end and the all in all in our salvation, and to see the emptiness of man, the most undeserving object of this glorious salvation. Undoubtedly, the main point of the order of salvation is not to explain man’s experience of his salvation but to make abundantly clear the sovereignty of God in the salvation of
His elect people for His eternal glory.
While I see the importance and beauty of viewing salvation organically as one interconnected work of God rather than a stack or a train of blessings, I do not yet understand how the organic nature of salvation means that there can be no temporal aspect to the application of that salvation to us in our hearts and lives. I agree that the decrees of God are outside of time because they are all eternal decrees, but when we are speaking, not about
God’s eternal decrees, but about God’s application of salvation to us in time, how can we say that that application is entirely outside of time? We are creatures of time, and  God applies salvation to us in time, yet there is no temporal aspect to that application? If there is no time element to the order of salvation, then I don’t understand why you are fine with saying that repentance precedes justification or justification precedes repentance. If there is no time element, then how can you say “As to time, I know and everyone knows and no one is denying that faith precedes justification, that repentance precedes forgiveness, and all the rest” (pg. 12, October 15, 2021 S&S)? On the one hand, you clearly deny that the order has any temporal aspect—“The order is not temporal at all” (pg. 25, Feb. 15, 2022 S&S). On the other hand, you acknowledge that one must have faith before he can repent—“Without faith no man can repent or be justified; so the logical order is faith, conversion, justification” (pg. 25). I am probably totally misunderstanding you, but I must admit that I am thoroughly confused on this point. Is it nothing but utter folly to speak of this before that in the order of salvation, or is it true that there is an actual order to God’s application of His salvation to us?
As I understand it, God’s work of salvation is an organic whole, as is beautifully pictured in a fruitful vine (John 15). Christ is the seed, the root, and the vine, we are ingrafted as branches into the vine (by faith), being united to Christ the vine, we receive all nourishment, life, and blessings, which flow to us from Him (including the forgiveness of sins), and, receiving all life and blessings from
Him, we bring forth fruit (repentance & good works). God as the sovereign husbandman plants the seed, ingrafts the branches of his choosing, feeds and nourishes them so that they bring forth fruit, and gathers up the fruits of  His  labors. On the foreground in the picture is the Husbandman, whose vine it is. Yet, when one looks closer at the handiwork of the husbandman to admire the beauty and glory of it, he sees the various parts—the vine, the branches, and the fruit—and understands that the life of the plant is in the roots and flows from the vine to the branches so that they produce fruit. In other words, he sees that the root and the vine come before the branches, which come before the fruit. The defining characteristic of fruit is that it is produced by the branch. So, what I mean by “Such an essential relationship demands a certain temporal relationship because one’s experience in time cannot be different than reality” is simply that the fruit must come after the branch and thus it is impossible to experience that the fruit comes before the branch. I believe you are right that we ought not get so caught up in looking at each individual part of the plant that we lose sight of the beauty of the plant as a whole as the glorious handiwork of the husbandman. Yet, if a scientist were to examine the plant and declare his findings to the world and instruct everyone that, in his study of the plant, he discovered that the fruit precedes the branch, then I would have to tell him that he does not understand the plant at all. So likewise, when I am instructed that repentance (the fruit) precedes the forgiveness of sins, which I am assured of by faith (the branch), then I must tell such a one that he doesn’t understand God’s work of salvation at all. Furthermore, if he insists that the fruit truly does come before the branch, then I must inform him that he has now taken the fruit and planted it, so that it is now changed into the seed which then brings forth the vine and branches and more fruit. But he must take note that now Christ is no longer the seed, root and vine of that plant, but rather the fruit is become the seed, root and vine of that plant. My point throughout the controversy in the PRC has been exactly this: By saying that the fruit
(good works and repentance) precedes the branch (all the blessings of salvation including the forgiveness of sins that we have by faith), the PRC has changed the fruit into the root and thus has replaced Christ with our repentance and good works. The teaching of the PRC according to Synod 2020 is that “there is an activity of the believer that is  prior  to the experience of a particular blessing from God”
(pg. 81, Acts of Synod 2020, Art. 51 C.2.c.). Which is to say that blessings of salvation, like the forgiveness of sins, flow out of activities of man, like his repentance. Which is to say that the root out of which blessings of salvation flow is man’s activities. There can only be one root; either Christ or man’s activities. The PRC has made man’s activities the root. Therefore, I would agree that the error of the PRC is much deeper than simply establishing a “wrong order.” But, their “wrong order” betrays their ignorance of the truth of God’s glorious work of salvation.
I maintain, therefore, that there is a definite, precise order of salvation because there is a definite, precise relationship between all the different works of God in our salvation. It is an organism. And, all the various members of an organism have a very definite relationship to each other. Furthermore, that precise relationship itself shows the glory and sovereignty of God in our salvation. I believe
God reveals the order of His work of salvation to us for the very purpose of revealing His sovereignty in that work.
Therefore, you are correct that I do believe that putting man’s activities (including repentance) at the very end of the order of salvation as nothing but the fruit of God’s labors does eliminate works of man preceding the works of God. As fruits, they are the end goal of our salvation.
God’s purpose with us is that we bring forth fruits to His glory. Because their purpose is the glory of God alone, they are motivated by the love of God and thankfulness to Him alone. They are fruits and fruits only, and they are for God and God alone. They are not means unto more blessings, and they are not motivated by the prospect of receiving more the more fruitful we are. That our activities
(including repentance) are not means unto further blessings is most clearly seen in the fact that they are at the very end of the order of salvation. Therefore, let us not throw out the order of salvation, but let us see how the definite, precise order of salvation shows the sovereignty of God in salvation and thus serves the glory of His name.
As you pointed out, the order of salvation can be added to or taken away from depending on how finely one wants to parse the various works of salvation, but I do not agree that the order of salvation can be rearranged as anyone sees fit.
If you could rearrange it, then we couldn’t really say that there is any order at all. For God’s work of salvation to be an organism rather than a heap of blessings there must be a very definite relationship between the various works of
God in our salvation.
As you also pointed out, words can be used to refer to various things and can be used broadly or narrowly.
Therefore, it is certainly important that we define our terms very clearly. I have defined repentance in terms of HC QA 89: “A sincere sorrow of heart that we have provoked God by our sins, and more and more to hate and flee from them” (pg.21, Feb. 15, 2022 S&S). In short,
I have defined repentance as “an expression of our love for God and our hatred for sin” (pg. 21). As such, I have contended that repentance can be nothing other than the fruit of faith, that is, the fruit of experiencing forgiveness through faith (pg. 21). From the examples you give of the Phillipian jailor and Martin Luther, it seems that your definition of repentance is simply to know one’s sins and to stand fully exposed before God. If this is your definition of repentance, then I can see how you could conceive of repentance preceding the forgiveness of sins.
Certainly, if we have no sin, then we need no forgiveness.
Is this what you mean by “we are justified in the way of repentance” (October 15 S&S)? With what definition of repentance can you see the order of “repentance preceding justification” being correct, and where do you derive that definition of repentance from?
May God grant us all His Spirit to discern these things which can only be spiritually discerned.
I Corinthians 2:10-16: “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.”
Respectfully in Christ,
Sara Doezema  EDITOR’S NOTE  The doctrinal issues that our correspondent raises in her letter have been addressed in many pages of  Sword and Shield  .It is my judgment that the specific questions that our correspondent asks have already been sufficiently answered in the articles to which she refers. Therefore, Miss Doezema’s letter is published here without additional response. The interested reader who would like to pursue this further can consult the February 15, 2022, Letters Edition of  Sword and Shield  ,as well as the many articles by the editors and other writers over the last year and a half that have addressed the relationship between repentance and forgiveness.
—AL  August 13, 2022
Dear Editor,
I am writing to ask a question of any editor, officebearer, or even vocal member of the RPC who cares to answer. From the beginning, the Sword and Shield generally, and Rev. Lanning in particular, have rejected the following statement of Rev. Koole, as heretical:
If a man with his household was to be saved and consciously enter into the kingdom, placing him  self with his family under the rule of Christ as his
Lord and Savior, he was called, he was required, to respond obediently to the call and command of the gospel—“Repent and believe, that thou mightest be saved with thy house.” (“What Must I Do...?” Standard Bearer 95, no. 1 [October 2018]: 7–8)
If the testimony of scripture is true, and Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then it must also be maintained that believing that point of doctrine is an organic necessity. Assuming that Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, then even those who died in faith in the Old Testament and infants who die before they are born, can be brought to believe that, though they might never see the world. The example of the Apostle Paul, who was called by Jesus Christ in such a manner that he heard the call, while those travelling with him did not, is an example of just such a calling. The repeated testimony of scripture is that believing that point of doctrine is the primary sign of true faith. In fact, part of the error of De Wolf’s statement, “our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of Heaven,” is that the statement ignores the truth that someone who repents in the way of faith, already has the kingdom of heaven in his consciousness, because he already believes the resurrection. Not only do regeneration and calling include spiritual gifts that belong to the resurrection, but one who truly places his trust in the crucifixion, repents, prays, etc. does so, because he already believes the resurrection. The teaching that faith is an instrument rather than a condition does not eliminate the truth that there is a certain absolute minimum believing that is necessary for conscious salvation. The truth that faith is an instrument rather than a condition is what makes the whole system of doctrine taught in the confessions important, because it confirms the basic premise, but the whole system is useless if you aren’t at least open minded to the basic premise.
The Heidelberg Catechism assumes that believing in LD 1 before it ever gets to the system of doctrine.
So, now I ask you, any one of you, how is it possible for anyone to pass through the final judgement and en  ter into the New Heavens and Earth without believing the resurrection of Jesus Christ? That, after all, is the minimum obedient response to the command and call of the gospel.
Although believing the resurrection does not fulfill a condition, believing that, and holding onto that, is an organic necessity, both in the sense that God effectually works it in the hearts and minds of his elect by regeneration and calling, and in the sense that a human being needs to know that in order to experience salvation in the end. Tell me, how is it possible to be consciously saved without believing that? Even supposing that the statement has to do with the Church as it exists in this world, how is it possible for someone to genuinely place himself under the rule of a man who he believes to be dead? How is it possible to consciously “enter into the kingdom,” without believing, when the external organization manifestly has no visible King? One who does not believe simply does not genuinely place himself under the rule of anyone. Even if we assume the Church of Rome or the
Church of England, which can be said to have a visible ruler, that earthly ruler is still not Christ. In addition, placing one’s self under the rule of Christ is a doing, as is “entering.” Rev.
Koole’s statement is almost a tautology, because even if the resurrection is a lie, the statement would still be true. He might as well have said, if A then A. For a man to experience the Church, or even this present world, as a kingdom with
Christ as the ruler, he must necessarily believe the resurrection, whether it be the truth or the lie. Do those in the RPC reject both scripture and logic? How is it even possible for
Rev. Koole’s statement to be false? How is it possible to be consciously saved without believing?
Now, as this pertains to repentance preceding forgiveness, that also is a universal principle. Virtually all religion teaches that. In fact, even the rationalist philosopher Spinoza teaches that. Even Pharaoh and Ahab recognized that. In fact, even animals can be trained to have some sense of it. The issue is that God’s long-suffering and forbearance, our repentance, and God’s forgiveness are not final salvation. What’s more, I literally experience a sense of forgiveness in the way of repentance. Even worldly psychology recognizes that there can be a sense of catharsis associated with it. Any man who experiences any sexual emissions (Lev. 15:16-18) and who so much as washes his hands (James 4:8) goes through the motions of repentance and experiences a sense of forgiveness.
In fact, let us suppose that someone merely believes that Jesus was an idealized rabbi and a good example. Let us suppose that the ten commandments were just a human observation of natural wisdom, that the Lord’s Prayer is a safe response to that, because it does not use God’s name directly, and that Acts 15 is a realistic expectation for religious law that recognizes basic health and safety.  I certainly have heard people who professed to be unbelievers, but recognized that. Even someone who is simply convicted that they should say the Lord’s Prayer once in a while, whether one is a Jew or Christian, and who finds some relief in that, though they certainly should not go to the Lord’s Supper without more evidence of faith, should still be able to recognize that there is some benefit in it for this life. In fact, even the people who want to believe that
Jesus was a mere man without actual sin, and therefore only a good example, should be able to recognize that he humbled himself in washing his disciple’s feet before exercising his authority in instituting the Lord’s Supper.
In fact, even such things as the scientific method, continuous improvement in software development, and other technological developments are all based on seeing errors, changing one’s mind, and attempted improvement. All of these things can be tied to the cycle of repentance, forgiveness, and renewed positive work. That’s not grace to the reprobate personally, but particular grace does overflow into the creation organically (Prov. 12:10), so that even the reprobate take advantage of that power.
About the only people who don’t recognize that repentance precedes forgiveness are criminals who are convinced they can get away with their crimes and nar  cissistic dictators.
For the above reasons, I’m primarily concerned that repentance is worked by the power of the resurrection, given through the bond of faith. In other words, that repentance must be a sign of faith in its operation. However, you still can’t get away from the fact that repentance precedes forgiveness. Even when repentance and forgiveness are the issue, it still boils down to the question of the resurrection. If the sins of the elect are also forgiven in the world to come (Matt. 12:32), if God first forgives even the sin that stains our good works (Matt. 25:36-40), then any repentance in this life necessarily precedes forgiveness. So, in the end, your position implies the self-righteous legalism associated with the Federal Vision.
As far as I can tell, your position involves a rejection of scripture, the Reformed creeds, historic positions of the
PRCA, rational philosophy, and empirical science. How can you possibly get around that?
Sincerely,
Christopher Miersma  REPLY  Your last paragraph contains the answer to your final question: “How can you possibly get around that?” You provide before this question a summary statement of your letter’s content: “As far as I can tell, your position involves a rejection of scripture, the Reformed creeds, historic positions of the PRCA, rational philosophy, and empirical science.”
What an army you have mustered before this position you attribute to the Reformed Protestant Churches!
You propose an organized army, operating in unity under one command. You propose that its divisions are clearly aimed at one common enemy and that its weapons are alike powerful and intimidating with their destructive powers. You propose that there must be only one reaction to this powerful alliance: surrender. You ask, “How can you possibly get around that?”
What are the divisions of this army that is so unified?
What an unholy alliance!
It is bad enough that you join together the first three members with the last two. You join scripture, the Reformed creeds, and the historical positions of the
Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA) with rational philosophy and empirical science. What does scripture say about this union that you have made? Scripture rejects this union. 14. Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16. And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor. 6:14–16)
What do the Reformed creeds that you make a part of this union say about this union? Will they allow your unholy alliance between the word of God and the musings of rational philosophy and empirical science?
Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees, or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars and more vain than vanity itself. (Belgic Confession 7, in  Confessions and Church Order  , 27–28)
Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God. (Canons of Dordt 3–4.4, in  Confessions and Church Order  , 167)
What do the “historic positions of the PRCA” show about your army and its ability to cooperate and intimidate? In accordance with the above quotation from the
Canons of Dordt, the historical position of the PRCA has been against common grace. The false teaching of common grace is that rational philosophy and empirical science, in addition to scripture, have much to contribute to the body of truth received and used by Christians. Your denomination’s rejection of common grace must break apart this union that you have made. That rejection of common grace gives to rational philosophy and empirical science no place on the battlefield but sends them away.
The man of God commanded King Amaziah to send away the army of Israel (2 Chron. 25:5–10). Even the
Philistines sent away David and his men, understanding that they would be only a liability on the field of battle.
Even your union of the scriptures, the Reformed creeds, and the historical positions of the PRCA is not strength but severe weakness. With this union you deny the Reformation principle of  sola scriptura  . Scripture will not stand on the battlefield either with the Reformed creeds or with the historical positions of the PRCA.
Scripture claims all authority for itself. It excludes the authority of men. Scripture will not suffer equality with any creed or with the historical position of any church.
Scripture alone must rule in the church of Christ. The only authority of the Reformed creeds is their agreement with scripture. Refer to Belgic Confession 7, as quoted above. Refer also to the Formula of Subscription, with its line that is the basis for adherence to the Reformed creeds specifically indicated, that they “do fully agree with the
Word of God” (  Confessions and Church Order  , 326).
What of the historical positions of the PRCA, which can all be protested on the basis of God’s word? What of the
Reformed creeds, which can be changed by gravamen on the same basis of God’s word?
No, you have no army. You have no divisions. You have no weapons. No intimidation. There is nothing to get around. Why is God’s word alone insufficient for your task? Why not use that weapon that is identified and given in the word of God, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17)?  Turning to the material of your letter, you put forward your first point of contention. It concerns a quotation from an article written by Rev. Ken Koole following the meeting of the Synod of the PRCA in 2018. You signify the importance of this quotation. First, you isolate it as the only thing worthy of inclusion in your letter. Second, you put it forward as one of the “historic positions of the PRCA,” implying that it has the support of your unified army, from the scriptures to “rational philosophy, and empirical science.”
If this quotation of Rev. Ken Koole is indeed a historical position of the PRCA, I must conclude that your denomination is in serious trouble. In connection with the defense of this so-called historical position of the
PRCA, the same theologian called the position of the founder of the PRCA, Herman Hoeksema, “nonsense.”1
Furthermore, another theologian of the same denomi  nation, Prof. David Engelsma, took violent exception to this historical position announced by Rev. Ken Koole on the basis of the biblical truth of salvation by sovereign grace alone.2
It should also be noted that Rev. Ken Koole’s quotation was written in response to the decisions taken by the synod of the PRCA in 2018. That synod declared that
Classis East had erred in its defense of the preaching and teaching of Rev. David Overway. Rev. David Overway had taught that there are certain things that Christians must do in order to receive benefits of salvation such as assurance of justification and answers to prayer. Synod 2018 condemned those teachings and Classis East’s support of those teachings by way of a doctrinal statement composed by a committee of Classis East. Rev. Ken
Koole’s response? Indeed there are things the Christian must do, and must do to receive benefits of salvation. To declare that Reverend Koole’s statement that you quote is a historical position of the PRCA is at the least very confusing. At the most it is simply false.
What follows in your letter is a leap over a chasm that is unbridgeable by any kind of logical connection.
Whether you recognize it or not, you leap from Reverend
Koole’s quotation about the necessity of faith as an act of man to a statement about faith’s having some kind of a definite, limiting content. According to the context of
Reverend Koole’s quotation, as an errant commentary on
Acts 16:31, the object of faith given in the word that Paul spoke to the Philippian jailer was Jesus Christ himself.  “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Nothing there about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Setting aside your pretension to define faith according to the vast host you enumerate, you muster your support.
You ground your contention that faith must consciously accept the singular truth of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in Jesus’ resurrection itself. Indeed, Jesus did die in order to atone for the unbelief of the elect and to pur  chase by his blood the gift of faith. Indeed, he did arise from the dead in order to send his Spirit to his church, in order that his Spirit work faith in the hearts of the elect.
But that is not to limit faith to the doctrine of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Nor is it a justification for your assertion that faith in Jesus’ resurrection is the ground for distinguishing true, saving faith from a faith that is not true and that does not save.
With this limitation of faith to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, your attempt to further limit faith to its operation in the consciousness of the believer for the  conscious  experience of salvation collapses on itself. If you reduce faith to a conscious acceptance or agreement with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that will be as far as it must go in the consciousness of the believer as well.
It is passing strange that you declare that Lord’s Day 1 contains the “assumption” of believing in Lord’s Day 1, when question and answer 2 of the Lord’s Day identifies the three things that are  necessary  to know in order to live and die happily in the comfort of belonging to Jesus.
You pose the argument in your letter, “That, after all, is the minimum obedient response to the command and call of the gospel.” You make here a bare assertion without any proof. Everything that follows in the paragraph runs in a circle that is entirely without support and runs itself out of energy. The challenge at the end is no challenge at all. The reader can only watch as the argument collapses on itself.
What follows of your “universal principle,” which you draw from many alleged sources without a connection to the subject of faith, makes a fearful connection. The connections you state are behavioral. Shall we turn faith into a certain behavior, whether psychological or physical? Shall we take that behavior and make it a condition for obtaining salvation, even assurance of salvation? May it never be! How much worse is your effort in the following paragraph to graft this “universal principle” into anything remotely resembling Christian experience! How fearful that you make Christ into an example to support your contention: “...should be able to recognize that he humbled himself in washing his disciple’s [  sic  ] feet before exercising his authority in instituting the Lord’s Supper.”
I must admit that I cannot make sense of your paragraph that begins with the words “For the above reasons.” It makes stunning twists and turns that defy both logic and comprehension. Yet it manages somehow to arrive at its end: “So, in the end, your position implies the self-righteous legalism associated with the Federal
Vision.” I am left to wonder if you were so attached to your conclusion that your premises mattered not at all.
In all these observations it becomes evident that you share a common feature with your quotation of Reverend
Koole. This feature is common with rational philosophy and empirical science. (By the way, I understand that what you mean by “empirical science” is science according to the philosophical principles of the Enlightenment carried forward by Immanuel Kant, etc.) What is this feature?
This feature is to limit faith to parameters that are agreeable to the nature of man. Man’s reason is the standard. Man’s reason is the standard for what faith must be.
This is rationalism, pure and simple. This is the rationalism of Arminianism. This is the rationalism of Reverend Koole.
Because man himself does believe, faith must be the deed of man. This is your rationalism. Faith must have a minimum content, namely Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
This minimum content, because it accords to man’s reasoning, must be true. Reason will count up a number of propositions because it can only conceive of faith as agreement or subscription to those definable propositions. Or, in your case, reason will single out one such proposition, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is fitting to paraphrase
James 2:19: Thou believest that Jesus was raised from the dead; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Yes, there is indeed a war. There is an army on the battlefield of this war. But this army is the army of the words and thoughts of men summoned together against the word of God and the truth of his word. The battle is exactly that which is described in Ephesians 6. It is the warfare observed by article 7 of the Belgic Confession as that Reformed creed reflects on the truth of Psalm 116:11, which verse is also referred to in Romans 3:4.
This true warfare identified in scripture is not of one kind or sort of idea about faith against another kind or sort of idea about faith. It is the warfare of unbelief against faith. It is a battle taken up against God. In this battle man wrests the truth of faith from the Bible and must mold and shape it into a vain image to which he can conform on his own terms. It is not, therefore, faith in God or faith in Christ the mediator between God and man. It is instead faith in man himself. It viciously empties out the glory, the wonder, and the power of faith as the gift of God. It makes of faith a vain show, grotesquely to distort it into a form agreeable to man’s pride.
The Bible refuses to allow faith to be so twisted and distorted. The Bible teaches that faith is ruled wholly and entirely by its one true and proper object: the person and the work of Jesus Christ, true God and man, the only savior and redeemer, the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Although you do not refer to Romans 10:9, where the Holy Spirit specifically places the truth of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in connection with true, saving faith, the context of verse 9 denies your rationalistic goal. The words that follow two verses later make clear that the object of faith is not a proposition but Christ himself. “The scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (v. 11). Earlier in the passage,
“Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (v. 4). This same glorious truth about faith is made evident in the very passage that Reverend
Koole wrested in his desperate attempt to make faith into a deed. In Acts 16:31 the apostle Paul correctly identified that same proper object of faith, Jesus Christ. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” By the very identification of faith according to its object, Jesus Christ in all his glory as the complete savior, the foolish notion of faith as a doing that has standing before God ought to dissolve completely, were it not for the perverse pride of men—rationalism.
There is the testimony of the answer to the Ethiopian eunuch’s question to Philip, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”: “Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:36–37). The purpose of the gospel according to John, given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is stated in
John 20:31: “These are written, that ye might believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
What is to be said about these references? Can it possibly be that they set out a number of minimum requirements for true faith? That faith must believe one, two, three, or a hundred items of truth? Or must it believe in Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)? It must.
Indeed, faith must not and cannot believe in Christ if it is of man in any respect. If faith is of man, it can never come to Christ. True, saving faith must be and must always be the gift of God in Christ himself (Eph. 2:8).
Do the Reformed creeds fully agree with the word of
God on this subject? Or do they stand in support of the quotation of Reverend Koole as a historical position of the PRCA, in support of your letter’s content, and in support of rational philosophy and empirical science?
Lord’s Day 7, clearly teaching on faith itself, gives its sharp answer to the question of your letter:
Q. 22. What is then necessary for a Christian to believe?
A. All things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted Christian faith briefly teach us. (  Confessions and Church
Order  , 91)
Is saving faith saving faith because it entertains some doctrinal propositions, even doctrinal propositions derived from scripture? Can the faith of devils (James 2:19) be true, saving faith? Can this weak, morally vacuous, and spiritually inept view of faith compare to the testimony of the Reformed creed, the Belgic Confession?
We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus
Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him. For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or, if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him. (Article 22, in  Confessions and
Church Order  , 49–50)
I have a reason for including the second sentence of the above quote. In it, together with the first sentence, the Belgic Confession lays bare the deepest flaw of the erroneous conception of faith you assert. This deepest flaw runs through every rationalistic consideration of faith, whether yours, Reverend Koole’s, or the Remonstrants’ in their rationalism. Your erroneous conception of faith is that it asserts “that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ.” It makes Christ insufficient. Faith as a doing or an act of man makes
Christ insufficient. Faith defined as man’s agreement with certain propositions defined by man makes Christ insufficient. These conceptions of faith are legal in their character, not organic, in spite of your vain contentions twice appearing in your letter. The faith you purport to be supported by your army is not of God the Holy Spirit but is of the vain imagination of man.
Yea, let God be true but every man a liar, as it is written.
I also express a word of caution about certain elements of your letter that demonstrate unbelief: “If the testimony of scripture is true.” “Assuming that Jesus Christ ascended into heaven.” “Even animals can be trained to have some sense of it.” “Even worldly psychology recognizes that there can be a sense of catharsis associated with it.” “All of these things can be tied to the cycle of repentance, forgiveness, and renewed positive work.”
On account of these elements, I answer your letter with deep humility and sorrow. It demonstrates in a powerful way that true, saving faith is indeed always and only a divine gift given to unworthy sinners. Only God’s grace by the Holy Spirit can break the powerful grip of depravity’s unbelief and bring that depraved unbeliever to rest in
Christ alone without reservations or conditions.
—MVW  LET TERS: CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
Article 21, Conditional?  Dear brethren in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I am writing this article from a different perspective, then some of the saints, that have already written.
I am writing because of a concern I have with regards to
Article 21 of the church order. No one appears to be troubled by this, but I believe that this is a serious error. We have just come out of the Protestant Reformed Churches, because of their conditional stand on the Word of God and the covenant. Now it would seem that we are returning to a conditional covenant with Article 21. It states that the parents must train their children in christian schools, as a demand of the covenant. I was taught that the covenant stood alone and the demands of the covenant, (the commandments from God or ten commandments) were fulfilled through the perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ. He came to this earth in our nature, and died on the cross to satisfy God’s justice for our sake. We have many references to this fulfillment in the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, Belgic confession and Scripture etc. Yet here we have a demand or condition placed in the covenant that requires our fulfilling in order for us to receive the benefits of the covenant and it’s promises by the establishment of a christian school. Here, again we have something man must do first before he receives covenant blessings.
The reason I have become more concerned, is statements Rev Lanning made in his editorial regarding Christian education as a demand of the covenant. I quote: “Although the form of a Christian school may vary according to circumstances, God’s covenant demands that there be a Christian school.” There he states that the demand is in or part of the covenant, which says that the work of
Christ in the covenant is not complete. It requires Christian schools to fulfill the covenant conditions. Further in the article he states, “Inasmuch as the covenant of God requires a Christian school, the covenant also forbids independentism in the rearing of the covenant seed.” Again
“Covenant fellowship and fulfillment requires Christian schools”. This is one of the statements in the controversy, that in order to have the Covenant fellowship of God, man has to do something first, which in this case is have a christian school. The Covenant is independent of works, as
I said earlier. The education of our children through schools is the fruit of the Covenant rather then a fulfillment of the Covenant. The catechism in the same way, shows in so many ways that the law of God is now done in gratitude not to fulfill the law for our justification, but to serve
God in love. Schooling of our children should be done out of gratitude and love. The Catechism in Art 38 does not state it as a demand of the covenant, but more like our forefathers stated, that the consistories are to see to it that the Christian Schools be maintained. This is a calling on the part of the office-bearers to oversee schools. Also when you see where our forefathers placed this question, you can see that it is placed under the heading of Thankfulness or Gratitude. The passage that Rev Lanning uses to prove a demand of the covenant Deut 6:4-9, begins with a commandment which, calls Gods people to love God with all their heart, soul and might. Jesus also takes this up in Matt 22:37-40 “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The
Lord shows that the commandments are about the love of
God, which, then shows itself, in our loving our neighbour, as part of the second table of the law. Our neighbours then, are our children who God calls us to train out of love.
So because our covenant relationship with God, is through our Lord Jesus Christ’s work, we as parents have a calling to train our children with what ever tools God provides at that time. These tools do not make the Covenant conditional to our salvation as a demand of the covenant, but are used as tools of gratitude for that purpose.
The original article of the Church Order in the 1600’s never had this statement: Quote “All consistories shall see to it that there be good school masters who not only teach the children reading, writing, languages and liberal arts but also train them in godliness and the catechism.” I realize that this was in state run schools, when the state still had some semblance of Christianity, so there was no need for schools run by christian parents. As society evolved the state run schools became corrupted so the article need  ed to evolve to include the parents, school masters and schools. After that it didn’t change much more until 1914 or around that time, when the Christian Reformed Church
Synod decided to add this statement to the church order.
They had no trouble with this because they were already on the road to a conditional doctrine. It troubled me when
I joined the Protestant Reformed Churches in 1975, that the churches accepted this statement in the church order when it was so conditional, because they claimed to be unconditional in their doctrine. But we had other difficulties with the PRC at that time and didn’t pursue it. Now we have joined the RPC and they have taken this statement and used it to explain the need for Christian Schools. Now don’t get me wrong, I agree the Christian School is a good tool for Christian parents to use and should be used, just as home schooling and the use of the internet is, and for me, it is a tool that we are blessed to use at this time, but not conditional to my salvation or my covenant fellowship with
God. Also Christian Schools in themselves cannot fulfill the covenant demand, because they are only buildings that are filled with sinful teachers and children and not the perfect work of Christ.
We as parents, have raised eight children and sent them to a Christian School, as well as home schooled some of them, due to some difficulties in the Christian School.
When I look at how sinful our attempts at training our chil  dren were, we can never say we fulfilled the demand of the covenant. And if we didn’t rest in Christs fulfillment of the covenant, we would lose the assurance of our sal  vation. Also, we trust in God’s election from before the foundation of the world that he will save the seed of his covenant people through the preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit. We took our responsibility very serious, but still see our many failures, as weak sinful parents and therefore need that assurance that Christ is our Saviour and has fulfilled the covenant demands for us.
He has made us righteous, not the act of having a Christian school. We could only do this work to the best of our ability and leave the rest in Gods hands. The results have brought joy to our lives, because we see the wonderful work of God and his Holy Spirit, in the faith of many of our children despite our failings.
As the time of Antichrist draws closer, we will not be able to have Christian Schools available to us. There are signs today, where governments are attempting to change current Christian curriculum to to their own sinful agenda.
But teachers and schools here in Canada, have so far been able to circumvent these false doctrines without incur  ring the government’s wrath. Jesus himself stated in Matt 24:16-20 that the church would be persecuted and would have to flee to the mountains, leaving behind all their worldly goods. You may say O yes, but those are exceptions, but if you study the history of the world, you will see many, many occasions when this did happen. At the time of the apostles the Christians had to flee Jerusalem, leaving behind all their schools and worldly goods. In Europe the Christians were persecuted and imprisoned and either fled to America or were sent there as prisoners. These
Christians made churches and preaching a priority, and many of the women taught their children reading and writing etc, but the parents together taught the Word of God to their children. They did this through personal instruction and example as well as catechism by the preachers.
There are many more examples of Christians fleeing. Even today many Christians are fleeing and being persecuted.
Did all of these parents then fail to fulfill the demands of the covenant by not establishing a christian school. Were they not saved or receive the assurance of covenant blessings? No of course not! We have been spoiled with wealth and riches, so it is easy to say that the school is required as part of the covenant, making it a conditional covenant, but it was not always so. As society changes again, we also need to remove that statement from article 21, to meet the needs of the parents. They will still have the responsibility of training their children in the Word of God no matter where they are and with what tools are available to them. So again the child of God would be a failure in training, because there would be no schools to send them to, resulting in the breaking of the covenant and no salvation or covenant fellowship for them.
As you can see this is very troubling for me. I have studied some church orders from other reformed churches, and none of them have accepted this statement in their church order. I will quote three of these here.
United Reformed Church: The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in
Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practised. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the ministers and the deacons faithfully dis  charge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centred schooling, visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, etc.
Free Reformed Church, Art 54: The Consistories shall see to it that the parents, in harmony with the promises made at the baptism of their children, have them taught at schools where the instruction is in accordance with the
Word of God and the Three Forms of Unity.
Canadian Reformed Church, Art 58: The consistory shall ensure that the parents, to the best of their ability, have their children attend a school where the instruction given is in harmony with the Word of God as the church has summarized it in her confessions.
I can quote more of them, but will limit it to three. The
CRC of Australia has removed this statement as well, and the Free Reformed of Australia also does not use it. Also as you can see the Canadian Reformed Church doesn’t have the demand in their church order. The schools are well attended, the buildings have expanded, and more teachers hired, to handle the new students that attend. When the
CRC began to ignore the demand of the covenant, it was not the cause of the lack of school attendance. The CRC by 2005 had failed to maintain the truth of the Word of
God, so that many of the saints of God had fled the church.
The preaching no longer called the people of God to bring forth the covenant seed, so the people used birth control which resulted in a large loss of the number of children.
Couples would also delay having children until they were financially established. This is my experience in Canada.
If the churches stay true to preaching the truth of  Gods Word, the guiding of the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of Gods people the love of God and their children, to move them to send their children to a Christian School.
The baptismal form is correct when it states that the parents make a promise before God to raise their children in the truth of Gods Word. This promise does not make their covenant relationship with God conditional, but comes out of that covenant relationship of fellowship and friendship in the work of our Saviour, which blessings they have received. I think Rev Lanning describes the Covenant very nicely. They realize that when making this promise, it is in sin and weakness, but to the best of their ability, through the work of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise they could never make such a promise. The parents also will train their children, because first they love their children dearly and wish them to have the joy that we as parents have in salvation. Secondly they love God dearly as the Holy Spirit guides them to know Gods love and grace, which results in the blessed work of raising these children in his name, using Christian Schools as they are available. As Gods says, our weakness manifests Gods grace, wisdom and power.
I am writing this so that the ministers, elders and deacons and the saints in our church may think on this and discuss it. Some may not agree with me but I am convicted that this is a conditional statement and should be studied, looked at and even removed.
So I believe that the article in the church order should be changed so that it does not reflect a conditional covenant, thereby attempting to mislead Gods people to think that training their children in a Christian school, is a good work that will fulfill the covenant or that it may take away their hope of salvation because they recognize, how sinful and with what frailty, they preformed their calling before their God.
Your brother in Christ Art Tolsma.
From the First PRC of Edmonton.  REPLY  As Mr. Tolsma’s letter indicates, the Reformed Protestant Churches are in the midst of controversy regarding the Reformed doctrine of the Christian school. The Reformed doctrine of the Christian school, as stated in article 21 of the Church Order, is that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant. The Reformed doctrine of the Christian school, as stated in Lord’s Day 38 of the
Heidelberg Catechism, is that the fourth commandment requires that the Christian schools be maintained. Some members of the Reformed Protestant Churches deny that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant and that the Christian school is required by God. In this denial they stand opposed to their own confession and to their own Church Order. Their denial of the Reformed doctrine of the Christian school has erupted in controversy in the Reformed Protestant Churches.
Mr. Tolsma’s letter marks an advance in the controversy. For this reason I am very thankful for his letter. I heartily disagree with his letter, but I am grateful that he has advanced the controversy. The controversy over the
Reformed doctrine of the Christian school has been good for the Reformed Protestant Churches. God uses controversy to sharpen his church and to reform his church.
The reform is either that the church stands upon sound doctrine, to the exclusion of those who oppose the sound doctrine; or that a church institute apostatizes from sound doctrine, so that a new church institute must be formed. Mr. Tolsma’s advance of the controversy will also be good for the Reformed Protestant Churches, under
God’s blessing.
Mr. Tolsma advances the controversy by bringing to the pages of  Sword and Shield  an issue that has been mentioned in the magazine in principle but that has not been explicitly addressed in the magazine. Mr. Tolsma recognizes this:
I am writing this article from a different perspective, then some of the saints, that have already written.
I am writing because of a concern I have with regards to Article 21 of the church order. No one appears to be troubled by this, but I believe that this is a serious error.
To this point the debate on the pages of  Sword and
Shield  has been whether the word “schools” in the confessions and Church Order actually means  schools  or whether the word “schools” can also mean  homeschools  or something other than  schools  . The debate has also been whether the phrase “demands of the covenant” and the word “require” apply to the school or only to covenantal instruction. That is, is the school the demand of the covenant, or is the demand of the covenant only Christian upbringing, whether that happens in a school or not?
The debate has also been whether or not scripture teaches that the school is the demand of the covenant.
Mr. Tolsma’s letter now advances the controversy by alleging that a demand of the covenant is a condition of the covenant. For him the debate is not what “schools” mean but what “demands of the covenant” mean. For
Mr. Tolsma “demands of the covenant” mean “conditions of the covenant.” Therefore, he rejects article 21 of the
Church Order with its language of “the demands of the covenant” because he is convicted that the article teaches a conditional covenant. This marks an advance in the controversy. The question that Mr. Tolsma now puts to the Reformed Protestant Churches is, “Article 21, Conditional?” The answer that he proposes to the Reformed
Protestant Churches is that “demands of the covenant” in article 21 “is a conditional statement and should be studied, looked at and even removed.” The end of the matter for Mr. Tolsma, and he hopes for the Reformed
Protestant Churches, is “that the article in the church order should be changed so that it does not reflect a conditional covenant.”  Mr. Tolsma is an opponent of article 21, but he is one of the few opponents of article 21 who reads right. He correctly understands that “demands of the covenant” in article 21 refer to “schools” and not only to Christian instruction: “[Article 21] states that the parents must train their children in christian schools, as a demand of the covenant.”
Mr. Tolsma is correct in his understanding that article 21 identifies the school as the demand of the covenant.
In this understanding he breaks ranks with his fellow opponents of article 21. Opposition to article 21 usually takes the form of an opponent’s denying that the phrase
“the demands of the covenant” refers to “schools.” The opponent of article 21 insists that “the demands of the covenant” refer only to Christian parental instruction but not to schools. For the opponent of article 21, the good
Christian school is not a demand of the covenant.
This is the Protestant Reformed opposition to article 21 by its reinterpretation of the article at its 2009 synod.
The phrase “according to the demands of the covenant” in Article 21 modifies “instructed” and not “the good Christian schools.” Thus, according to Article 21, what the covenant  demands  is Christian instruction; but the covenant does not demand the particular form this instruction takes, namely, the Christian day schools.1
Within the Reformed Protestant Churches, this is the opposition to article 21 by Rev. Martin VanderWal.
But does this Article state that “good Christian schools” are “the demands of the covenant”? Cutting out the middle part of the article is it proper to read it this way: “The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools according to the demands of the covenant.”
Should one read the Article this way, he cannot reach the conclusion that good Christian schools are the demand of the covenant...
If “the demands of the covenant” were meant to apply to Christian schools themselves, it would not have been written in its form in the Church
Order.2
This interpretation of article 21 is opposition to the article because it guts the article of its plain force and meaning. Article 21 reads, “The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant” (  Confessions and Church Order  , 387).
The plain subject of article 21 is the “good Christian schools.” The article says nothing about other forms of child-rearing, such as parental instruction in the home or catechetical instruction in the church. Article 21 is strictly about the “good Christian schools.” The requirement of article 21 is that “the consistories shall see to it.” Consistories shall see to it that there are schools, and consistories shall see to it that parents have their children instructed in those schools. Though there are many other things that parents also ought to be doing in the rearing of their children, article 21 says nothing about those other things. The one subject of article 21 is the good Christian schools.
Therefore, when article 21 brings up “the demands of the covenant,” it brings up those demands as the reason consistories shall see to the good Christian schools. The  schools  are “according to the demands of the covenant.”
Consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools because good Christian schools are the demand of the covenant. Consistories shall see to it that parents have their children instructed in these schools because good
Christian schools are the demand of the covenant.
I suppose that we could wrangle forever over the grammar of article 21 and never come to an agreement about which phrase modifies which. But all of this wrangling is put to rest by Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg
Catechism. Lord’s Day 38 explains the fourth commandment of God’s law. God’s law is a covenant law.
It is the law of “the L ord thy God” (Ex. 20:2). “The
Lord thy God” is God’s covenant formula. The law is
God’s demand for his covenant people, teaching them how to live in gratitude to their covenant God. To borrow the language of Church Order article 21, we could say that the ten commandments are “the demands of the covenant.” Lord’s Day 38 teaches that in the fourth commandment, “God require[s]...that...the schools be maintained” (  Confessions and Church Order  , 128). In the fourth commandment the demand of the covenant is the school.
It is so simple! Our covenant God requires the school.
Why, then, all of the angst and wrangling over article 21? Why all of the endless prattle to prove that
“the demands of the covenant” cannot possibly modify
“good Christian schools”? It is the plain teaching of the
Reformed confession that God’s covenant law for his people requires that they maintain Christian schools. It is not a strange new thing for a Reformed denomination to teach that the school is the demand of the covenant.
The Christian school as demand of the covenant is the old paths.
It is here where I appreciate Mr. Tolsma’s honesty in dealing with article 21. He is an opponent of article 21, but he is one of the few opponents of article 21 who correctly understands that the demand of the covenant in article 21 is the school itself.  However, Mr. Tolsma is gravely mistaken in his explanation of how the demand of the covenant functions. For
Mr. Tolsma a demand of the covenant can only function as a condition in the covenant. For Mr. Tolsma a demand of the covenant can only mean something that man does first in the covenant in order to receive what God will do second in the covenant.
Yet here we have a demand or condition placed in the covenant that requires our fulfilling in order for us to receive the benefits of the covenant and it’s promises by the establishment of a christian school. Here, again we have something man must do first before he receives covenant blessings.
Mr. Tolsma’s understanding of demands is wrong in two respects. First, Mr. Tolsma wrongly understands the phrase “demands  of  the covenant” to mean “demands  unto  the covenant.” That is, he assumes that if God demands anything in his covenant with man, then man must fulfill that covenant demand before man can obtain covenant fellowship with God. The demands, then, are the conditions, prerequisites, and contingencies upon which God’s fellowship with man depends.
With this misunderstanding Mr. Tolsma reads every reference to a  demand of  the covenant to mean a  condition unto  the covenant. For example, he takes statements such as
“Although the form of a Christian school may vary according to circumstances, God’s covenant demands that there be a Christian school” to mean “There he states that the demand is in or part of the covenant, which says that the work of Christ in the covenant is not complete. It requires
Christian schools to fulfill the covenant conditions.”
Mr. Tolsma’s error is his assumption that a demand  of  the covenant is a demand  unto  the covenant. The reality is that a demand  of  the covenant means a demand  because of  the covenant. God has established his covenant of grace with elect believers and their seed in Christ. God has graciously made his people members of his family and taken them into his fellowship. God graciously maintains that covenant, perfects that covenant, and gives his people all of the blessed joy of that covenant. There is nothing that
God’s people are required to do in order to remain in the covenant or in order to prosper in the covenant.
Now, God gives demands to his people  because of  that covenant that he has established and maintains. Not  unto  the covenant but  because of  the covenant. They are to love him. They are to love their neighbors. They are to have no idols. They are to go to church. They are to maintain schools. And they are to do all of this not in order that they may have a covenant with God but because they already have a covenant with God by his gracious establishment of that covenant with them in Christ.
Another way to say this is that the  why  of the demand is all-important. The difference between a conditional covenant and an unconditional covenant is not whether there are demands in the covenant. It is not the case that a conditional covenant says that there are demands in the covenant and an unconditional covenant says that there are no demands in the covenant. Rather, the difference between a conditional covenant and an unconditional covenant is the  reason  for the demands. In conditional covenant doctrine the reason for the demand is so that man may obtain something from God by his obedience to the demand. In unconditional covenant doctrine the reason for the demand is because God has already given man everything by his grace.
You can test this by asking the question, why? about the demands.
Love God. Why? So that God will love you. That is conditional.  Love God. Why? Because God already loves you.
That is unconditional.
Love your neighbor. Why? So that God will be merciful to you. That is conditional.
Love your neighbor.Why? Because God has already been merciful to you. That is unconditional.
So also with the Christian school as a demand of the covenant, the all-important question is, why?
Establish a Christian school as a demand of the covenant. Why? So that God will make his covenant with you and your children. That is conditional.
Establish a Christian school as a demand of the covenant. Why? Because God has already made his covenant with you and your children. That is unconditional.
When the Reformed confessions and Church Order speak of the Christian school as a requirement and as the demand of the covenant, they are speaking of an unconditional demand. They are not speaking of prerequisites, but they are speaking of demands of gratitude that we owe to God as thanksgiving for what he has already done.
The second respect in which Mr. Tolsma’s understanding is wrong is with regard to the work of Christ. Mr.
Tolsma refers several times to Christ’s fulfillment of the law for his people. For example:
I was taught that the covenant stood alone and the demands of the covenant, (the commandments from God or ten commandments) were fulfilled through the perfect work of our Lord
Jesus Christ. He came to this earth in our nature, and died on the cross to satisfy God’s justice for our sake.
Mr. Tolsma’s error is that he understands Christ’s fulfillment of the law in the place of his people to be the abrogation of the law in every respect for God’s people. Mr.
Tolsma writes in several places about Christ’s fulfilling the demands and that we can never fulfill the demands, and thus that we do not ever have to fulfill the demands. Mr.
Tolsma is absolutely correct that Christ fulfilled the entire demand of the law and that we cannot fulfill the demand and that we do not ever have to fulfill the demand. This is the good news of the gospel.
Where Mr. Tolsma goes wrong is his assumption that the law, now fulfilled by Christ, has no place in the life of the believer. The truth of the matter is that the law is the rule and standard of the believer’s life of gratitude.
Our relationship to the law is not that we must fulfill it.
Christ did that. He was under the law, so that we are not under the law but under grace. The law is now the light upon the believer’s feet to show him how he is to walk in this world to God’s glory. There are law, commandment, and demand for the child of God, but he is not under any law. There are law, commandment, and demand for the child of God, but Christ has already fulfilled all of them.
The child of God is not saved by his obedience to law, commandment, and demand. The child of God is saved by Christ in order that he may obey law, commandment, and demand in gratitude.  Mr. Tolsma’s misunderstanding is a grave error. His error would abolish any commands, requirements, and demands from the covenant. According to Mr. Tolsma, a demand of the covenant is a condition of the covenant.
Therefore, there may be no demands of the covenant.
With this understanding we would have to remove not only article 21 of the Church Order but also the Reformed creeds and liturgical forms. We may no longer have the baptism form (“Therefore are we by God, through baptism, admonished of and obliged unto new obedience”) or the Catechism’s explanation of the law (“What doth
God require?”).
I write in general now and not specifically regarding
Mr. Tolsma. Let not only Mr. Tolsma, but also me and all of God’s people hear this. The error of the letter is so grave that it must be rejected out of hand as a corruption of the Reformed faith. One who holds such a position is guilty of unbelief. One who holds such a position maintains doctrines inconsistent with Christianity. Such an one must be put out of the kingdom of heaven by
Christian discipline, except he repent (Lord’s Day 31, in  Confessions and Church Order  , 119).
The position advocated in the letter marks a significant advance in the school controversy for the Reformed Protestant Churches. The advance is that those who attempt to make the demand of gratitude into a condition will be excluded from the churches by discipline. The false doctrine of turning the demand of gratitude into a condition in order to reject the demand will be exposed for the unbelief that it is. The churches will have peace in the gospel and will live together with God and with each other in the life of his gracious covenant, not troubled by false brethren.
Let all who are entangled in the erroneous thinking repent toward God and believe in Jesus Christ. And may
God preserve the Reformed Protestant Churches in the doctrine and the blessing of his covenant.
—AL  Dear Editor,
Thank you for your response to my letter in the May 2022 issue of Sword & Shield. Thank you for your response and especially your criticisms. It is responses like this that help us sharpen one another in the truth. I can see how my first letter was a bit confusing and contradictory, so I would like to begin by clarifying what I believe regarding the demand of the covenant and christian education.
In the first place, I believe the christian school is still grounded in the demand of the covenant, even though the school is not itself  the  demand of the covenant. The reason why parents (not you, not me, but the parents collectively) decide to start a school is because they see it as necessary for themselves as parents to fulfill their covenant callings.
As I understand the first point of your response, you contend that there can be no ground for starting a christian school unless the school is itself required by the demand of the covenant. However, just because the school is not required does not mean that parents cannot start a school and that there cannot be any other proper grounds for starting one. Bible studies and special services are not required either, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have them to help us fulfill our callings to be daily in the Word, to edify one another, and to redeem the time. There is therefore nothing wrong with establishing schools as tools to aid in rearing one’s children and instructing them of God in every area of life. Nor must we necessarily conclude that parents are abdicating their calling by hiring teachers to stand in their place for a part of the day. Certainly, if the parents view the school and use the school as a replacement for their personal instruction of their children and figure they have fulfilled their calling simply by sending them to the christian school, then they would be abdicating their call  ing. But, when the schools and teachers are used as tools and aides rather than as replacements, then they can be properly used by parents without abdicating their calling, which I maintain does indeed belong to them as parents. If the parents decide that a school would be helpful, then they can form one. Such is not sin and no one has to legislate to them when they need to form one. But if all the parents in a church believe they can fulfill their calling best by homeschooling, then I don’t understand what would be wrong with that. Why is it wrong for all the parents in a church to decide to home-school rather than form a school?
In the second place, I believe you are correct that
CO art 21 and the confessions have in mind institut  ed schools rather than home-schools when they refer to schools. However, I also do not believe that the meaning of the articles would be changed at all if the word “school” was replaced with “christian education.” Just as much as the history may show that “school” refers to instituted schools, so also does the history show that the concern of those writing the articles was not so much that a school was formed but that the children be educated in the fear of the Lord. (See The Church Order Commentary, Third
Edition, by Idzerd Van Dellen, Martin Monsma, pg. 92ff and Notes on the Church Order, by Prof. Herman Hanko). When the CO was written, the schools were a given, and it was a given that the parents sent their children to the schools. This is because of the church/state relationship that existed in the Netherlands. The Netherlands was interested in raising up good, Reformed Netherlanders, so they delegated to the church the calling to make sure the education in the schools was Reformed. The main concern was not the school itself but the content of the education in the school. The purpose behind CO art. 21 was to make sure all the children were instructed from a Reformed perspective. The schools may have been the way the children were being instructed at that time, but the main concern was what they were being taught. Since consistories today still have the calling to oversee the spiritual life of the parents and children, they still have the calling to ensure that parents are fulfilling their calling to instruct their children in the fear of the Lord.
Furthermore, even the wording of CO art. 21 itself identifies instruction as the demand of the covenant rather than the school as the demand of the covenant. In CO art 21, “according to the demand of the covenant” is modifying “instructed,” not “school.” They must be “ instructed according to the demand of the covenant,” which is to say that they must be instructed in the fear of the Lord. I do not understand how it is impossible for parents to rear their children in the fear of the Lord through homeschooling.
Thus, while the CO and confessions clearly see christian schools as important, the deeper question we must answer is: why do they consider those schools so important? I believe the answer is not because the school itself is a de  mand of the covenant as such, but because they see them as instrumental in rearing the children in the fear of the
Lord so that they can take up their callings in the church and so that men will be prepared for the ministry. Therefore, while schools mean instituted schools in the CO and the confessions, the overall meaning would not be lost if the word “school” was eliminated.
In the third place, I can see how using phrasing from
Deuteronomy 6 in connection with the calling each of us has toward the children of the church is confusing. You are correct that I do not believe that Deuteronomy 6 is instructing all of Israel in what they are to do collectively as a body. As I explained in my first letter, I believe God in
Deuteronomy 6 is instructing all of the fathers in Israel regarding their individual calling to rear their own children in the fear of the Lord. While this calling to rear a child in the fear of the Lord belongs to that child’s parents particularly, that does not mean that all the rest of the members of the church have no calling whatsoever toward that child. As I demonstrated from several other passages of scripture in my first letter, each of us in the church does have a calling toward every other member of the church, including each child, when we come into contact with each other.
When God brings one of the children of the church upon my pathway, I have a calling to be a godly example, instruct and admonish them as the opportunity arises, and demonstrate care, love and compassion toward them. This is included in my calling to love God and my neighbor, which is the summary of the whole law, which God gave to all Israel in Deuteronomy 5. We all share in this common calling to love God and our neighbor, but the keeping of this calling is, nevertheless, performed by each of us individually, beginning in our individual hearts. You contend that God’s address to “Israel” in Deuteronomy 6 indicates that the following instruction is something they are to fulfill together as a body. However, the “Israel” being addressed in Deuteronomy 6 is the same “Israel” being addressed in  Deuteronomy 5. If you could explain how God was indeed instructing all of Israel in what they were called to do collectively in the giving of the 10 commandments in Deuteronomy 5, that would be helpful to me in understanding how God’s calling to all Israel in Deuteronomy 6 is also a calling they are to perform collectively rather than indi  vidually. To help me understand how the christian school is itself the demand of the covenant, therefore, I would appreciate it if you could explain at least one of the following: 1. How my understanding of Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 78 as set forth in my first letter is in error, 2. How the school is an ordinance of God as the way He has ordained that parents are to instruct their children, which ordinance therefore is required or 3. How it is impossible for parents to fulfill their covenantal calling to instruct their children in the fear of the Lord through homeschooling.
As for your last editorial in the May 2022 issue, I can see how the truth of election and the truth that the children belong to God explains why they must be instructed in the fear of the Lord, but I do not see how it explains why they must be instructed in a school and why parents must cooperate in this instruction. Could you further explain how the truth of election requires that parents cooperate in instructing their children in a christian school?
Sincerely in Christ,
Sara Doezema  REPLY  I do not agree with the perspective of this letter that the writer and the editor are sharpening one another by our correspondence. My perspective is that the writer and the editor have a sharp doctrinal disagreement with one another and that we are engaged in mortal combat for the destruction of one of our positions and the establishment of the other position. I know that this may sound harsh to some, just as some apparently considered my previous reply to Miss Doezema to be harsh.1 For what it is worth,
I do not intend to be harsh to Miss Doezema personally.
But I do intend to be clearly and sharply Reformed. I also intend that any doctrinal position that is not Reformed be driven from our midst. I believe that Miss Doezema shares this intention. Miss Doezema writes with a certain grace of style and deference of tone that may be lack  ing in my writing, but her letter is still very clear that the position that I am advocating is unbiblical. The letter is very clear that I must abandon my doctrinal position on the school and that I must allow for a biblical and confessional right to homeschool. In our correspondence neither one of us is at some stage of sharpening the other, but we are locked in an attempt to overthrow the error that we perceive the other to hold. It is in that spirit of controversy on behalf of the truth that I intend to write this reply, God being gracious. In order to make clear that
I am attacking a doctrine and not a person, I intend to refer in my reply to “the letter” and not to “Miss Doezema.”
The issue for which the letter contends is that the parent alone has the covenant calling to rear his own children. The demand of the covenant is merely Christian content in education, but the demand of the covenant is not the Christian school. The parent may decide to have a Christian school, but he may just as legitimately decide to homeschool. Because the demand of the covenant is not the school, no one may require the parent to have a
Christian school.  I believe the christian school is still grounded in the demand of the covenant, even though the school is not itself  the  demand of the covenant.
The reason why parents (not you, not me, but the parents collectively) decide to start a school is because they see it as necessary for themselves as parents to fulfill their covenant callings.
If the parents decide that a school would be helpful, then they can form one. Such is not sin and no one has to legislate to them when they need to form one. But if all the parents in a church believe they can fulfill their calling best by homeschooling, then I don’t understand what would be wrong with that. Why is it wrong for all the parents in a church to decide to homeschool rather than form a school?
I consider this position to be entirely contrary to the
Reformed confessions, the Reformed Church Order, and the Reformed doctrine of God’s covenant of grace with believers and their seed. I have written and spoken about this at length already, as has Reverend Langerak, so I will not repeat every argument. Let me only say here that the letter’s position and my position cannot exist together in the church of Christ. One is Reformed, the other is not.
One is confessional, the other is not. One is love, the other is not. It is up to each individual and family to decide where they stand. If one agrees with my position, then that one is Reformed Protestant. If one agrees with the letter’s position, then that one is not Reformed Protestant.
Such an one must either be instructed so that he understands his own confessions or he must leave the Reformed
Protestant Churches (RPC). (And before anyone shouts,
“Hierarchy!” those who agree with the letter must leave not because I say so or because I am the measure of what is Reformed Protestant but because the Reformed confessions and Church Order of the Reformed Protestant
Churches do not allow for the letter’s position.)
As for the specifics of the letter, here are my brief replies.
First, I maintain that if the school is not a demand of the covenant, then no parent has a right to form a school.
The letter’s examples of a Bible study or special services are entirely beside the point. In a school teachers stand  in the place of  parents. That is not the case in a Bible study or special services. God says to you, “Heed my word.”
You don’t send your friend to church in place of you. You go to church, and you perhaps go to Bible study. So also in a school, if God says to the parent alone, “You teach your children,” then the parent is not at liberty to say to God, “Well, I sent my friend in place of me.” God says, “You rear your children,” and rear your children you must, without anyone standing in your place. This is why when one denies that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant, one must eventually destroy the school.
The homeschooling movement and the Christian school cannot exist side by side. So I say again to our readers, if you are of the homeschooling movement, either repent of your loveless independentism or leave the Reformed
Protestant Churches. (And before anyone cries, “Hierarchy!” I say this not because it is my denomination to order around, thanks be to God, but because the Reformed confessions of the RPC do not allow the homeschooling movement to exist in the RPC.)
Second, the letter is ignorant of the history of Christian schools. The letter proposes that the real concern of our Reformed fathers was not schools as such but merely that the content of the children’s instruction be Christian.
So, the theory goes, when the fathers formulated article 21 of the Church Order, their references to “schoolmasters” and later to “schools” merely reflected the local circumstances in the Netherlands. Schools just happened to be a given at the time. But the fathers could just as easily have written about “homeschools” if they wanted because their only concern was the content of the children’s instruction.
This theory is preposterously wrong, but it is popular. It is the favorite theory of those who want to divorce
“the demands of the covenant” in article 21 from “good
Christian schools” in article 21. If one can assert that the only point of article 21 is that there be Christian instruction, then “schools” can mean anything. Any place where Christian instruction is given is now a school. How absurd this is! If you give Christian instruction in your home, then your home is a school? Well, what about when I pray before eating pizza at Chuck E. Cheese? In my prayer I have given Christian instruction to my children. Is Chuck E. Cheese now a good Christian school referred to in article 21 of the Church Order? Absurd!
Here is clarity. A home is a home. A school is a school.
Chuck E. Cheese is Chuck E. Cheese. I may give Christian instruction in all of them, but that does not make all of them a school.
The truth is that the concern of our Reformed fathers was just as much that there be schools as it was that there be Christian instruction. Schools and Christian instruction were inseparable for our fathers. The schools were the institutions where the covenant children would be reared in the
Reformed and Christian faith. Our fathers’ insistence on schools was not merely a reflection of circumstances as they happened to find them in their own day. Their insistence on schools was deliberate. The only difficulty in demon  strating this is to limit oneself to a quotation or two, when one could just as easily quote the entire history of the Reformation. Here is a quotation from Luther:
When schools prosper, the Church remains righteous and her doctrine pure...Young pupils and students are the seed and source of the Church. If we were dead, whence would come our successors, if not from the schools? For the sake of the Church we must have and maintain Christian schools.2
Here is a quotation from a historian regarding the influence of the Christian schools that the Reformation established: “Everywhere the evangelical Reformation flourished, Christian school education was right there on the front line and provided depth and durability to its noble objectives.”3
The theory that our Reformed fathers were only interested in Christian content is wrong. This theory should stop being peddled to us as if it were great knowledge.
Our Reformed fathers required schools.
Third, the whole debate about which phrase modifies which in article 21 of the Church Order has worn thin for me. We could debate whether “demands of the covenant” is about schools until Gabriel’s horn sounds, but advocates for homeschooling will not accept that it is, just as I will not accept that it is not. We could debate about whether
“schools” means schools until we are interred, but advocates for homeschooling will keep the term up for grabs, just as I will insist that the term is not up for grabs.
Happily, we do not have to debate forever about article 21. The debate about article 21 of the Church Order is settled by Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism. What does God require? That the schools be maintained. It is as simple and clear as that. God requires schools. Not merely
Christian education. Not a homeschool. But schools. God requires schools. To what purpose, then, is the homeschool movement’s endless wrangling about article 21? The
Reformed confession is that God requires schools.
Therefore, if you want to be Reformed Protestant, you must not debate and wrangle about article 21. And if you do not want schools to be the demand of the covenant in article 21, then you are not Reformed Protestant. I wish you would be instructed on the matter from your own confession in Lord’s Day 38. I maintain that it is your duty to be instructed on this matter. But if you will not heed this instruction, then you should separate from the RPC, go your own way, and have your own church where “schools” can mean whatever you want it to mean. As for the RPC,
God being gracious to us, we will happily and gratefully hold our confession in Lord’s Day 38: God requires schools.
Fourth, the constant agitation over Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 78 is fruitless. I have explained how these passages are the biblical foundation for the Reformed doctrine of the school. The letter takes issue with that explanation, offers its own explanation again, and asks for clarification on how these passages teach the Christian school as demand of the covenant.
This correspondence is becoming like the controversy between Baptists and the Reformed over the doctrine of infant baptism. There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly says, “Baptize infants.” The doctrine of infant baptism is certainly found throughout the scriptures and can be decisively demonstrated from the scriptures. The doctrine of infant baptism is established by the biblical doctrine of God’s covenant with believers and their seed.
Reformed churches confess in their confessions (Belgic
Confession 34 and Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 27) what they have found in the scriptures regarding infant baptism. The Baptists hear all of this explained to them again and again, but they still do not accept it. They complain that the verses that we cite do not explicitly say,
“Baptize infants.”
So it is with the biblical basis for the Christian school.
The doctrine that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant is found throughout scripture and can be decisively demonstrated from the scriptures. The doctrine of the school as demand of the covenant is established by the biblical doctrine of God’s covenant with believers and their seed. Reformed churches confess in their confes  sions (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 38) what they have found in the scriptures regarding the schools. Those who are opposed to the school as demand of the covenant hear all of this explained to them again and again, but they still do not accept it. They basically complain that the verses that we cite do not explicitly say, “The school is the demand of the covenant.”
If there are readers opposed to my explanation of Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 78 and who are in favor of the letter’s explanation, my reexplanation of the passages (followed no doubt by another reexplanation of the passages and another) is not going to advance anything. If anyone is interested in being instructed on the matter, I highly recommend that he listen to Rev. Nathan Langerak’s speech given for Sovereign Reformed Protestant Church in Iowa.4
There are members of the RPC who are at a crossroads. The dividing point is the doctrine of the Christian school. The choice is clear. Either maintain the stand of the RPC as that stand is expressed in her confessions and
Church Order or find or form a church that will maintain your stand.
—AL  FINALLY, BRETHREN, FAREWELL  Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.—2 Corinthians 13:11  Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.  —James 1:19
Obeloved brethren, whom God begot of his own will with the word of truth. You are those in whose hearts God has also planted the Word, even Jesus Christ our savior. We are the firstfruits of every creature, the beginning of the recreation of all things in our head Jesus Christ, and thus the center of the new creation in the perfection of
God’s covenant of grace. We are such by the engrafted Word! Engrafted first in the incarnation, death, and burial of Jesus
Christ. Sprung up to new life in the resurrection of Christ and implanted by the Holy Ghost in our hearts. Receive with meekness the engrafted Word! Let every man humble himself and become nothing before that Word. Let every man give all glory to that Word for his salvation. Let every man cleave to the Word as his salvation. Let every man obey his voice today while it is yet today. For that Word ever speaks and is ever heard in the house of God.
And so, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.
Slow to speak because man is quick to object. He excuses himself in the face of the Word’s condemnation of him. He justifies his works in the face of the Word’s condemnation of his works. He replies against the Word that it is nothing more than the preacher’s opinion, and he is welcome to it. He objects to the Word that it is totally out of touch with reality, is unfair, or is hierarchy in the church. He replies against the Word that it is nothing more than the preacher’s agenda. And by his objections and condemnations of the Word, he declares that it is not in fact the Word of God at all.
And man is quick to object to the Word because he is quick to wrath. The Word brings condemnation, a rebuke, heavenly wisdom antithetical to man’s wisdom, division in the family, or the cross of suffering into a man’s life. And a man is quickly angry at the Word’s interference—as he says—in his life. A man is incensed because the Word condemns his way of life. A man is angry because the Word brought division among his friends. A man is mad because the Word condemned his family. And angry at the Word, the man reacts against the Word with denunciations.
And man has this reaction to the Word because of filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness. Filthiness is simply worldliness. Our objections against the Word and anger with the Word of God come from our flesh, which loves the world. And superfluity of naughtiness means that this filthiness is a fountain of malice in us toward the Word himself.
Such a man will receive the Word the same way that the innkeeper of Bethlehem received him, so that there was no room for him in the inn. Such a man will receive the Word the same way that Nazareth received him, by trying to push him off a cliff. Such a man will receive the Word the same way that Israel received her prophets, whom they killed because the Word of God enraged them. Such a man will receive the Word the same way that Pontius Pilate and Herod and the Sanhedrin received him, which was not at all, and he will crucify the Word.
Rather, let every man, beloved brethren, be swift to hear. For in that Word is not a preacher’s agenda, worldly wisdom, or cunningly crafted lies, but the Word made flesh, the Word that is able to save your souls.
—NJL  

Footnotes:

1 Part two of the letter was merely many, many pages of quotations from the Reformed fathers. In Reverend Langerak’s response he explains in general why this kind of quotation cannot establish the writer’s point. The letter writer’s theology and argument are fully contained in part one of his letter, which is printed in its entirety. Therefore, the editors have not published part two.—AL 1 Acts of Synod and Yearbook of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America 2020 , 78–82. 2 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 1:53 6; emphasis added.
1 Kenneth Koole, “Response,” Standard Bearer 95, no. 12 (March 15, 2019): 279.
2 David J. Engelsma, “Faith as a Doing?,” Standard Bearer 96, no. 4 (November 15, 2019): 83–84. 1 Acts of Synod and Yearbook of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America 2009 , article 81, 72–73. 2 Martin VanderWal, “Good Christian Schools and Article 21,” October 13, 2022, https://notallpiousandecclesiastical.wordpress. com/2022/10/13/good-christian-schools-and-article-21/.
1 Andrew Lanning, “Reply,” Sword and Shield 2, no. 18 (May 2022): 13–17. 2 Quoted in Paul A. Kienel, A History of Christian School Education (Colorado Springs, CO: The Association of Christian Schools Interna- tional, 1998), 1:167.
3 Kienel, A History of Christian School Education , 180. 4 Nathan J. Langerak, “The Necessity and Demand of the Christian School,” October 14, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3dmg PsLXzU.

Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.  —Psalm 136:25
Jehovah is good. He is only good. He is always good. He is good in himself as the perfect God in whom there is no shadow due to turning. He is good as the infinitely perfect, true, and living God. He is wholly good. In all God’s being there is only goodness, perfect goodness, ethical perfection. There is no evil and no possibility of evil in God. He alone is good. He is good absolutely.
Then he is good in his deeds too. He is good in his counsel in every single act and decision. He cannot do evil. He decrees that evil happen and incorporates it into his eternal counsel as that for which he has a good pur  pose and through which he will be glorified as the only good God. For this cause did he raise up Pharaoh—and all his evil—that God might show his power and get himself glory on Pharaoh. Israel came into Egypt, and God turned the hearts of the Egyptians to deal subtly with them, and the Israelites came into bondage in order that he deliver his people and destroy Egypt. Nothing—also nothing evil—happens outside of the decree of the one true and only good God.
Thus in all that he does in the world, Jehovah is good, only good, and never evil. He is good in his wonders.
He was good when he made the heavens and stretched out the earth and made great lights. Jehovah was good when he smote the firstborn of Egypt. He was good in that he brought out Israel and good when he made Israel pass through the sea. Good in that he overthrew Pharaoh, good when he slew famous kings and cast out the
Canaanites and gave their land to Israel for a heritage and type of an eternal home in the new heaven and new earth.
Good is Jehovah, only and ever good.
He is good who gives food to all flesh.
Yet one more example of his goodness. One more good deed proceeding from his good counsel is that Jehovah gives food to all flesh.
To flesh!
The angels are spirits. They are sustained by the inexhaustible fountain of all strength in God by his Spirit.
Their meat is to do the will of their God day and night.
They are creatures too who are dependent upon God for their strength. In him they live and move and have their being. Yet they need no food.
But flesh! Flesh is that which is of the earth earthy. Its form and substance is for this earth. Flesh refers to the animate and sentient creatures that inhabit the earth: the birds that fly in the heaven, the animals upon the land, the fish of the sea, and the myriad creeping and crawling things in all their untold variety.
But flesh refers especially to man. Flesh describes man as he came forth from the dust of the ground and from the hands of God. Flesh is skin, bones, and blood to touch, taste, and handle. Flesh stands for all of man’s wisdom, man’s strength, man’s ingenuity, man’s intelligence, man’s plans, and man’s works.
Flesh, whether of man or beast, needs food, some food, to sustain his life. That was true of Adam in the beginning and in his state of perfection. God made the trees of the garden for food for flesh. Preeminent among the trees God made the tree of life. The need for food is true of man after the fall too. His fleeting existence is sustained by food. Take away his food, and he dies.
Jehovah gives food to all flesh! He gives food to beasts, birds, fish, and creeping things. The scriptures speak eloquently of his giving food to all flesh. He daily listens as the lions roar, and he hunts their prey for them and satisfies the appetites of the young lions. He causes the eagles to mount up on their wings to hunt for food. Levi  athan plays before him, and behemoth stalks the hills in his sight. These all look to Jehovah for their food. He opens his hand, and they are satisfied; he hides his face, and they are troubled.
He gives food to man. He says food not because this is the extent of his provision but because this is the most basic need of flesh. Food then is simply the most conspicuous example of his gifts and the most outstanding exam  ple of the minuteness of his provision. If he gives food to all flesh, he gives all things necessary for sustaining the earthly life of the creature, whether man or beast.
That Jehovah gives food to all flesh means too that he upholds and sustains that man in his existence, with all his talents and powers, and makes that food sustain that man’s life and by means of that food gives to that man his life. And that Jehovah gives food to all flesh means also that he gives man his riches and honor and glory and all his might and all his talents and abilities. Jehovah gives wine to make man’s heart glad, and he gives oil to make his face shine. God gives man his work, and man goes out in the morning to his work and to his labor until the evening. There is nothing that man possesses that God did not give.
Flesh describes man not only in his weakness and his limitation, as wholly dependent upon God, but also flesh describes his existence as fleeting. Like the grass that flourishes and fades, that grows and is quickly burnt, so man arises and as quickly passes away. His glory is as the flower of the field, so that almost as soon as it is sprung up its beauty is dying. His breath is in his nostrils and like a wind that passes away and never returns. So when the text declares that Jehovah gives food to all flesh, it makes flesh utterly dependent upon God. In him all flesh lives and moves and has its being.
Flesh stands in the text in contrast to deity. Jehovah gives to all flesh food because all is his. He declares that the silver is mine, the gold is mine, the food is mine, the grass is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills is mine, and man is mine. I am the potter, man is the clay. God is God and the God who gives to all flesh food.
Regardless of the ways and means that God uses, he alone gives food, and he gives that food to all flesh. He gives food to some as he did in the wilderness by food from heaven. To others he gives food by care and industry. By all sorts of ways and means, it is God who gives food.
And because it is God, the good God, who gives food to all flesh, he does so according to his own determination as to when and how much. When he gives food to the lions, he snuffs out the life of a zebra; or when he gives food to sharks, he must destroy the life of a seal pup. When he gives food to men, he gives some much food and to others food for the day. There is no flesh on the entire earth that has not for that day and according to his measure and by his exact distribution received his food from God. Every day and every week for all the thousands of days and years since he made the world, he gives life, food for life, and thus also all men’s powers, talents, and gifts; and he upholds them by that food in their existence.
Good is Jehovah who gives food to all flesh. His goodness does not depend upon his giving the food to all flesh; so that if he does not give food to some flesh, he becomes evil. He is good who does not give food to some flesh, whether beast or bird or man. He hides his face, and they are troubled, they fail, and they die. He gives food to all flesh, and they live and move; he withholds food, and they die; good is Jehovah who gives or who withholds.
Jehovah God is good, and that goodness reveals itself in this: he gives food to all flesh; so that out of the perfect moral purity and overflowing fountain of the goodness of his perfect being, he gives food to all flesh.
For his mercy endures forever! The goodness of that activity is to be explained by the consideration that he gives food to all flesh because his mercy endures forever.
The goodness of a deed is to be understood by what motivates that deed. There is an objective standard of good. That is true. But take two similar acts of giving food, and examine those acts by what motivates them.
So a farmer’s feeding his children is to be understood as good because he loves them and desires that they be fed and clothed and enjoy such comforts as he gives them.
He may say no to them from time to time to teach them, but that is to be viewed in light of his overall purpose to bless his children. But that same farmer gives food to his steers to make them fat that he might slaughter them in order to feed his children with good beef. Both are good.
So Jehovah God is good who gives food to all flesh, for his mercy endures forever. The giving of the food to all flesh proceeds from and is motivated by Jehovah’s enduring mercy, his steadfast covenant love.
At the heart of mercy is the will to bless. In God mercy is his intense and perfect desire for his own glory and blessedness. He delights in himself as the only good. Everywhere God looks in his being and in all his works and ways and in all his decrees, there is eternal, spotless, and glorious goodness; and he delights in that and wills that he be blessed.
His mercy toward the creature then is his deep and tender pity upon them and the will to bless them by fellowship with him, the only good.
Mercy describes the whole purpose of God for the revelation of his own glorious, blessed, and good being.
At the heart of mercy is Jesus Christ, in whom God wills his own glory and whom God wills to crown with glory and honor. That mercy, of course, extends to the entire creation, so that the creation as one whole is destined to be lifted from its sin-cursed misery into the heights of heaven. Thus his mercy toward his people is his eternal and unchanging pity on them in their woe, the woe of their sin and even the limitation of their fleshliness, and his will to deliver them by Christ Jesus from their guilt and bondage to sin and to incorporate them into his blessed fellowship and friendship that they might taste that the Lord is good.
It is his will to establish with them a covenant of friendship in which he is wholly responsible for them, in which they are wholly his, in which he does all for their advantage and salvation, and in which they are his people, called to love and serve him. It is his will to give the world to them as the eternal habitation of Jesus Christ and all his brethren chosen in him and made perfect and to lift them up along with the entire creation into the perfection of God’s eternal covenant of grace.
At the same time and according to the same purpose— his glory—to make vessels to dishonor and unto damnation that the wicked be damned so that God be praised.
Speaking of his mercy, the prophets and the apostles said that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens. He is the potter, men are the clay. He makes one vessel to honor and another unto dishonor.
He is good who gives food to all flesh because his mercy endures forever. Giving food to all flesh proceeds from and is motivated by his enduring mercy in the same way that making the heaven and earth proceeded from his mercy. Because he would have heaven and earth be the grand stage for the revelation of his goodness and mercy in the salvation of his people and the punishment of the wicked. He made the heaven and earth and great lights because his mercy endures forever. So also he gives food to all flesh. He sustains his people for the purpose of their blessedness in him. He sustains the wicked for the purpose of his glory in their judgment.
Giving food to all flesh proceeds from his mercy in the same way as dividing the sea and causing Israel to pass through on dry ground and overthrowing Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea proceeded from his enduring mercy.
Jehovah performed the miracle of the Red Sea for the salvation of Israel in his mercy and in that same act destroyed
Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea. So also because his mercy endures forever, he gives food to all flesh.
It is that mercy according to which in every act of
God—from the creation of the world to the deliverance through the Red Sea to giving food to all flesh—there is such a work of God that every act serves the salvation of his people and the condemnation of the reprobate and the advancement of God’s whole glorious purpose for the revelation of himself as the only good and ever-blessed covenant God. He gives food to all flesh out of the same purpose and out of the same goodness as he destroyed
Egypt and saved Israel.
It is as foolish to say that God gives food to the wicked in his love for them as it is to say that God overthrew
Egypt in the Red Sea; drowned Pharaoh and his hosts; and destroyed Og, king of Bashan, and Sihon, king of the
Amorites, in his favor toward them. God overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, and he gives the wicked millions of dollars and a comfortable life in the world.
These are one and the same kind of act. In his giving food to the wicked, not only has God no attitude of mercy toward them, but also he is overthrowing them. So in his distribution of food, he is good not because he is gracious to all or merciful to all in that distribution; but he is good because, as when he destroyed Pharaoh, so also when he gives food he fulfills his own eternal purpose with all men and the whole world.
He is good in his giving of food to the wicked because that food serves to work out the eternal counsel of God for their destruction by setting them in slippery places in order to cast them down to destruction, while at the same time sustaining them even in their hatred and opposition against him, in order that his people have a world to live in. He is good when he gives food to all because he gives food to all according to the need of Israel his chosen. They stand at the heart of all his works and mighty deeds in the world and are his concern when he gives to this or that one this or that thing. He wills that there be a world yet in which his Israel can live and move and serve him, and so he gives food to all because his mercy endures forever. He wills that this world continue so that he might gather his Israel yet out of Egypt and into his fellowship, and so he gives food to all because his mercy endures forever.
He gives food to all flesh of beasts and birds because he wills that this creation be sustained until it is redeemed in the regeneration of all things when Christ comes again, and God does not forsake his creation and leave things to fortune or chance but has regard to all things and the food and needs of all creatures.
He is good in this especially, that to his Israel he gives food for their good in his deep and tender pity for them and the will to save them. He gives because he redeemed them. He gives them their food because his mercy endures forever, in which mercy he forgave their sins and atoned for their iniquities. He is good because when he gives food to Israel his chosen, it serves—all of it, every morsel—their salvation and glorification to the praise of his goodness.
Give thanks to God, thanks because he is good. The thanks of the believer is never dependent on the earthly thing itself; the thanks of the believer always is dependent on God himself and his character and activity in the world. The believer gives thanks then, whether in riches or poverty. He gives thanks because Jehovah is good when he gives food to all—or withholds from some—because his mercy endures forever.
That thanksgiving is a gift of the mercy of God when he gives earthly things to his people. Thus when we give thanks for earthly gifts, that we give thanks at all is because in the giving of those gifts the mercy of the Lord endures forever. No man gives thanks for earthly things unless with those things he also receives the blessing of the Lord. The world cannot give thanks. The unbeliever cannot give thanks. It is not merely that he gives thanks wrongly, but he cannot give thanks because thanksgiving is impossible where covetousness and thievery reign and where there is no blessing but a curse with the earthly gift.
Give thanks to the God of heaven, the God of gods, and the Lord of lords, Jehovah is his name, because he gives food to all flesh, in which activity his mercy endures forever.
Thanksgiving is not merely words; it is not merely an activity; it certainly is not limited to a day. Thanksgiving is an entire way of life in the world by those whom
God in his mercy has redeemed and to whom he gives in mercy. It is the way of life of the redeemed believer in the world in the heritage and in the portion of the world that
God gave to him. As he redeemed Israel and cast out the
Canaanites and gave to his people their land, so the Lord has redeemed us from sin and bondage and given to us a portion of the world.
Thanksgiving is the way of life in that portion and with that portion. Thanksgiving is the way that we view earthly things; it is the position that they hold in our lives; it is the way that we live with them; it is the way that we acquire them; the way also that we use those earthly things.
Thanksgiving means that we seek forgiveness for all our sins with earthly things:
That we were so foolish as to suppose in our distresses that one whose hand gives food to beasts and to wicked men had forgotten us whom he redeemed with the blood of his Son...
That we were often so foolish as to envy the ungodly with all their abundance while we were chastened by the
Lord...
That we were often this year anxious with respect to earthly things, whether we had much or little...
That we were sorely tempted—if we indeed did not frequently fall into temptation—to sin; so that when we had much, we forgot God; and when we had little, we stole in some way...
That we sought those things as god and did not seek
God as God...
That often we were thankful for the abundance but not because Jehovah is good...
That often with our lips we said thanks to God, but with our minds we coveted after earthly things, served them, were anxious for them, or hoarded them instead of using them...
That we often with those earthly things sought our own pleasure and not God’s glory and that we withheld them from his service because we reserved them for ourselves...
That we abused and wasted of his gifts.
We must be sorry for all our sins with earthly things and be thankful for the righteousness of Christ that God imputes to those who believe in him in his mercy, so that we could even receive these things with his blessing.
Oh, thank the Lord that he redeemed us and let us live in his earth again with a free and good conscience.
Oh, thank him that he forgives our sins and all our covetousness and accounts us righteous on account of the perfect obedience of Christ, whose meat his whole life was to do God’s will.
Oh, give thanks that God with the gift to us of earthly things preserved us by his mercy from rushing headlong after those things as our god, so that in the mad pursuit of them we forsake all and follow mammon. If he did not preserve us this year by his mercy, we all would perish in the mad pursuit of mammon or in an equally miserable and wicked miserliness.
Oh, give thanks that you might thank him!
In the same way that he gave food to Egypt so that Israel would have a place to dwell during the famine, so God gave Egypt for his people so that the whole world serves the people of God and their lives in the world. We give thanks that our God reigns in the heavens over the unrighteousness and ungodliness of men so that all the world’s markets and economies and indeed every event in the world serve the purpose of his gracious salvation and care of his people.
With thanksgiving we must be resolved to receive such things as he gives us with the confession that he is good, for his mercy endures forever, so that all that he does in the world and in the lives of his people is calculated for their spiritual profit and advantage.
With thanksgiving let us receive and use gratefully what he gave to us, sanctifying it with prayer.
Give thanks to the Lord who gives food to all, for his mercy endures forever!
—NJL  

Herman Hoeksema fought his first great doctrinal controversy between the years 1914 and 1920 in Holland,
Michigan. The doctrinal issue in that controversy was the
Christian school.
That first controversy in Herman Hoeksema’s ministry is largely forgotten, even by the two denominations that can trace their history directly to him. Ask anyone in the Protestant Reformed Churches or in the Reformed
Protestant Churches what Hoeksema’s first doctrinal controversy was, and they will likely tell you it was about common grace in 1924. Hoeksema battled against the three points of common grace adopted by his own Christian Reformed Church’s synod in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Hoeksema’s battle in 1924 is memorable. It gave rise to the  Standard Bearer  , which for many years was a powerful, compelling, and beloved witness to God’s sovereign, particular grace. Hoeksema’s battle in 1924 led to his unjust deposition from the Christian Reformed Church
(CRC). Hoeksema’s battle in 1924 led to the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches, which for many years maintained the pure Reformed doctrines of grace over against the Arminianism and worldliness of the theory of common grace. Yes, 1924 is memorable indeed.
The controversy in 1924 is one of the ancient landmarks of the church that marks a great battlefield in which God preserved his truth. And right in the middle of the battle in 1924 was Herman Hoeksema. Hoeksema was and is known for 1924.
But the common grace issue in 1924 was not Herman
Hoeksema’s first doctrinal controversy. Hoeksema’s first great doctrinal controversy was the Christian school issue in the years 1914–20.  Herman Hoeksema’s controversy regarding the Christian school began already when he was a student in the Christian Reformed Church’s theological school, Calvin seminary. In those days there was a Christian Reformed day school in Holland, Michigan: Holland Christian School.
But there were at least two Christian Reformed congregations in Holland that opposed Holland Christian School:
Fourteenth Street CRC and Fourteenth Street’s daughter congregation, Maple Avenue CRC. The opposition of these two churches to Holland Christian School consisted of their failure to support the school and their failure to use the school. The children of the congregations went to the local public school. Hoeksema estimated that a full 90 ninety percent of Fourteenth Street’s members were lukewarm at best to the school.
Even as a seminary student, Hoeksema “insisted that it was consistent with lives dedicated to the service of
God that covenant children receive distinctive covenant training.”1 The children were covenant children. Their rearing must be covenant rearing. A failure to use and support the Christian school was covenant failure. Christian Reformed parents who did not use the Christian
Reformed school were delivering their covenant children to the gates of hell.
Herman Hoeksema fired the first shot in the school controversy in Holland as a seminary student. Maple
Avenue CRC was vacant in 1914–15, so seminary students often took turns supplying its pulpit. Hoeksema took his turns, and he quickly became uncomfortable with the praise that the congregation lavished upon him for his sermons. He knew that he and Maple Avenue disagreed on the issue of the Christian school. Therefore, he resolved that he would be clear-cut regarding the congregation’s sin of not using Holland Christian School.
During the congregational prayer one evening service,
“he made a statement about ‘not delivering our children to the gates of hell.’”2
The reaction of the congregation against Hoeksema was swift. His hosts for the weekend from Maple Avenue
CRC suddenly disappeared from their own house and would not cross paths with Hoeksema while he ate and stayed in their home. The consistory of Maple Avenue complained to the seminary. And the consistory requested that from then on any student but Hoeksema supply its vacant pulpit. After more wrangling the consistory of
Maple Avenue called student Hoeksema in for a meeting.
When Hoeksema saw through some initial funny business on the part of the clerk and called him out on it, “the members of the consistory began to damn the Christian school and to rant in confusion. Herman stared at them astounded, then said good-bye, turned, and left.”3  Herman Hoeksema continued to pursue the Christian school controversy in Holland, Michigan, after he had graduated from seminary and had received the call to
Fourteenth Street CRC, Maple Avenue’s mother congregation. Hoeksema was popular with the Fourteenth
Street congregation, even though many disagreed with his stance on the Christian school. Knowing that Fourteenth
Street’s disagreement with him was essentially the same as her daughter’s, Maple Avenue, and weighed down by the call that they had extend  ed to him,  Hoeksema asked for a congregational meeting at which he could address the congregation regarding its call.
Gertrude Hoeksema, Herman
Hoeksema’s daughter-in-law, relates the spell-binding events of that congregational meeting.
At the meeting, he found the whole congregation present to listen to him. He told them about his firm stand in the
Reformed truth and his intention to preach forthright, exegetical, Scriptural sermons. And he told them about themselves. He scolded them about their wrong views of Christian education.
He told them that they were not Reformed in doctrine and in practice. He told them that they almost killed their former minister. He promised them that they would hear the Christian school issue from the pulpit; furthermore, the congregation might never dictate to him what he should preach.
“Now,” he concluded, “if you still want me to come, shake hands with me after the meeting.”
Almost everyone came up to him and said,
“We aren’t as bad as you think we are,  Dominee  .”4
Herman Hoeksema took the call to Fourteenth Street, and it quickly became evident that there were men in the congregation who were every bit as opposed to the
Christian school as Hoeksema suspected them to be. On family visiting in one home, Hoeksema mentioned the
Christian school. Again, Gertrude Hoeksema relates the jaw-dropping events.
He faced more open opposition at some of the households he visited, when the Christian schools were discussed. At one home, very shortly after the visit had begun, and Christian instruction was mentioned, the head of the home raised his voice and said, “Look out,  Dominee  , I’m short!”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean you’d better look out,  Dominee  . I’m short.”
Rev. Hoeksema stood up, took off his suitcoat, exposed his powerful physique, and asked,
“Do you mean you want a fight?”
The thoroughly frightened man ran right out of his own house, shouting, “You can talk to my wife! You can talk to my wife!”5
Hoeksema and his parish  ioner did not come to physical blows that night, which is just as well, but Hoeksema and many of his parishioners came to spiritual blows month after month over the issue of the Christian school. Whatever power
Hoeksema may have had in his physique, his true power was the gospel of Jesus Christ. Hoeksema took to the pulpit and preached the gospel.
After one particularly tense episode in the election of an elder in Fourteenth Street CRC, which resulted in widespread division and bitterness in the congregation,
Hoeksema preached a preparatory sermon for the Lord’s supper on Galatians 5:7–10. He rebuked the members of the congregation for their division against the truth and against each other. And he concluded the sermon with this clarion call, once again as related by Gertrude
Hoeksema:
Three things I have to say, and I hope to be so plain that misunderstanding is impossible. In the first place, to the troublers, and by them I mean those that oppose the official truth of their own church, and those that have gone to the length of working for another congregation, while still belonging to the church, I have this word. This week you stand before two alternatives: Repent and submit and come to the Supper of the Lord.
That is your duty. Even now I maintain that the
Supper must remain the standard in the congregation. Or, if this is impossible, there is but one thing left: Leave the church, for your own sake, and for the sake of the congregation, as soon as possible, for the church stands or falls not with number, but with the truth of the Word of God.
In the second place, to the congregation as a whole, this warning: Be not led astray by troublers, whoever they be. The Lord shall judge them. And finally, let the coming Supper be the means to remove all the envy and the hatred from your hearts, so that again we may manifest our unity in Christ Jesus to His glory on the basis of the truth. That truth shall stand; that truth shall conquer. And all else, all personal pride and vain glory the Lord shall judge. Standing on that truth you may be of good cheer, for the everlasting Lord of His church has promised us the victory. Amen.6
In the sermon  Hoeksema contended for sound
Reformed doctrine, including the doctrine of the Christian school, which sound Reformed doctrine he referred to as “the official truth” of the church. He told those who contended against the official truth of their church to leave if they would not repent. The result of that sermon was a split in the congregation.
After the service, Mr. M____, the liberal member who was not elected elder, came up to the pastor and said, “That’s enough,  Dominee  .”
“That’s what I intended it to be,” was his pastor’s brief reply.7
That very week many members left for other denominations. Although the group that left was not as large as some had anticipated, it was still a considerable church split.
One historian briefly relates the whole history of the
Christian school split in Fourteenth Street this way:
Moreover, a vocal minority opposed strong doctrinal preaching of such cardinal truths as predestination. The irenic [Rev. Peter] Hoekstra had held the divided flock together, but when he left, its reputation was so bad that three ministers in a row declined calls. The fourth call was to the militant Hoeksema, who brought the disagreements to a head by pushing Christian education and doctrinal orthodoxy until a number of families transferred to local Presbyterian and Reformed churches.8
Another historian related the split this way:
The militant  Hoeksema came to  Fourteenth
Street Church right out of seminary, after three ordained ministers had declined the call. Rev.
Hoeksema claimed that “under his predecessor some 90 percent of the families in the congregation opposed Christian education and were very lukewarm in their support of Holland Christian
School,” which had been established the same year as Fourteenth Street Church. Rev. Hoeksema
“brought the disagreements to a head by pushing
Christian education and doctrinal orthodoxy.”
The membership of the congregation declined considerably between 1917 and 1918, because his approach alienated a number of the families, with the result that “there was a grand exodus... mostly to Trinity RCA, and primarily over the issue of the Christian school.” By the time that he left in 1920, however, the membership had rebounded to slightly more than it was when he arrived.9  Permit me a few observations on Herman Hoeksema’s first doctrinal controversy. First, Herman Hoeksema was a thoroughly covenantal theologian. In fact, Herman
Hoeksema is  the  theologian of the covenant. Hoeksema did not become a covenantal theologian in 1953 in response to Klaas Schilder’s conditional covenant. Rather,
Hoeksema left seminary as a covenantal theologian.
The evidence that Hoeksema was a covenantal theologian from the beginning is that his first doctrinal controversy was over the Christian school. The doctrine of
God’s covenant and the Christian school are intimately related. The Christian school  is  the doctrine of the covenant. It is the doctrine of God’s covenant with believers and their seed. It is the doctrine of God’s covenant as
God’s covenant unites members with one another. The
Reformed confessions and the Reformed Church Order express this relationship between God’s covenant and the
Christian school by teaching that the Christian school is the demand and requirement of the covenant. For more on this doctrine, see the speech printed elsewhere in this issue.
This also indicates that Hoeksema’s controversy in
Fourteenth Street CRC was not merely about public  education  versus Christian  education  . The issue was not merely whether the children should go to a public school or to a Christian school. Rather, the issue was God’s covenant. Wherever the issue is the Christian school, there you have the issue of God’s covenant.
In today’s terms this means that wherever you find opposition to the good Christian school by a homeschool movement, there you find opposition to God’s covenant. God’s covenant does not only concern the  content  of the covenant child’s education, but it also determines the  togetherness  of the covenant child’s education with other covenant children.
Second, Herman Hoeksema considered the Christian school to be an issue worth splitting the church over. From day one in Fourteenth Street CRC, Hoeksema intended that the medicine of God’s word regarding the Christian school do its work of purging out of the church any opposition to the Christian school. When unrest was at its height in the congregation due to those who opposed his Reformed preaching, he even counseled a troubled member that such preaching must increase rather than decrease. When the member reported to Hoeksema that “the liberal element were actively conniving with the Presbyterian Church and were working to leave the denomination and to take the property with them,” this was Hoeksema’s response:
“Mr. H____,” he said to his worried parishioner,
“you are like the doctor who gives his patient a dose of castor oil and then gets scared when it begins to work. Now a  good  doctor will give him one more dose. That’s what the congregation will get next Sunday morning.”10
Today then too, let the  Reformed  Protestant
Churches consider the matter of the Christian school to be worth splitting over. To those who believe the
Reformed doctrine that the Christian school is founded upon the covenant and is a demand of gratitude in God’s covenant, stand fast. You stand upon the doctrine of the
Reformed confessions and therefore upon the doctrine of scripture.
To those who erroneously think that making the school to be a demand of the covenant is to entangle yourselves in a yoke of bondage, either repent or leave the denomination. The Reformed Protestant Churches stand upon the Reformed confessions. From the very first day in First Reformed Protestant Church’s Act of Separation, the foundation of the churches has been the Reformed confessions. From the very first moment of the Reformed Protestant Churches’ federation in the Act of Federation, the foundation of the denomination has been the Reformed confessions. The
Reformed confessions are clear regarding the Christian schools as a demand of the covenant.
Lord’s 38 of the  Heidelberg
Catechism teaches that  God requires that “the schools be maintained” (  Confessions and
Church  Order  ,128).  This is not something hidden or new for the  Reformed  Protestant
Churches. Not only is this the official doctrinal position of the
Reformed Protestant Churches in their confessions, but this has also been the position taught to the denomination in  Sword and Shield  .If there is a congregation that does not want the schools to be a demand of the covenant, that congregation does not have to be Reformed Protestant. That congregation is autonomous and is free to leave the federation. If there is an individual who does not want the schools to be a demand of the covenant, that individual does not have to be Reformed Protestant. That individual’s membership is his own, and he must either find or form a true church where he can be a member.
I maintain to that congregation and that individual that your duty is to repent and to live up to the Reformed confessions. You belong in the Reformed Protestant
Churches by your confession. But if you cannot agree with the Reformed confessions that the Christian school is required as a demand of God’s covenant, then leave the Reformed Protestant Churches as soon as possible.
The Reformed Protestant Churches are Reformed. The
Reformed Protestant Churches believe the doctrine of the scriptures according to the conception of that doctrine in the Reformed confessions. If you are not of us, then go out from us. This ought not be a dismaying thought for the churches, for the blessing of the church is not measured by the pound but by the truth.
To all of those in the Reformed Protestant Churches who are being led to believe that this whole issue is a matter of procedure or what may be treated by classis or hierarchy or the will of man or any other side matter, do not be deceived. The issue is God’s covenant. The Christian school is God’s covenant as that covenant comes to expression in the lives of God’s people with one another and with the covenant seed. Stand fast on the doctrine of the covenant, which includes the Christian school as the demand of the covenant. Do not get excited by every other issue that men try to set before you. Stick to the doctrinal point of God’s covenant, for there alone is peace.
Finally, permit me this third observation. Herman
Hoeksema’s ministry was characterized by doctrinal controversy. He is known to history in this incident as
“the militant Hoeksema.” Perhaps historians intend that description to be a criticism of Hoeksema. Doctrinal controversy has never been fashionable in the church.
It is not fashionable today, and it was not fashionable in Hoeksema’s day. In fact, from the moment that God pursued doctrinal controversy with Cain regarding justification by faith alone in Christ alone, Cain’s countenance fell. From that moment until this in the history of
God’s church, the countenance of every Cain falls when the word of God pursues doctrinal controversy with him.
Men want peace, or at least man’s version of peace. Men want their ministers to cry, “Peace, peace!” to them, even when there is no peace. When God does raise up a militant man who makes war on behalf of the gospel, all men are critical of him, and all men fight him. Many people will come to a militant man and read 2 Timothy 2:24 to him as if it were the only verse in the Bible and as if it condemned militancy on behalf of the truth. In Hoeksema’s day men praised ministers who were irenic, peaceful, and forward-looking. But Hoeksema was something else.
He was controversial. He made war against the lie. He was “the militant Hoeksema.”
Herman Hoeksema was right to be militant. God had set him as a watchman on the walls of Zion, a militant position if ever there was one. God had made him mighty in the scriptures, arming him with the sword of the Spirit, and Hoeksema was not to return to the Lord with his sword clean but bloody. Hoeksema was to stand fast on the Lord’s battlefield and acquit himself as a man of God.
While all the troops of light, silly, nice men in the church were busy making the enemy comfortable and chiding all the soldiers of the Lord to speak with a civil tone and friendly language, Hoeksema stood up and killed the enemy.
What is especially striking about Hoeksema’s doctrinal controversies is that he fought them  against his own church and his own denomination  . When he was a
Christian Reformed minister, he fought the Christian
Reformed Church and split her for the sake of the truth.
When he was a Protestant Reformed minister, he fought the Protestant Reformed Churches and split them for the sake of the truth. He was a watchman on the walls of
Zion, indeed. There are men in the ministry in Reformed churches who have banged their swords on their shields for their entire ministries in order to alert everyone that they are mighty champions of God’s truth. But those men spend their entire ministries condemning the doctrinal errors of every denomination except their own.
They somehow never get around to condemning the false doctrine and to slaying the carnal seed within their own walls. When that carnal seed becomes the majority in the denomination and the denomination apostatizes from the truth, those men who banged their shields all their lives still will not rise to defend God’s truth but participate in the perishing of their churches. Herman
Hoeksema was not such a man. He rose to the theological battles in his own churches and was willing for the sake of the truth to see the churches split, knowing that such splits were the preservation of the churches in the truth, though he knew very keenly and personally all of the pain and suffering that inevitably accompanies such splits.
Yes, “the militant Hoeksema” has a nice ring to it.
And remember that the militant Hoeksema’s first great doctrinal controversy and first church split was over the
Christian school. Let us not go backward in the matter of the Christian school but forward. And how can we do otherwise, for our gracious God has made his covenant with us and our seed.
—AL  

Footnotes:

1 Gertrude Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken: A Biography of Herman Hoeksema (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1969), 64. I highly recommend to the interested reader all of chapter 4, where this history is related.
2 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken , 64. 3 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken , 66.
4 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken , 67.
5 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken , 70.
6 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken , 76–77.
7 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken , 77.
8 Robert P. Swierenga, “Family Histories: The Anne (Andrew) Hoekstra Family,” https://www.swierenga.com/Hoekstra_history1.html, revised 2/2013, in the section, “Life in the Parsonages—Holland, Paterson, Grand Rapids, Cicero, and Hanford.”
9 Jacob E. Nyenhuis, ed., A Goodly Heritage: Essays in Honor of the Reverend Dr. Elton J. Bruins at Eighty (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 187. Nyenhuis quotes from Robert P. Swierenga, “The Anne (Andrew) Hoekstra Family,” (working paper, Van Raalte Institute, January 2003), 10; and references an interview he did “with two nonagenarian members of Fourteenth Street Church, Kathryn Fredricks and Elizabeth Sterenberg, 2002.” 10 Hoeksema, Therefore Have I Spoken, 73.

The end of the calendar year is almost upon us, which means that the holiday season is nearly here. We are planning four issues of  Sword and
Shield  during November and December to keep our readers well-stocked through the holidays. Stack up some logs next to your fireplace, stack up some donuts next to your apple cider, and stack up some  Sword and Shields  next to your favorite chair. It’s time to read!
This issue of the magazine is the regular November issue. Mr. Luke Bomers submits another installment of his term paper from last semester on the reward of grace.
Also in this issue is the transcript of a speech given at
First Reformed Protestant Church to explain some of the decisions of the Reformed Protestant classis in September. The speech has been very lightly edited for publication. The rest of the articles and authors are probably self-explanatory to our readership by now.
We are planning a Letters Edition this month, so keep an eye out toward the last part of November for a blue cover in your mailbox. The Letters Editions continue to be the most highly-anticipated issues of  Sword and Shield  . We are grateful to our contributors for their submissions, and we invite others to write in as well.
Whether you agree with the magazine or not, your letter will be welcome.
December 1 will be the regular December issue with the regular rubrics. Sometime around mid-December we plan to publish the speeches and other material from the annual Reformed Believers Publishing meeting. By the time you read this, that October meeting will have come and gone. But we can still profit from it by the publication of the speeches.
So grab a donut, have a seat, and read on. May God speed the truths written herein to your heart and the next issue into your hands.
—AL  

Footnotes:

1 Nathan J. Langerak, “Slithering Around Again (2): Afraid of the Decree,” Sword and Shield 3, no. 5 (October 2022): 17–23.
2 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness (5): Forgiveness and Justification Distinguished,” May 16, 2022, https://rfpa.org /blogs/news/preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-5-forgiveness-and-justification-distinguished. Subsequent quotations of Reverend McGeown are from this article.

Men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.  —1 Chronicles 12:32  

Rev. Martyn McGeown is terrified of the decree. He is terrified of it because he hates it. Fear and hatred go together, just as perfect love casts out all fear. If he loved the decree, then he would not be so intent on undermining it in the minds of his readers. In the previous article we saw his fear of the decree in his assault on eternal justification.  1He actually wrote that the danger of the doctrine of eternal justification is the “extreme view that we were always saved.”2 If that is a danger with regard to eternal justification, then that is a danger with regard to the whole truth of God’s decree. So now there is a Reformed minister—
I use the term in the loosest possible sense—in the Protestant Reformed Churches of Herman Hoeksema who actually writes that we should not regard the truth of the decree as teaching that “we were always saved,” and he wants to be taken seriously. The appalling thing is that he is taken seriously by many in the Protestant Reformed
Churches. He obviously is taken seriously by the light and un-Reformed men of the board of the Reformed Free
Publishing Association (RFPA) who gave him the position of editor of the RFPA blog, and he now defiles it with his theological pontificating. That is how far that organization and the churches that the organization represents have fallen from the truth. I say to the members of the Protestant Reformed Churches: remember and let it sink in that your ministers, elders, professors, and deacons actually think that it is an extreme view that the decree of God means that “we were always saved.” This is shocking. This is a wholesale assault not only on the doctrine of eternal justification but also on the very concept of the decree of God as a whole and on the doctrine of God, who declares the end from the beginning. I am as saved in God’s decree as I will be in my possession of salvation in everlasting life, and so are all God’s people.
This terrifies Reverend McGeown. He does not want any professing Christians to think that. The reason is that he does not want them to think that they do not have to do something for their salvation. And so he goes to work to undermine the very idea of the decree.
Specifically in his series on justification, he goes to work on the doctrine of eternal justification.3 In a series of articles on justification, it is obvious that he has to mention eternal justification, but he under  mines that doctrine in the mind of his audience and in so doing undermines the idea of the decree generally. Reverend
McGeown does not dwell on the glory and comfort of the doctrine of eternal justification for the believer that
God never beheld iniquity in him—that the believer was always saved!—and that his salvation is absolutely certain from all eternity, but  Reverend  McGeown spends most of his treatment of the doctrine writing about how important time is, as though anybody denied the importance of time. His opponent throughout this series is simply a figment of his imagination, one sucked out of his thumb, created out of whole cloth, an invention, a fiction, or whatever else one wants to call it. He creates this opponent out of straw and clothes it in a scarecrow’s rags in order to hide behind the mask of a valiant defender of the truth, all the while he attacks the truth and sows doubt about it in the minds of his readers.
It is really slippery. Slippery McGeown slithering around again.
Reverend McGeown bolsters his undermining of the doctrine of eternal justification—and of the whole decree of God—by trying to make it seem as though
Herman Hoeksema was afraid of the doctrine too.
McGeown inserts a quote from another document into the mouth of Hoeksema, as though in Hoeksema’s treatment of the doctrine he held the same view as McGeown and cautioned against overemphasizing the doctrine or somehow placing the decree of justification over against the temporal act of justification. So
McGeown writes, “It must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.” But that quote is simply part of the Conclusions of Utrecht that Herman Hoeksema quoted. He did not single that out for emphasis, but Reverend McGeown did and tried to make it look like Herman Hoeksema singled it out too. But that is not at all the emphasis of his treatment of the doctrine.
Herman Hoeksema was not afraid of the decree or of eternal justification. A truly Reformed man cannot be afraid of the doctrine of eternal justification any more than he can be afraid of God’s decree generally. If the decree of justification in eternity is open to the charge of being antino  mian and is made out to be a dangerous doctrine that makes men careless and profane, then
God’s decree generally is open to that same charge. Thus in one’s attack on the doctrine of eternal justification on those grounds, he also in principle attacks the whole concept of the decree of God and shows what he thinks of decretal theology. The truly Reformed man trumpets the decree and seeks to comfort God’s people with the truth of the eternal and unchanging love of God toward them, out of which he determined their salvation. The truly Reformed man seeks to comfort God’s people with the reality of that decree that they were saved, perfectly and absolutely saved, eternally and that all of their salvation is the gift of God to them in his love for them and his will for their salvation.
Thus Reverend McGeown is not only slippery, but he is also not Reformed. He certainly is not Protestant
Reformed according to its historic conception of the truth. He is Arminian. He is not honestly Arminian, but he is Arminian nevertheless. Whoever attacks the decree in such a fashion as Reverend McGeown does reveals that he is Arminian, and all his other words are by that measure deception and misdirection.  His attack on the decree of God in the mind of his audience serves the purpose of his teaching justification by faith and works. Indeed, his whole series “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness” has as its purpose to teach justification by faith and works. The specific work by which a man is justified is repentance. Reverend
McGeown is really teaching justification by repentance.
Remember that if one is going to hinge man’s salvation on his deeds and activities, then he needs to get rid of the decree in some shape, form, or fashion. Making the decree suspect in the minds of his readers is as good as denying it outright. The tactic here is simply to relegate the decree to irrelevancy in man’s reception and enjoyment of his salvation. And then the works of man can be introduced and made that on which the knowledge of salvation and thus the work of salvation depend. The attitude is that God always does what God does, and we cannot do anything about that: now let’s talk about what man needs to do.  I said in my last article that I would treat further Reverend McGeown’s view of the decree. And I begin there in this article. In his effort to undermine the doctrine of eternal justification in the mind of his audience, he lets slip his own view of the decree generally. He writes,
In this regard it is important to distinguish between time and eternity. In eternity God determined what would happen, what he would do, in time.
Now, why it would be important to distinguish something so obviously different as time and eternity is anyone’s guess. I suspect that he is glancing nervously at the decree like the cat does the rocking chair. Reverend McGeown does not want that rocking chair of God’s decree to pinch his tail of man’s works that he keeps flicking around. He is not so much interested in distinguishing time and eternity—what fool would confuse them—as in giving a certain view of the relationship between time and eternity and of asserting the decisive character of what happens in time. I think it can be fairly stated that his view is that time makes the decree of eternity real.
In this connection he writes,
To speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved.
Reverend McGeown does indeed speak as a fool. No
Reformed man could even conceive of this idea of time nor of God’s decree. In these words McGeown shows that he views the relationship between time and eternity as adversative, really time being the contingency of all that was decreed. He brings this out in two ways.  First, he bolsters his view of time as the contingency of eternity by quoting 1 Peter 1:19–20. This passage reads, 19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.
Reverend McGeown supposes that he has hit upon a passage that so clearly teaches his view—that notwithstanding God’s decree, if Jesus had not died, then we could not be saved—that he does not even bother to explain the passage.
So I will explain it. In the passage there is what is called in Greek a  men-de  construction. This construction means that the relationship between the foreordination of Jesus
Christ and his manifestation in time is not an adversative  but  , as McGeown wants to maintain, but a correlative; so that it is as though the apostle had said, “On the one hand, Christ was foreordained; and on the other hand, he was manifested.” And that relationship could be even more sharply stated as “because Christ was foreordained, he was also manifested for you.” In these verses there is no disjuncture between time and eternity, as though time is the  but  to eternity. Rather, time is the unfolding of what
God decreed in eternity.
Furthermore, in his thorough abuse of the passage to serve his foolish statement about God’s decree, Reverend
McGeown does not do justice either to the word “foreordained” or to the word “manifested” used by the Spirit in these verses. The word “foreordained” in verse 20 means that Jesus Christ and the cross of Jesus Christ and the perfect and complete salvation of God’s people existed before the foundation of the world. Because they existed before the foundation of the world, Peter did not say that these things happened for you or that these things then were made real in time. It is true that they happened.
Jesus Christ was incarnated, he suffered, he died, and he accomplished full and complete salvation. That all happened in time and history. But Peter wrote “manifested.”
“Manifested” is the disclosure of what already is or the appearance of what already is or even the making public of what was before hidden. So, for instance, the sun shines, but it is behind a cloud, and so it is obscured.
When the cloud is removed, the shining sun is manifested. So is Jesus Christ and his salvation. He was manifested. He and with him his salvation were already  foreordained  and existed in eternity; and because Christ and salvation were  foreordained  ,they were manifested.
So far are Peter and the Holy Spirit from teaching the foolish thought of Reverend McGeown—that notwithstanding God’s decree, if Jesus had not died, then we could not be saved—that the Holy Ghost through Peter was emphasizing the decree and the reality of the decree in the salvation of God’s people and that what happened in time was the manifestation of what was in eternity.
In the same vein and perhaps even stronger is John in
Revelation 13:8. This passage reads, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast], whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Here John not only said that God decreed that the cross would happen, but he also said that Jesus Christ, the Lamb, was actually slain from the foundation of the world. Golgotha and all that was associated with it and all that happened at
Golgotha—the agony of Christ in the garden, the fleeing of the disciples, the wicked trial of Christ before the Sanhedrin, Peter’s denial of Jesus, the condemnation of  Christ before Pilate, and the crucifixion of Christ on the cross— were already in eternity. The happening, the event, and all the benefits of the cross were already from the foundation of the world. Time is the revelation, the manifestation, and the unfolding of that eternal reality.  To confirm his idea of the relationship between eternity and time expressed in his foolish statement—“To speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved”—Reverend McGeown also quotes 2 Timothy 1:9–10. This passage reads, 9.  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
His explanation of the passage is again that time is an adversative or a contingency of eternity. He writes,
God decreed that Jesus should suffer and die for his elect people, and therefore the cross was certain, as certain as God’s decree is certain.
However, it was still necessary for Jesus actually to die...It is still necessary that the Holy Spirit should apply the benefits of Christ’s atonement.
Here again is his “However,” which is nothing more than a different way of saying  But  . He relegates the decree to irrelevancy and gives to time its own importance, as though the point of the Spirit in the passage is to make sure the church does not think that time is unimportant.
Reverend McGeown is constantly seizing on the word  But  . He does this especially with the decree. He mentions some true things about the decree and then erases them all with a  But  . Here too, he seizes on the word  But  :“but—again, Paul writes ‘  but  ;’ the Holy Spirit inspired
‘but’  !” So his interpretation: time and what happens in time are the  but  to what was decreed in eternity. Thus the meaning of the Holy Spirit here for Reverend McGeown is that
God decreed these things, but they were not really real until they happened in time. Time made the blueprint of  God’s counsel real. I think that is a good way to describe Reverend
McGeown’s view of the decree.
The decree is God’s divine blueprint. McGeown will say that the blueprint is certain because, of course, he has to. It is, after all, God’s blueprint. But as every builder knows, the blueprint is not the house. The house is the thing. The house does not have an existence or any reality apart from being built.
The house in the blueprint is simply a conception.
But that is not God’s decree at all, a divine blueprint.
The decree is God’s eternal and living will. By his Word
God brings that will to pass and unfolds the counsel of his sovereign will. The relationship between eternity and time is not that one is real and another is not real; the relationship is not, as is so foolishly expressed by Reverend McGeown, that “to speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved.” This means that God could have decreed all he wanted, but the event had to happen. And that thought demands that that event in time has its own and independent necessity outside of the decree. I simply do not see how anyone who has even a modicum of understanding about God and his decree could say that.
Now, Reverend McGeown supposes that he has found this idea of the relationship between eternity and time in 2 Timothy 1:9–10. “The Holy Spirit inspired ‘  but  ’!” we are told and told with emphasis. The Holy Spirit apparently inspired that word so that we would believe that notwithstanding God’s decree, if Jesus had not died, we could not be saved.
It is evident then that Reverend McGeown takes the word “But” in verse 10 in its adversative force. He should know that there is a Greek word  alla  and that if the Holy Spirit wanted to emphasize the adversative sense, as Reverend McGeown does, the Spirit could have used it. I still maintain that even if  alla  were used, the passage would not be teaching the idea of the decree in relationship to time that Reverend McGeown imputes to the passage. His concept of the relationship between the decree and time is foreign to the entire scripture, and it is foreign to this passage. The word “But” that he gleefully holds aloft for all to see is in fact the word  de  in the Greek. There is a distinction being made in these verses, but it is not what Reverend McGeown explains.
First, in the passage the apostle said that God saved us and called us according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began. It is not that God purposed that he would give us grace but that we still had to receive that grace in time. God purposed and gave grace to us before the world began. “Grace” in verse 9 means not only the favor of God but also the gifts of salvation defined in verse 10 as “life and immortality.” You could say without any injustice or violence to the text that God gave us life and immortality in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. The reality of his eternal will and counsel is such that we had the grace already before the world began, or eternally.
Then the apostle wrote in verse 10, “But is now made manifest.”
Reverend McGeown, in his insistence that notwithstanding (in spite of ) God’s decree, if Jesus Christ had not died, we could not be saved, falters yet again on the word
“manifest.” He does not know what the word “manifest” means. He ignores it here, as he did in 1 Peter 1:19–20.
Here his lapse is doubly inexcusable because the apostle explained exactly what he meant when he wrote “manifest.” He wrote “and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” “Manifest” means to bring to light. That manifestation happened in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his atoning death, and he makes that public and publishes it throughout the world by the gospel of the perfection of Christ’s death and eternal life that is found in his name alone. “Manifest” is to illuminate or to bring to light what had previously been hidden. Life and immortality in his case did not begin to be at the moment of the event of the cross, and neither are they brought into existence through the preaching of the gospel and thus only become real in the possession of those things by the child of God. But life and immortality have their origin and existence in the eternal purpose of God.
They were given to us in Christ before the foundation of the world. God’s purpose is not made real in time but is made public in time.
There is no contrast in the text between time and eternity, as though the Holy Ghost was guarding against the idea that we might think too much of God’s decree, and we might then slight time. That is impossible. Rather, the
Spirit is teaching that what is made public and disclosed in time was already in eternity.  I have said before that if you read Protestant Reformed ministers, be careful that you do not lose your faith. In this case be careful that you do not lose your faith in the decree and suppose that the scriptures and thus the Reformed faith are wary of the decree and are constantly guarding against the exaltation of the decree at the expense of time. I do not believe anyone does that. I do not believe that anyone in history has exalted the decree too much. I do not believe that is even possible. I do believe that the proper view of the decree and the only proper understanding of time is that time is the revelation, the manifestation, and the unfolding of the decree. The decree of God is not a would or a could. The decree is as real and eternal as God himself. He always had his people, the world, and indeed the end and consummation of all things with him from before the foundation of the world.
He makes this manifest, and he unfolds as his living will in time what he before decreed.
Reverend McGeown thinks that notwithstanding
God’s decree, events must happen in time. Apply that— and this is Reverend McGeown’s goal, after all—to faith and to repentance. Notwithstanding God’s decree to give faith and repentance, if you do not believe and you do not repent, then you cannot be saved. If Reverend
McGeown says what he does about the cross of Christ, he must say that about everything in history. And he must say that also about faith and repentance: notwithstanding God’s decree to give faith and repentance, you must also do faith and repentance. That gives to faith and to repentance a necessity outside of God’s decree.
And it is a convenient way and a slippery way to dispose of the decree as the eternal necessity of Christ and all of salvation and every gift of salvation.
Reverend McGeown’s view of the relationship between the decree and time—which he expresses in his phrase “to speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding  God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved”— he then applies not only to the cross but also to the application of the salvation of the cross to hearts and lives.
And here he shows what he is really after. He writes,
It is also true that in 2 Corinthians 5:20 “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.”
In Christ the righteous basis for our pardon has been secured, and—may I even say ‘  but’  ?—we come into the conscious possession of that pardon  when we repent of our sins and believe in Jesus
Christ  . That is why [in order that we come into conscious possession of our pardon] in the next verse Paul urges his readers, who are Christians,
“Be ye reconciled to God” (v. 21).
Slippery McGeown.
He also mutilates the text. And with this he adds to his folly. His exegesis of the verse means this: notwithstanding the decree of God and notwithstanding the cross of
Christ, we do not come into the conscious possession of pardon until we repent and believe. Or, to phrase it another way, God decreed our salvation and Christ accomplished our salvation, but that is not enough. We do not come into conscious possession of that pardon until we repent and believe. In this exegesis our repenting and believing do not flow out of the decree and are not the fruits of the cross of Jesus Christ. They are the  but  of the decree and of the cross. They are the contingency not only of the decree but also of the cross. This is very strange theology, indeed.
His interpretation is simply an imposition on the text and is entirely foreign to the meaning of the passage. The reconciliation of the people of God to God is not “notwithstanding” the decree and the cross but because of the decree and the cross. Reverend McGeown will go on to apply this thought of God’s decree being the “notwithstanding” of time to repentance and faith in connection with justification. I will look more closely at his theology of repenting and believing and his doctrine of justifica  tion by repenting and believing next time.
—NJL  SOUND DOC TRINE  Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine  .—Titus 2:1  

Footnotes:

3 Martyn McGeown, “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness.” The seven-part blog series began April 27, 2022 (https://rfpa.org/blogs/news /preaching-repentance-and-forgiveness-1-repentance), and ended June 1, 2022 (https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/preaching-repentance-and -forgiveness-7-repentance-and-remission).

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  —1 John 1:9  In a certain sense  ...
This phrase, when heard or read in any conversation, ought to raise concern in the mind of the discerning hearer or reader. How much more concern when this phrase is brought up in a sermon or lecture that purports to teach the truth of God’s word. How much more concern when this phrase is brought up in connection with a controversial subject.
How much concern?
So much concern as to create a burden in the heart and mind of the hearer or reader. So much a burden that resolution becomes an absolute necessity.
This necessity is imposed on the speaker or writer who used this phrase. That speaker or writer’s authority cannot suffice to have the audience accept this phrase.  Because
I said so  must only increase the burden. The burden becomes an important demand. This phrase demands a clear, distinct answer.  In a certain sense  must be resolved.
It can only be resolved with an explanation.
The phrase only gives birth to the question, “In what sense?”
Think about the back-and-forth of a conversation.
When one says to another, while introducing a statement of fact, “In a certain sense,” the speaker can only expect the question to follow, “In what sense?” In addition, the question is of such importance that, unless it is answered by an explanation of the “sense,” any further conversation is useless. Unless there is a satisfactory explanation given of the “sense,” only confusion and suspicion will result.
“In a certain sense we must believe in order to be saved.”
“In a certain sense our repentance precedes God’s forgiveness.”
“In a certain sense God’s forgiveness of us depends on our forgiveness of our neighbors.”
Taking away the beginning phrase of each of these statements results in the following: “We must believe in order to be saved.” “Our repentance precedes God’s forgiveness.” “God’s forgiveness of us depends on our forgiveness of our neighbors.” What is remarkable about these statements is that they all are formulations of conditional, Arminian theology.
What is even more remarkable is that a man who claims to be Reformed would suppose that such state  ments become acceptable and orthodox in Reformed circles when the phrase  in a certain sense  is prefixed to them.
He supposes that these are four words that magically turn heresy into orthodoxy. Can these four words have their effect because they are spoken by a Reformed man, even an officebearer with certain credentials? Can these four words have this effect because they are spoken by a leader with decades of experience and approval? Because these four words are spoken by a leader with proper seminary training who passed every examination and is a pastor of a church or denomination known for its orthodoxy?
Exactly the opposite.
The phrase  in a certain sense  establishes a certain debt.
That debt is in no way the hearer’s or the reader’s. He is not obligated to acknowledge as true what follows this phrase. That debt is the speaker’s or the writer’s. The phrase demands a further explanation. This debt can only be discharged when the speaker or writer clearly explains that  certain sense  . Used rhetorically, that debt is freely acknowledged by the individual who uses the phrase. The speaker or writer understands that the phrase represents a promise. He binds himself by the use of this phrase to a proper explanation of what he means. With the use of this phrase, he is also accountable to his audience to explain it, and he should acknowledge that his audience has every right to reject what he stated if he does not explain.
As weighty as this debt is when this phrase is used generally in discussions and teaching, this debt is much more weighty for one who represents the truth of God’s word.
The truth of God’s holy word, when communicated to
God’s people, must be presented with all the clarity that
God’s word represents. There is no room for ambiguity or confusion.  What is the meaning of the phrase  in a certain sense  ? What does it truly mean that in a certain sense repentance precedes forgiveness?
In the certain, definite sense that God hears and answers the prayers of his people. In the certain definite sense of David’s record of God’s mercy shown when God heard and answered David’s penitential prayer in grace.
“I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps. 32:5). As this manner of God’s mercy to his servant is declared in this inspired songbook of the people of God, so are they taught to praise God’s mercy to them, that he freely pardons them when they confess their sins to him. So are they also assured that this will be their blessed experience of God’s mercy, that he will graciously pardon all their sins when they come to him in sorrow over them. As stated in a former article in this series, God’s people flee to their gracious covenant God with the burden of their sin and their guilt. 1 Their repentance before God means that in deep sorrow and humility before God, they confess with shame their wicked deeds, the evil that corrupts even their best works, and their total depravity. They join their evil to themselves, declaring their wretchedness and their misery before God. They do not blame oth  ers. They do not blame God but justify him (Ps. 51:4).
They blame themselves, holding themselves responsible and accountable for their sins. Their requests for forgiveness mean that they ask God to put asunder what they have joined together. Speaking nothing of themselves, their sole appeal is to God’s mercy (v. 1), that for the sake of Christ’s blood (Lord’s Day 51) God will remit their debts. What follows is the testimony of the gospel to their hearts, the testimony of joy and gladness that all their sins are forgiven. God shows himself faithful to his word of promise in 1 John 1:9.
Indeed, in that sense. That is, in the sense of their con  scious experience.
How much there is to be made of this sense of the believer’s conscious experience!
This is the joy and gladness of salvation. It is the blessedness of salvation, the blessedness that results in the praise and adoration of the mercy and grace of God in Jesus Christ. It is what brings about the song of the glorified saints in heaven recorded in Revelation 5:9–10.
Burdened with their sin and guilt, the judgment of the law hanging over their heads, they have received from the
Lamb slain for their sins blessed freedom from that heavy burden. They have come to their savior, who has called them to himself. Before his cross they have lain down their weariness and their heavy load. They have received graciously from him the promise of his rest, his easy yoke and his light burden. From their graciously relieved hearts, they offer themselves to him a living sacrifice of thanksgiving (Rom. 12:1).
How utterly perverse then to take this blessed sense of man’s experience and to use it to destroy God’s wonderful grace! How utterly perverse to twist this wonder of grace and to make it into a law!  In a certain sense  .This sense: that this repentance must be man’s act that he must do or perform; and that only when he has done or performed his act, then God will be merciful and declare him forgiven or assure him of forgiveness.
Let the reader understand what has been done with this  certain sense  . Not only does this other  certain sense  tear the above wonder of grace out of its context of proper experience in order to turn it into a doc  trine of works, thus destroying it altogether; but it also pits scripture against itself, destroying the unity of God’s word and its truth. Grace simply cannot be forged into a new law. The freedom of God’s sovereign grace cannot be made obligatory upon the actions or deeds of men. The attempt to salvage something of grace out of this shipwreck is vain.
To follow  in a certain sense  with  all by grace  recovers nothing at all.
All of the  experience  of the child of God in all his salvation from beginning to end is by grace alone. There are no gaps in the truth of Ephesians 2:8–10. There is nothing left out for man to fill by any of his ways or manners, behaviors or attitudes, actions or deeds. There is nothing for him to boast of, as if he did not receive it (1 Cor. 4:7).
This is why salvation is all by grace through faith.
Why repentance, the broken heart and contrite spirit, is by grace and why God will not despise repentance (Ps. 51:17). Why repentance itself is through faith, through faith in so many ways.
Why John Calvin had the following to say in his  Institutes of the Christian Religion  :Then, according to the passage in the Psalms,
“There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared” (Ps 103:4), no man will ever reverence
God who does not trust that God is propitious to him, no man will ever willingly set himself to observe the Law who is not persuaded that his services are pleasing to God. The indulgence of
God in tolerating and pardoning our iniquities is a sign of paternal favour.2
Indeed, why the gospel precedes repentance, why
God’s effectual calling precedes repentance, why regeneration precedes repentance, why faith precedes repentance, why grace precedes repentance, and why forgiveness precedes repentance.
To be most clear and to describe the exact sense: also
God’s forgiveness of all and every sin committed by his children must precede all their repentance of every sin that they commit. Let the point be very particular and pointed, not general and ambiguous.
The Christian prays, as taught by his Lord, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12). In doing so, the Christian passes over the course of the day in his mind and heart. He recounts a particular sin that he has committed.
Bearing that sin on his heart before the Lord, he confesses it. He trusts in the promise of
God’s word of forgiveness for that sin by the blood of his savior’s cross. By faith in that promise of God, he receives assurance from the working of the Holy Spirit in his heart that this particular sin is indeed forgiven him. He is indeed washed in the blood of Christ from that sin.
He is freed from its condemnation as well as its shame before God.
How did this Christian get there? How did he get from being the Christian who committed the sin to being the Christian forgiven of that sin?
It was by grace alone. It was by grace alone operating thoroughly in him. It was the grace of God alone that gave him his repentance over that particular sin. If this living, holy, and righteous God had dealt with the sinner according to that sin that he had committed, he could not have repented over it. He would never have repented over it. He would only have defended it. He would only have hardened himself in it. In this very sense, regarding this particular repentance over this particular sin, God’s forgiveness precedes the sinner’s repentance.
As this particular sin is repented of by grace alone, so it is repented of by faith alone. Following the above testimony of John Calvin, it is important to understand exactly what is meant by “faith alone.”
Certainly this faith that precedes the sinner’s repentance over his particular sin is that bond worked by the
Holy Spirit in his heart, by which he is engrafted into
Christ his Lord. He has been incorporated into Christ, so that he is one with Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. Governed by the Spirit of Christ in him, his repentance is necessary. The death of Christ on the cross must bear this particular fruit in him. Without the operation of that death of Christ in him, no repentance of any kind is possible.
But what must be exactly understood of this faith that brings about this particular repentance is the sinner’s conscious, confident assurance that God’s mercy is upon him for the particular sin that he will bring before his God in heartfelt confession. He is assured that God’s promises are true with respect to all his sins. He is assured that the blood of Christ is of infinite value to wash away all his sins. He has the Spirit-wrought confidence that his baptism does seal to him the benefits of God’s everlasting covenant of grace, among which is the washing away of all his sins. He is confident of having been forever received into God’s mercy and forever a partaker of God’s salvation.
From the viewpoint of God’s sovereign, irresistible grace, this wonder of faith preceding repentance becomes all the more clear. Every prayer of repentance, with its own shame and sorrow and with its own humble, sin-owning confession, is the product of sovereign, irresistible grace.
It is the result of the effectual call of the gospel. That the sinner comes to his God is only because God irresistibly and effectually calls him, giving to him from his storehouse of abundant grace the sacrifice of God, the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart.
Truly, what a cause for thanksgiving to God for his gift of true repentance! What an incentive to deep humility before God in the deep sorrow of true repentance!
How blessed also to understand that all the Christian’s various prayers of repentance are not simply scattered evidences and tokens of the working of God’s almighty grace but that they are representations of his entire life’s way before his God. Repentance is truly the entire life of the believer. Repentance is truly the entire life of the believer lived by faith, as led by the grace of
God. It is wrought by the Holy Spirit in the depths of his heart, whence all the issues of life flow outward. From his heart of flesh given him by the Spirit, he repents, seeking the remission of all his sins from his faithful, covenant God. From that same heart he walks in repentance, fighting and struggling against the power of sin, his total depravity. In the power of the new man, which is Christ in him, the hope of glory, the Christian puts off the old man with his deeds (Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9–10).  In light of the above, the Christian has blessed freedom fully and completely to repent of his sins before God.
Without the truth that repentance is the gift of God’s grace, worked by the Holy Spirit of Christ in his heart, the Christian can only entertain fierce doubt about the forgiveness of his sins. If his repentance must be his activity that he must perform before God will grant him pardon, he can only wonder whether his sins will be pardoned. What doubts and fears must crowd into his mind and creep into his heart! Such a vast and enormous result as his acceptance with the living and holy
God hinges on his action. The forgiveness of his sins is his deliverance from God’s condemnation and the hinge upon which the Christian’s fellowship with the living
God depends. Is his repentance thorough enough? Is it sufficiently humble? Does it have enough shame and sorrow? Is the heart broken enough, the spirit contrite enough? Will it be pleasing enough to God? Has he sufficiently repented of all his sins? Is there one, several, or a multitude of sins that he has wholly overlooked, so that there is no repentance, let alone sufficient repentance?
Set over against the holiness and righteousness of
God, the repentance of man cannot be sufficient. Set over against the glory of the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross of Calvary, it cannot be enough. Not only is the very point of repentance the unworthiness of the sinner of God’s acceptance and forgiveness, but also repentance has as its subject the pride of the sinner. Repentance must say that it is not good enough, that as the activity or deed of man, man’s repentance gives God every reason not to forgive. If repentance is the activity of man that he must do to obtain forgiveness, there is no repentance that could be brought before God. Repentance must only obtain condemnation.
But as true repentance is the work and gift of God, it is not of man. As the fruit of the cross of God’s Son and as the result of the operation of the Holy Spirit, it is a pleasing sacrifice of God unto God. As he has so graciously and mercifully wrought this gift in the hearts of his children, so is he pleased to perform what he has promised.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”
(1 John 1:9).
—MVW  EDITOR’S LEC TURE REGARDING CL ASSIS  

Footnotes:

1 Martin VanderWal, “True Repentance (4),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 4 (September 2022): 25.
2 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.), 3.3.2:387.

The  issue at Classis September 2022 was God’s covenant:
God’s covenant of grace with believers and their seed in
Jesus Christ.1
It is striking that the issue was God’s covenant because
God’s covenant was not on the agenda of classis. Classis had prepared a lengthy agenda. Classis had documented all of the protests and appeals and an overture. Classis had received all of the reports of its committees. And in that entire agenda, God’s covenant did not appear. But God came to classis, and God came to classis with his own agenda. And on that agenda he had this  one  item for the
Reformed Protestant Churches: his covenant! And God made the covenant the agenda not only in a single point of classis, but he also made his covenant pervade the classis, so that the covenant came up in decisions where it had not been expected to come up. God did that. God came to classis with his own agenda, and he made the covenant classis’ agenda.
When God came to classis with his agenda of his covenant, he did not come to destroy the Reformed Protestant
Churches. He could have. We deserved it. Everything was in place for the Reformed Protestant Churches to be destroyed, to be undone. The Reformed Protestant
Churches have been ungrateful to God in the matter of his covenant, especially as that covenant applies to the
Christian school. God could have come to classis and scattered us. He could have come and given us the desire of our hearts—our own way and our own will—and we would have been destroyed.
In fact, all of the material for our destruction was in the classical agenda. There was an overture to the classis to remove article 21 of the Church Order. The overture to remove article 21 was an attack on the Christian school.
The overture was aimed at the teaching of article 21 that the school is a demand of the covenant. The overture never mentioned the covenant. The overture never mentioned the demand of the covenant. But that’s what the overture aimed at. I maintain that. And I maintain that because there were also at classis on Thursday morning the results of a great groundswell in the Reformed Protestant Churches that supported removing article 21. I think many men can attest to the groundswell that they heard in the churches—whether that’s our own congregation in First or in the denomination—that was very, very interested in the overture to remove article 21 because there was opposition, open hostility even, to the Christian school’s being the demand of the covenant, which article 21 clearly teaches.
God could have left us on Thursday morning at classis to have the will of our hearts. He could have given a boost to that groundswell with lying spirits to plague classis, so that the Reformed Protestant Churches would throw out on pretend grounds the article of the Church Order that most clearly teaches the school as a demand of the covenant. When God came to classis with his agenda, he did not leave us to our own devices. He came in mercy.
He came in grace. He came in his covenant, his covenant love, and he saved the Reformed Protestant Churches. He delivered to us his covenant of grace and that covenant’s application in the good Christian school.  God  did that.  God  made the agenda the covenant. No man did that, whether deacon from a Reformed Protestant church or minister or elder in the Reformed Protestant Churches—God did it. And God did it in such a way that he made us nothing. He made us men nothing, and he made himself everything.
How did God come to classis with his agenda? What was it in the providence of God that brought his agenda of the covenant to the floor of the classis? It was two things, both of which are the folly of men. It was, first, an elder in one of the Reformed Protestant Churches who attacked the covenant foundation of the school; an elder who not seventeen minutes before classis but who for weeks and months before classis attacked the covenant foundation of the school. The issue that plagued Sovereign Reformed Protestant Church was not the question of whether this man or that man had done enough to get a Christian school started. That has been presented as the issue. That was not the issue. The issue that plagued
Sovereign also was not whether everyone with one voice professed a desire for the school. That too has been presented as the issue: “We all want a school.” That wasn’t the issue. The issue was that Sovereign was divided, and it was divided along this line: men who said, “The Christian school is a  may  . It’s permissible” and, on the other side, men who said, “The Christian school is a  must  . It’s a demand of the covenant.” That’s what divided Sovereign.
That division is the folly of men. And God used that folly of men to bring to classis his agenda: his covenant.
The second way that God brought his agenda of the covenant to classis was through an overture to remove article 21 of the Church Order. Although that overture did not mention the covenant; although none of its grounds said, “The school is not a demand of the covenant”; that was behind the overture. And I maintain that on the basis of language in the overture. The overture argued, by its description of other denominations who respect the decision of parents to homeschool, for homeschooling over against the school. And God used that overture, which is the folly of men, to bring his agenda of the covenant to classis.
When God did that, he made us men nothing—all of us men. None of us men were anything at classis. None of us in the Reformed Protestant Churches are anything. We came within a hairsbreadth of throwing out the Christian school. But  God  came to classis, and God made himself everything when he brought his agenda of his covenant to classis.
In fact, God changed the churches in the two days of classis. The churches are different today—they were different Friday night already—than they were Thursday morning. When we came to classis Thursday morning, we came with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other so that we could burn down the Christian school.
There was a groundswell of that. And article 21 of the
Church Order would have been the first torch thrown into the pile. We came ready to burn down the Christian school—bit by bit, year by year, but burn it down nevertheless. In the meeting of classis, God did not send an evil spirit but the Spirit of Christ to blow through that classis with his covenant, to change our hearts and to give us a conviction together of the school as the demand of the covenant and of the covenant of God as that covenant is lived in the lives of the members. God came and gave that, so that whereas we came to classis Thursday morning with a pitchfork and a torch, God took those out of our hands and sent us away Friday night with a trowel in one hand and the call, “Now, go build a school. Go build a school in First. Go build a school in Second. Go build a school in Sovereign. Go build a school in Zion. Go build a school in Loveland. Go build a school in Wisconsin.
Go build a school in Cornerstone. Go build a school in
Edmonton. Go build a school in Singapore.” He sent us with trowels in our hands to build a school! And in the other hand he gave us a sword to kill anyone who stands in the way of the school, to kill anyone who stands in the way of God’s covenant and the expression of that covenant in the school—because that too happened at classis.
A man was put to death, or the advice to put him to death was given: suspend him from his office of elder. God took away our pitchfork and our torch, by which we in our folly would have destroyed the school, and he gave us a trowel and a sword to build and defend the school. That’s remarkable! That’s his grace. That’s his mercy. That’s the
God who is our God: a God of mercy, a God of pity.
God came to Classis September 2022 and delivered the
Reformed Protestant Churches.
How did God bring the issue of the covenant to classis? God brought the issue of the covenant to classis by means of the Christian school. There is such a close connection between God’s covenant and the Christian school that when the Christian school comes up, the covenant comes up. Even if we don’t write it in our agenda, when the Christian school comes up, the covenant comes up. The connection between the covenant of grace and the Christian school is this: that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant. Or you could say it this way, which is the same thing: the Christian school is the requirement of the covenant. The covenant of God requires the Christian school. That’s how God brought the covenant to classis.  What does it mean that the Christian school is the de  mand of the covenant? Let’s begin with that idea of the covenant. God’s covenant is his relationship of friendship that he establishes between himself and his people in Jesus Christ. In that covenant of friendship, God is their
God, and they are his people. In that covenant of grace,
God takes his people to himself and brings them into his own covenant life, so that God, who himself is a covenant God—he’s the living God as Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost—brings us into that very covenant life through
Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity come in our flesh. And the Spirit of Jesus Christ, whom he pours out upon us, knits us to Christ and, uniting us to Christ, brings us into the very fellowship and communion of Jehovah God. That’s the glorious doctrine of the covenant.
In that covenant fellowship God unites his people together as members of one body. We are united to the head, Jesus Christ. In fact, we are united to him so closely that we are bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. That’s why you eat the Lord’s supper. That’s the body and blood of Christ. When you eat the Lord’s supper, God testifies to you by that supper, “You are one flesh and one bone with Jesus Christ. You are united to him as one organism, so that he is the head and you are a member of his body.” And when God unites me to Christ as a member of Christ’s body and unites you to Christ as a member of Christ’s body by that very same Spirit, he unites us together as one; so that God’s people are one body, and the church may be described as the body of
Christ. These are the ABCs of covenant doctrine. These are the ABCs of 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, for example.
God has made us many members of one body and yet one body in Christ.
In that covenant fellowship with Christ and with one another, God sheds abroad his love in our hearts. He sheds that love abroad in such a way that we know his love, we experience his love, and we are comforted by that love and saved by that love. And God, who sheds that love abroad in our hearts by his Spirit, gives to us as his sons and his daughters  love  . He gives us love for him; he gives us love one for another. And that love that
God gives us for him and for one another inevitably, certainly, comes to expression in the lives of the children of God. That’s why you come to church. You love
God. God is here in church. You don’t come to church because you draw yourself here; God does that by his love. He loves you, and that love of him takes you here.
And you come to church to sing and praise and pray and worship that God in love. That’s the expression of our love for him.
And in this covenant the love that we have one for another is also expressed, and it is expressed this way: that no man says that ought that he has is his own, but we have all things in common. The meaning of that love for each other is this: that Christ had this mind in him, that he humbled himself to be my servant, to serve me with salvation; and that mind of Christ he puts in his people, so that the mind of his people is that they become the servants one of another, and no man looks on his own things but on the things of one another.
That covenant, with regard to the seed of the covenant, is that I do not say about the rearing of my covenant children that their rearing is  first  . But I say that the rearing of  your  covenant children is first for me, before my own; so that the covenant people of God in that love one for another, with the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, form a school for the rearing of the covenant seed.
That’s what the school is: it’s the love of God’s people for each other and their banding together in that covenant for the rearing of the children of the covenant.
The attitude among  God’s covenant people is the attitude of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of
Manasseh before they crossed the Jordan. Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh, who had flocks, would stay on the east side of Jordan because it was a land for flocks. But the men of those tribes said, “We will build houses here for our families, and then we will go in front of the army over the Jordan River, and we will fight at the front of the army until all our brethren have been given their places; and we won’t rest until our brethren have their places. And only when our brethren have their places—with us at the front, bearing the greatest casualties—only then will we go back to our homes, where our wives and children live.” That’s the attitude of the covenant people: “I will go before you. I will be the casualty. I will suffer whatever must be suffered that your seed may inherit the covenant, that your seed may have a covenant rearing.” And that’s a school. That’s the school that rises out of, is founded upon, and is the fruit of the covenant.
The opposite of that mentality is independentism.
And  independentism  is a fancy word for  hatred of your neighbor  . Independentism says, “Me and mine.” Independentism does not say, “You and yours.” Oh, independentism will wish you well. “Oh, yeah, I hope you get a school, and I can see that you would need that. I hope you get a school.” But independentism hates the neighbor. Independentism says, “I will get mine; what is best for me and mine I will do; and as for you, may you profit or may you perish as you are able.” That’s hatred of the neighbor. That’s not the covenant. That’s not the covenant that God establishes with his people! That’s not the one body that he makes as the body of the head Jesus Christ!
That’s hatred of the neighbor. The homeschooling movement is hatred of the neighbor. The movement is hatred of the neighbor because the homeschooling movement says, “Me and mine first, and you and yours maybe.”
The covenant of God with believers and their seed builds a school. It does.  That’s the Christian school as the fruit of the covenant.
But what about the Christian school as the  demand  of the covenant?—because that’s the connection between the
Christian school and the covenant. The Christian school is the demand of the covenant. It is the requirement.
In order to understand that, we have to go back to the very basics of a demand. There are demands in God’s covenant. There are no conditions, but there are demands.
Our baptism form says so. “In all covenants there are contained two parts,” and in the covenant our part is that we are “  obliged  unto new obedience” (Form for the Administration of Baptism, in  Confessions and Church Order  , 258; emphasis added). That’s a requirement. That’s a demand.
That’s an obligation. Now, the way that demand works in the covenant comes down to the question  why  . That’s all-important: the question  why  ?Why  must you do this thing? And if that  why  is taught as that by means of this obedience and obligation we  obtain  our salvation or  obtain  our covenant life or  obtain  covenant fellowship, then that obligation has been taught as a condition, and it’s damned. Then it’s bondage. There’s no freedom and liberty in that  why  of the demand.
That’s our whole problem with our mother. Our problem is not that mother says, “You must.” Our problem is with  why  she says you must. You must in order that you may enjoy. You must in order that you may go to heaven. You must in order that you may have forgiveness of your sins. That  must  is bondage. That  must  is accursed. The question is,  why  ? And the answer to the obligations and demands of the covenant is not  so that  you may have but  because  you have. You  have  salvation; you  have  forgiveness; you  have  eternal life. You have it all in Christ. Now  because  you have it all, obey him.
That’s what we mean by gratitude: because you have it, obey him.
And now you can run right down the line of any command you can think of. Love God. Why? So that he will love you? That’s bondage. Love God. Why? Because he has loved you. That’s freedom. That’s liberty.
Love your neighbor. Why? So that you may have forgiveness? That’s bondage. Love your neighbor. Why?
Because God has given you and your brethren salvation in Christ. That’s freedom.
And that’s the way the school as a demand of the covenant works.  Maintain a school!  is the requirement.
Why? Because salvation depends upon it? That’s bondage. Maintain a school. Why? Because God has made his covenant with you and your children. He’s made his covenant with you and the children of your brother. That’s liberty. That’s freedom.
The Christian school is the demand of liberty in the covenant. It’s  not bondage  to be told, “Go have a school.
Go start one; go maintain one.” That’s your liberty. You’ve been delivered unto it by God’s covenant of grace.  That doctrine of the schools—and it is a doctrine of the schools; it’s a doctrine of the school as a demand of the covenant—is the old paths. This doctrine of the schools, with the schools as a demand of the covenant, is not a new thing. It’s not new even in your lifetime or mine. This demand of the covenant is the old paths in your lifetime! And it’s the old paths for the whole history of the Reformed church. This doctrine of the
Christian school as a demand of the covenant is the old paths of the confessions. And because it’s the old paths of the confessions, this means that it’s the old paths of the scriptures. Do not be deceived by those who would tell you today, “We’re developing something new.” No, we’re not! Not even in our own lifetimes are we developing something new! This is the old paths, this doctrine of the Christian school.
This is the doctrine of Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism—Lord’s Day 38, which explains the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment of God’s law is “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the  Lord thy
God” (Ex. 20:8–10) and then the requirements about not laboring that follow it. The fourth commandment is the commandment about the Sabbath. The old path of
Reformed doctrine regarding the Sabbath is this: “What doth God require in the fourth commandment? First, that the ministry of the gospel  and the schools  be maintained” and that I go to church (  Confessions and Church
Order  , 128). Before I go to church, the requirement of the fourth commandment on the Sabbath is “Maintain the ministry”—God requires that of you—and the requirement is “Maintain the schools”—God requires that of you.
It is striking that that demand comes up in the fourth commandment because the fourth commandment is the covenant commandment. The Sabbath  is  the covenant. The Sabbath is rest. It is God’s rest in himself, his delight in himself as the overflowing fountain of all good. That’s rest for God. That’s covenant life for God.
And God says to you, “Now you rest. I gave you a day of rest. You delight in me, the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and my finished work.” That’s the covenant for you. That’s rest for you. In the commandment on the  covenant  , the Reformed old path says, “Schools.
Schools are required as your grateful life for God’s rest that he has given you. Schools are required for your children that they may be instructed in all things.” This means that lackadaisical behavior or opposition to the
Christian school or the promoting of a homeschool movement is ingratitude. That’s the way the demands work, remember. Demands are gratitude. Any pushing of anything other than the Christian school is ingrat  itude to God for his covenant. That’s why I say that
God could have come to classis and destroyed us for our thankless ingratitude. He didn’t. He came and he saved us.
There is a tactic that has been used for years to gut
Lord’s Day 38. The tactic is this: to define the school as whatever you happen to be doing, to define the school any way you want to, so that the word “schools” in Lord’s
Day 38 is up for grabs. That tactic was used at classis.
When a man was being given his Formula of Subscription exam and the question was put to him, “Do you believe that the good Christian school institution is a requirement according to Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s
Day 38?” his answer was “Yes, that’s my conviction. The school is required.” And when he was pressed on that, he gave this description of the school: “It’s my home. My home is a school.” That’s the tactic.
That tactic is being applied today to Lord’s Day 38 to define “schools” there as seminaries. There are all kinds of reasons, so the argument goes, that “schools” must refer to seminaries. “Look. This is about going to church. Of course it’s about seminaries.” “Look, this Lord’s Day is about the ministry of gospel. Of course it’s about seminaries. The ministry of the gospel and the seminaries in which the ministers are trained must be maintained.” And
I say that’s a tactic to gut the meaning of “schools.” The meaning of “schools” is not up for grabs. It is not up for grabs in Lord’s Day 38, nor is it up for grabs in Church
Order article 21 or any other place that the Church Order refers to schools. The meaning of “schools” is one thing.
It is not the home. The home is a good Christian home, for which we thank God. “Schools” is not the seminary. A seminary is a good gift of God, for which we thank him.
The “schools” are the Christian day schools. They are the schools where the youth of the church are instructed.
They are the schools where all the works of God that he has made are taught in the curriculum. The schools are schools.
That can be demonstrated by the preface to the Heidelberg  Catechism that  Elector  Frederick  III wrote.
When the Heidelberg Catechism was written and first published in January of 1563, Elector Frederick, who had commissioned the writing of the Catechism, wrote a preface to it. He had a title page to his preface and to the whole Catechism, and in the preface he explained his purpose in having the Catechism written. In his preface
Elector Frederick showed that he meant one thing by  schools  .Schools  was not a term up for grabs for Elector
Frederick, and it was not for Zacharias Ursinus or Caspar
Olevianus or any of the other men in the Palatinate, in the region that is Germany today. None of the men in that region would have known anything else by the word  schools  except schools for children, for the instruction of the youth together.
From the title page of the Heidelberg Catechism as first published in 1563: “Catechism or Christian
Instruction as This Is Carried on in Churches  and Schools  of the Electoral Palatinate.”2 On the very title page, the word “schools” appears because everybody knew what a school was.
In the preface Frederick refers several times to school  masters—teachers in the schools—and the schools. On the very first page of his preface he greets the “Pastors,
Preachers, Officers of the Church, and  Schoolmasters  ,throughout our Electorate of the Rhenish Palatinate”
(183). Later on, when he is describing his purpose in commissioning the Heidelberg Catechism, he says,
“Therefore we also have ascertained that by no means the least defect of our system is found in the fact, that our blooming youth is disposed to be careless in respect to Christian doctrine, both in the  schools  and churches of our principality” (189). The youth in the schools were negligent in doctrine, and therefore the Catechism was intended to correct that. “Schools” meant something.
And now, whereas both temporal and spiritual offices, government and family discipline, cannot otherwise be maintained—and in order that discipline and obedience to authority and all other virtures (  sic  ) may increase and be multiplied among subjects—it is essential that our  youth  be trained in early life, and above all, in the pure and consistent doctrine of the holy Gospel, and be well exercised in the proper and true knowledge of God. (192–93)
Later yet: “...in order not only that the youth in churches  and schools  may be piously instructed in such
Christian doctrine...but also that the Pastors  and  Schoolmasters  themselves may be provided with a fixed form and model...” (195). And then later yet: “To the youth in our schools” (197). How many references is that in one brief preface to the Heidelberg Catechism. If Frederick III would somehow be resurrected today, he would be mystified by the churches’ inability to know what a school is.
The “schools” meant something,  obviously  meant something, so that when “schools” comes up in Lord’s Day 38, that word is not up for grabs. That word means exactly what Frederick meant by it in his preface. Lord’s Day 38 says with regard to the fourth commandment, “Maintain schools. That’s my covenant, my sabbath rest.” Ursinus may have had his own reason or at least one expressed reason to have those schools—so that the men who had been trained in those schools all their lives would be prepared to argue with false teachers—but what is meant there is not seminaries and not homes. It is schools where there were schoolmasters.
Let that be the end of the tactic that has plagued us in mother and now in our own churches to redefine the school as something other than a school. It’s a school!
That’s the Reformed faith: maintain a school! That’s the covenant: maintain a school! The “schools” in Lord’s Day 38 mean schools. And that settles the matter as far as the
Reformed Protestant Churches are concerned.
Have you noticed that the battleground has shifted? It’s a wonderful thing. The battleground used to be Church
Order article 21. Two weeks ago the battleground was the
Church Order. I love the Church Order. I love what the
Church Order says about the schools. But what glory that the battleground may be in the Catechism! That’s where the battle has shifted. That’s where you find the tactic to redefine the school now, in Lord’s Day 38. What glory for the Reformed church that this battle may be fought in the confessions!
The confessions are what we hold when we make confession of our faith: the articles of the Christian faith and the doctrine taught here in this Christian church,
I believe to be the true and perfect doctrine of salvation. Those are the creeds. The officebearers make a vow regarding the creeds. The vow they make is this: I believe that  every point of doctrine  in the confessions—including the point of doctrine about the schools and their requirement—is in harmony with the word of God, and I will not privately or publicly militate against those doctrines.
This is where the battle needs to be fought because this divides out the Reformed from the un-Reformed and the anti-Reformed. The creeds settle this issue for us. It’s not a hard issue when you take hold of the creeds. This is the gold lying on the surface of the ground. You don’t even have to dig for it. You come to Lord’s Day 38, and it says,
“Schools required,” and that’s the end of the debate. Let this be the end of the debate and the settling of the matter for the Reformed Protestant Churches. Lord’s Day 38, the confessions, says “schools,” and schools are required in God’s covenant.
This is the old paths, then, with regard to all of the creeds. And you can start going through the creeds. I won’t do that now; I had some listed; but you can go through the creeds, and you can find the covenant woven throughout the creeds. And as you start digging—you’ve taken the gold that’s on the surface—as you start digging into the doctrines of the confessions, you start seeing the schools everywhere in the confessions too. Though they’re listed once by name, the schools are everywhere in the confessions. The old paths are that the schools are a demand of the covenant. That’s nothing new for you even in your lifetime.  This is the old paths also with regard to our own church history. Herman Hoeksema was involved in three—not two but three—church splits in his life. And now when I talk about church splits, I’m not talking about the Janssen case in 1922; I’m not talking about the Danhof departure in 1925; I’m talking about controversies in which
Herman Hoeksema by his doctrine caused splits in the churches. And that’s not a bad thing, that he caused splits. He called for a split in certain instances. Herman
Hoeksema went through three church splits. We usually think of the first as 1924 over common grace and then the formation of the PRC, and the second as 1953 and the unconditional covenant and the departure of De
Wolf and others. Before any of that Herman Hoeksema was involved in a church split in his own congregation of
Fourteenth Street Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in
Holland, Michigan.
In the year 1917 his church split, and the issue that the church split over was Hoeksema’s insistence on the
Christian school! As a seminary student even, before he was called to Fourteenth Street, he prayed in such a way that there were prominent men angry with him in his insistence on the Christian school. In 1917, when he was minister of Fourteenth Street CRC, he preached the school and taught the school until many members left. And they not only left Fourteenth Street CRC for another Christian Reformed church; they left the Christian Reformed Churches altogether. And the issue was the school.
Here is one author’s description of it, who may or may not be sympathetic to Hoeksema by his description of him:
The militant Hoeksema came to Fourteenth
Street Church right out of seminary, after three ordained ministers had declined the call. Rev.
Hoeksema claimed that “under his predecessor some 90 percent of the families in the congregation opposed Christian education and were very lukewarm in their support of Holland Christian
School,” which had been established the same year as Fourteenth Street Church. Rev. Hoeksema “brought the disagreements to a head by pushing Christian education and doctrinal orthodoxy.” The membership of the congregation declined considerably between 1917 and 1918, because his approach alienated a number of the families, with the result that “there was a grand exodus...mostly to Trinity RCA, and primarily over the issue of the Christian
School.”3
Herman Hoeksema had his very first church split in his very first congregation, and the issue was the Christian school. Do you see what that marks Hoeksema as? A covenantal theologian! The issue that carried Hoeksema through every church split was the covenant! It was the issue in 1917 in Fourteenth Street; it was the issue in 1924 with regard to the conditional well-meant offer of the gospel; and it was the issue in 1953 over against Klaas
Schilder and Hubert De Wolf. Hoeksema was a covenantal theologian, and the church split around him again and again and again over that issue.
That’s your forefather! That’s mine. That’s the old paths of Herman Hoeksema for the Reformed Protestant
Churches.  Also God brought the covenant to classis with regard to the claim of the covenant. The first topic of the covenant was the demand of the covenant. The second topic that God brought to classis was the claim of the covenant.
What we mean by the  claim of the covenant  is this: when God establishes his covenant with his people, he claims them. He says to them, “You are mine. You and your children are mine, as many as I have called, all my elect among them.” That’s a claim. We are not our own in the covenant but belong to God through our faithful savior Jesus Christ. That’s the claim of the covenant.
That issue of the claim of the covenant is as big as, and maybe will yet prove to be bigger than, the issue of the demand of the covenant because in the Reformed
Protestant Churches there was and is a mindset that no one may tell me as a parent how to raise my children. “I have the final say with regard to their covenant rearing, with regard to their schooling and how I’m going to teach them. No elder may come to me and say, ‘That’s wrong!’ No minister may preach to me that my decision is wrong. My decision is inviolable as a parent. Why?
Because those are my children. God gave them to me.”
The claim of the covenant destroys that. As parents we do not have the last say on the rearing of our children.
The covenant does! Which is only to say, God does.
God may come to you and say, “What you are doing is wrong.” And he may say that because those children are not your children! They’re God’s children! They’re the heritage of the Lord (Ps. 127:3). God has made you a steward of those children, so that—not to be too crass about it—you say the same thing with regard to your possessions that you say with regard to your children.
“That money isn’t mine. It’s God’s. He gave it to me, and he made me a steward of it. And so also those children aren’t mine; they’re God’s. He made me the steward of them, but they’re God’s children.” God has the last say on our children. The mentality that is found throughout the Reformed Protestant Churches, that the children are mine, is a denial of the covenant of grace with believers and their seed. It’s a denial of the claim of the covenant.
Classis said, because God’s Spirit said, no. And when an overture came that had in its grounds this statement, that the keys of the kingdom—preaching and discipline—may not be exercised  in a family  with regard to the family’s decision of the rearing of their seed, classis said, “No, the keys  may  be exercised there.” And that too is the ABCs of the covenant. When you have your child baptized, why in the world do you stand up here and say, “I promise to bring my children up in the aforesaid doctrine,” if you have the last word on it? The very fact of that baptism vow means that God has the last word on it. And this means that when God came to Classis September 2022, he also restored the office of elder and the office of minister to their places in the oversight of the family. An elder may come into your home and say, “No, you mayn’t do that.” That elder brings the word of God. That elder must bring the confessions. That elder may say, “No, you mayn’t do that— not because I say so; because God does, and he claims your children.” And the minister may preach and say,
“This is wrong, if you make this decision, and this is right, if you make this decision.” He brings the word of God, and he brings the confessions in that; but he may say that, not because his word means anything but because God says so. God wrought that victory in our midst at classis as well.
What happened in September 2022 is that God came to classis—which means he came to you—and he came with his own agenda, which agenda is his covenant of grace. Thank God that he came with that agenda, because that agenda is a foundation you can stand on in your generations until the Lord Jesus Christ returns: God’s covenant with believers and their seed.
—AL  Catechism or Christian Instruction as
This is Carried on in Churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate  We, Frederic, Archcarver and Elector of the Holy Roman
Empire, Duke in Bavaria, by the grace of God, Elector
Palatine on the Rhine, &c., present to all and each of our Superintendents, Pastors, Preachers, Officers of the
Church, and Schoolmasters, throughout our Electorate of the Rhenish Palatinate, our grace and greeting, and do them, herewith, to wit:
Inasmuch as we acknowledge that we are bound by the admonition of the Divine word, and also by natural duty and relation, and have finally determined to order and administer our office, calling, and government, not only for the promotion and maintenance of quiet and peaceable living, and for the support of upright and virtuous walk and conversation among our subjects, but also and above all, constantly to admonish and lead them to devout knowledge and fear of the Almighty and His holy word of salvation, as the only foundation of all virtue and obedience, and to spare no pains, so far as in us lies, with all sincerity to promote their temporal and eternal welfare, and to contribute to the defence and maintenance of the same:
And, although apprised on entering upon our government, how our dear cousins and predecessors, Counts
Palatine, Electors, &c., of noble and blessed memory, have instituted and proposed divers Christian and profitable measures and appliances for the furtherance of the glory of God and the upholding of civil discipline and order:
Notwithstanding this purpose was not in every respect prosecuted with the appropriate zeal, and the expected and desired fruit did not accrue therefrom—we are now induced not only to renew the same, but also, as the exigencies of the times demand, to improve, reform, and further to establish them. Therefore we also have ascertained that by no means the least defect of our system is found in the fact, that our blooming youth is disposed to be careless in respect to Christian doctrine, both in the schools and churches of our principality—some, indeed, being entirely without Christian instruction, others being unsystematically taught, without any established, certain, and clear catechism, but merely according to individual plan or judgment; from which, among other great defects, the consequence has ensued, that they have, in too many instances, grown up without the fear of God and the knowledge of His word, having enjoyed no profitable instruction, or otherwise have been perplexed with irrelevant and needless questions, and at times have been burdened with unsound doctrines.
And now, whereas both temporal and spiritual offices, government and family discipline, cannot otherwise be maintained—and in order that discipline and obedience to authority and all other virtures (  sic  ) may increase and be multiplied among subjects—it is essential that our youth be trained in early life, and above all, in the pure and consistent doctrine of the holy Gospel, and be well exercised in the proper and true knowledge of God:  Therefore  , we have regarded it as a high obligation, and as the most important duty of our government, to give attention to this matter, to do away with this defect, and to introduce the needful improvements:
And accordingly, with the advice and cooperation of our entire theological faculty in this place, and of all Superintendents and distinguished servants of the
Church, we have secured the preparation of a summary course of instruction or catechism of our Christian Religion, according to the word of God, in the German and
Latin languages; in order not only that the youth in churches and schools may be piously instructed in such
Christian doctrine, and be thoroughly trained therein, but also that the Pastors and Schoolmasters themselves may be provided with a fixed form and model, by which to regulate the instruction of youth, and not, at their option, adopt daily changes, or introduce erroneous doctrine:
We do herewith affectionately admonish and enjoin upon every one of you, that you do, for the honour of
God and our subjects, and also for the sake of your own soul’s profit and welfare, thankfully accept this proffered
Catechism or course of instruction, and that you do diligently and faithfully represent and explain the same according to its true import, to the youth in our schools and churches, and also from the pulpit to the common people, that you teach, and act, and live in accordance with it, in the assured hope, that if our youth in early life are earnestly instructed and educated in the word of God, it will please Almighty God also to grant reformation of public and private morals, and temporal and eternal welfare. Desiring, as above said, that all this may be accomplished, we have made this provision.
“Given at Heidelberg, Tuesday, the nineteenth of January, in the year 1563 after the birth of Christ, our dear
Lord and Saviour.”  

Footnotes:

1 This is a copyedited transcript of a speech given September 28, 2022, in First Reformed Protestant Church, which can be found at https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpuYC7Git0o. 2 “Catechism or Christian Instruction as This Is Carried on in Churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate,” reproduced from George W. Richards, The Heidelberg Catechism: Historical and Doctrinal Studies  (Publication Board of the RCUS, 1913), 181. Page numbers for subsequent quotations from this book are given in text. All emphasis is added.
3 Jacob E. Nyenhuis, ed., A Goodly Heritage: Essays in Honor of the Reverend Dr. Elton J. Bruins at Eighty (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 187. Nyenhuis quotes from Robert P. Swierenga, “The Anne (Andrew) Hoekstra Family,” (working paper, Van Raalte Institute, January 2003), 10; and references an interview he did “with two nonagenarian members of Fourteenth Street Church, Kathryn Fredricks and Elizabeth Sterenberg, 2002.”

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  —Romans 12:1  

Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?  —Psalm 12:4  This word of God declares the blasphemous height of the vain speech of the wicked. These wicked have persecuted the poor and needy. They have oppressed the poor. They have caused the needy to sigh. Why oppress the poor and needy? What do the poor and needy have that can increase the wealth of the wicked?
The reason is the God of the poor and needy. God has promised to be their helper. By his promise God has made the cause of the poor and needy his own. God is the reason that the wicked take a special delight in oppressing the poor. The wicked set their words against the word of
God. Their desire is to ask the question, “Who is lord over us?” To that question they desire to give the resounding answer, “No lord is over us!” Not even the living God of heaven and earth.
These wicked point to the instrument of their triumph.
Their triumph is not by physical force, by extortion as the threat of force, by bullying, or by deceitful manipulation and trickery. These indeed are instruments the wicked have used against the poor and needy. The wicked have indeed killed and beaten. They have twisted law and order to favor themselves in their wickedness. They have bullied and threatened others into compliance with their unjust actions. But the real point is their warfare against
God. They have boasted before the Lord of their cruel evil. They have boasted against him of their wicked gain.
He has not stopped them. He has not destroyed them. So they speak against him. They exalt their tongues against his. They boast of the possession of their own lips. So they speak, and so they talk. Feeling free both of God’s judgments against them and of his sovereignty over them, they ask the question, “Who is lord over us?”
It is one thing to be presented with such words in scripture as spoken by the heathen. The nations that rage against the Lord and his Christ speak similar words: “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Ps. 2:3). Similar are the words that Pilate spoke to him who is the way, the truth, and the life: “What is truth?” (John 18:38).
But the words of the wicked expressed in Psalm 12:4 are not from the heathen. They are spoken by members of the house of
Israel. They speak against God as he has revealed himself in his holy word, the testimony of the scriptures. They speak against him who has declared himself to be the sovereign of heaven and earth, sovereign over all the tongues of men. They speak against him who has promised to be the helper of the poor, the fatherless, and the widow. They speak against him who has threatened his just judgment against the workers of iniquity.
This great wickedness of men in the church is by no means limited to sacred history. Psalm 12:4 is a powerful reminder of what recurs time and again in church history. One of the most notable expressions of this great evil happened at the time of the Protestant Reformation. The truth of God’s word was bitterly and viciously opposed by the papacy. The papacy employed the power of its hierarchical tyranny against the truth of scripture. God’s people were not to live freely by the word of
God, justified by faith alone. Although confronted with the clear testimony of God’s word, the Romish papacy used its own words against God’s word. Issuing so many papal bulls and culminating in the Council of Trent, the antichristian papacy worked to destroy the truth in order to maintain its oppression of the church of Jesus
Christ. Claiming with so many words that the authority of Christ had been conferred on the papacy alone, it turned aside the authority of God’s word and invoked its own authority to destroy all who bore testimony to the divine word.
Sadly, the great wickedness of Psalm 12:4 carried through into Protestantism. Still the tongue of the wicked sought to prevail apart from papal tyranny. Still men thought their lips were their own. Refusing submission to the word of God, men spoke their own words against the word of God. Joining together in their rebellion, they worked to drive out the testimony of God’s word by dominating the institutions of church and state. They focused on those standing for the truth of
God’s word. They used their lips and tongues to accuse the orthodox of being unloving and intolerant, of laboring for the destruction of the church’s peace and unity.
They turned heresy into orthodoxy. They turned faithfulness into perfidy. They turned unrighteousness into righteousness, wrong into right, disorder into order. All with their words.  The grievous wickedness of
Psalm 12:4 became evident in the deliberative assemblies of the
Protestant Reformed Churches.
Preaching against the truth of justification by grace alone without works and against the uncon  ditional covenant was declared by men to be orthodox. When that declaration failed, such preaching was declared to be merely confusing. Those who protested against that preaching were vilified as troublemakers and radicals.
They were threatened with church discipline. When leaders of these churches agitated against the decisions of
Synod 2018 in their public writings and teachings, they were not declared to be schismatic but were declared orthodox. When some in these churches continued to point out obvious failures to conform to the truth of God’s word, including failure to repent of the false teachings condemned by Synod 2018, they faced discipline for schism and slander.
The history of the recent controversy in the Protestant
Reformed Churches is replete with the twisting of the word of God by the words of men. Through it all the words of Psalm 12:4 must be heard: “With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?”
How did this grievous wickedness of Psalm 12:4 happen?
How did this wickedness happen when the beginning of the Protestant Reformed denomination involved the same use of wicked words? How did this happen when that wickedness was so apparent in 1924? How did such wickedness happen though many books had been writ  ten and published on the history of the beginning of the
Protestant Reformed denomination? How did this wickedness happen again in spite of so much instruction in this history?
Why was this so apparent in the history of 1924?
In this history the leadership of the Christian Reformed
Church (CRC) had banded together with their words.
Their cause of common grace signified a broad-mindedness and a movement toward finding acceptance and approval among other institutions. The world envisioned by Abraham Kuyper’s  gemeene gratie  was a world the leadership in the CRC wanted to move into and help develop.
The opposition of Herman Hoeksema, Henry Danhof, and George Ophoff they found intolerable. They knew the weapon they would use, the weapon that had been put to use so often before in church history: the weapon of words.
With their words they laid hold on the creeds and on the writings of men about those creeds. With their words they persuaded the synod of 1924 to authoritatively declare the three points of common grace to be the teaching of scripture and the Reformed creeds. A quote from the first point of common grace is clear:
This [“a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general”] is evident from the Scripture passages that were quoted and from the Canons of Dordt, II, 5 and III, IV, 8, 9, where the general offer of the gospel is set forth; while it also is evident from the citations made from the Reformed writers belonging to the most flourishing period of Reformed theology that our fathers from of old maintained this view.1
It mattered not that it was not “evident.” It mattered not that Abraham Kuyper identified himself as or was acknowledged by others to be the author of this new doctrine. What mattered was that synod could write the words and have them passed by majority vote, accomplished by words.
With words the force of the words of Synod 1924 carried through with the additional words of Classis Grand
Rapids East and Classis Grand Rapids West. Based on the work of that synod, these classes of the CRC deposed the three ministers with their consistories. Again, the autonomy of the local congregations as ruled by elders in their locales according to the word of God did not matter.
What mattered were the words of these assemblies. What mattered were the words that explained that such urgent and decisive action was necessary and so important for the peace and unity of the churches.
What words! Words that the synod read into the confessions and “citations made from the Reformed writers belonging to the most flourishing period of Reformed theology.” Words that synod used authoritatively to declare it to be so. Words that followed through, to break through lines of Reformed church polity, for putting out of office men whom God had placed there for the maintenance of the truth.
Words of men were used not only by the CRC Synod of 1924 and carried through by the CRC classes of Grand
Rapids East and Grand Rapids West, but words were also used by Synod 1945 of the  Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland  (GKN  ) for the deposition of Klass Schilder from the office of professor of theology. The same tactics used against Hoeksema, Danhof, and Ophoff were employed against Schilder and the ministers standing with him.
The synod of the  GKN  insisted that conditions of unrest and turmoil required that the assembly continue over the space of three years. Over that time Schilder remained in hiding from the Nazis and could not appear publicly to defend himself. Synod took advantage of his absence to issue ruling after ruling to build up opposition against
Schilder. Deliberations of that assembly focused on controlling all information about the denomination in order to build up and maintain the impression that Schilder’s teachings threatened the welfare of the denomination.
Having driven that impression deeply throughout the denomination, the assembly then moved against the professor. With the sentence of his deposition, the synod of the  GKN  hoped to intimidate all who would dare to stand with Schilder. It was their hope that all support for
Schilder would evaporate, leaving the professor all alone, an outcast of the  GKN  .The manner and end of Schilder’s ouster from the  GKN  was similar to that of Hoeksema, Danhof, and
Ophoff from the CRC. But what was more clear about  Schilder’s case was that it had much to do with the professor’s opposition to the dominance of Kuyperian thought in the  GKN  . Schilder decried the abstract, speculative nature of Kuyper’s teachings in favor of preaching and teaching that centered on the text of scripture. Schilder shared the focus of the  Afscheiding  , the care of God’s people in the churches. He eschewed the focus of Kuyper’s  Doleantie  on the institutions of the day, denomination and state, which he saw compromised by allegiance to the Nazi party.  There are significant reasons that the doctrines of Abraham Kuyper were involved in the actions taken by the deliberative assemblies of both the CRC and the  GKN  .The first reason is the simplest. The doctrines of men are not the doctrines of the word of God. The doctrines of men need support that the doctrines of God’s word do not need. They need the support of the authority of men.
They need to have the deliberative assemblies of the churches under the control of men rather than under the control of the scriptures. The doctrines of men simply cannot stand against the scriptures. Therefore, the testimony of holy scripture cannot be allowed any place in the deliberative assemblies of the churches. The voices of men who exercise their responsibility to maintain and defend the truth of God’s word against the false doctrines of men must be excluded. Because the doctrines favored are the doctrines of men, church authority must be exercised against the word of God.
The second reason goes deeper than the first and provides the spiritual explanation for such actions of these broader assemblies and their misuse of ecclesiastical authority. It is that the truth is narrow and antithetical, while the lie is broad and tolerant. Institutional pride is concerned with appearances and numbers. Institutional pride wants representation of its institution either in
Christendom or more broadly in the world. Institutional pride must know that its institution has an impact in the realm of denominations or public life. Institutional pride has little use for the ordinary member of the church and the care of his soul by the word of God proclaimed to him Sunday after Sunday. In a similar fashion institutional pride seeks to maintain itself as the means of grace. Grace is not to be controlled by the eternal election of God or by the cross of Christ. Grace is not to be applied by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of God’s elect by the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Instead, grace is tied to the institution and bare membership in the institution. Stumbling at sovereign, gracious election and stumbling at the cross of Christ, emphasis is placed on an outward institution and its appearance before all. Institutional membership must indicate and control the boundaries of grace. On the other hand, sovereign, particular grace does not concern itself with external appearances, numbers, or the praise of men. It does not seek out the wise and the strong but the foolish, the weak, and the despised
(1 Cor. 1:26–29). Therefore, institutional pride cannot tolerate the simple, powerful rebuke of the grace of God that prefers the younger to the elder, the humble to the proud, and the weak to the strong.
The third reason is the point of these articles: the determination of men to forsake the humble, earthy moorings of the word of God in favor of the lofty, speculative heights of abstract reasoning. How easy it is for men to turn away from the word of God that constantly humbles and abases them and denies them every corner of their pride! How easy it is for men to devote themselves to the contrivances of their own imaginations! How easy it is for men also to imagine a basis for their vanities in God’s word.
These contrivances must not be limited to the error of common grace. It is tempting to do so. It is a simple thing to point to Kuyper’s three-volume work on the subject. It is a simple thing to point out a clear rationale for the effort: the ascendance of the
Anti-Revolutionary Party and Kuyper’s departure from the gospel ministry to attain the political office of prime minister of the Netherlands. There are also Kuyper’s efforts at maintaining the truth of God’s word in the churches of Holland, his role in the  Doleantie  as true church reformation, and his stand against liberalizing elements in the state church of the Netherlands. There is indeed much to agree with in Kuyper’s work. There is his book  That God’s Grace is Particular  . There is much good found in his work on the Holy Spirit. But the fact remains that Kuyper’s work on common grace is not an error that stands by itself. His teaching on presupposed regeneration is not merely another example of error. His errors are not aberrations, accidental departures that somehow happened along the way. They belong to what is known as Kuyperianism and also belong to the child known as Neo-Kuyperianism.
Kuyperianism and Neo-Kuyperianism are theological movements that steer into abstract, philosophical reasoning in order to build up doctrinal systems independent of scripture. Then these theological movements work to bring these doctrinal systems back down as ideals, to carry their weight and influence into the world. These ideals have two characteristics. First, they attempt to control institutions to subordinate them to expressed ideals rather than to the word of God. Second, they are preoccupied with human reasoning to the neglect of the true knowledge of God in his word. Kuyperianism and Neo-Kuyperianism build castles in the sky and then demand that Reformed people live in them. There is a utopian aspect of these movements, built on the doctrine of common grace, that seeks the kingdom of God on the earth. It is not content with the Christian life as a life of struggle and pilgrimage. It wants triumph and an earthly home. It rejects a theology of suffering for the sake of a theology of glory.
What is the threat of  Kuyperianism and  NeoKuyperianism?
How are these movements directly related to
Psalm 12:4?
Most directly, they build up and maintain their systems by the words of men. Though these movements are claimed to be built up out of the word of
God, the claims are false. These movements are the words of men that take attention away from the word of God. They raise up systems and doctrines that rely solely on man’s authority, which must by that very fact be opposed to the word of God. This opposition becomes evident in two striking ways. The first way is that Kuyperianism is opposed to the doctrine of total depravity. The second way is that Kuyperianism is opposed to understanding grace as limited to the redemption of the elect in Christ alone. Its claim to doctrinal faithfulness to limited atonement is belied by its focus on the institutions of men. Kuyper’s famous claim in his Stone Lectures of “every square inch” is no mere assertion of God’s providential government according to his sovereignty. Kuyper intended his claim to be the basis for a movement of men that was meant to be exactly the redemption of everything in society and culture to the cause of Christ.
The threat of  Kuyperianism made itself evident in the weakening of Reformed and even Presbyterian denominations, which made for easy entrance of the heresy of the federal vision. The federal vision certainly exploited the weakness present in Reformed and Presbyterian churches by the error of the conditional covenant. But an additional weakness was present in these churches with the influence of Kuyperianism. Speculative theology loosens the grip of churches on the truth of scripture, making it easy for error to enter. But more to the point, works-theology is certain to enter where the doctrine of total depravity has been compromised and where man is exalted as the agent of redemption, whether his own personal redemption or his redemption of worldly institutions.
But the greatest threat of Kuyperianism is that it offers a deadly substitute: words for truth, dead ideas of man’s vain imagination for the living word of God.
This deadly substitution is found in what was addressed before in this magazine under the rubric of doctrine, on the subjects of repentance and faith. It is the substitution of the doctrine of repentance for repentance itself. It is the substitution of the doctrine of faith for faith itself.
Repentance becomes having an idea about it. One becomes a master of the doctrine of repentance.  He knows thoroughly the doctrine of repentance.
He knows thoroughly the true doctrine of repentance. But he supposes that his knowledge signifies that he is truly repentant. The true gift of God’s grace is displaced by a mere idea. The same effort is undertaken with respect to faith. But the fatal flaw becomes apparent. Left with only the idea, repentance is made into the good thing that is done in order to receive forgiveness. Faith is made into the activity of man that he does in order to receive salvation, whether in part or in whole. So it must also follow that good works do have standing before God to obtain following blessings and benefits. With their words men build their castles in the sky for imagined dwelling places of grace. But their castles are far away from the word of God that reveals true grace alone in the cross of Christ.
Next, Lord willing, I will treat the underpinnings of idealism and the need of God’s word for the glorious, true salvation of God’s people from sin.
—MVW  

Footnotes:

1 Herman Hanko, For Thy Truth’s Sake: A Doctrinal History of the Protestant Reformed Churches (Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Asso- ciation, 2000), 423.

I  n my last article I proposed a definition for the reward of grace: namely, that it is the wages of Jesus Christ, which is freely bestowed by God in election and which superabundantly replaces all that the children of
God lose in this life as they follow after Christ.1
Thus far, we have considered that the reward of grace is the wages of Christ. That this reward is the wages of
Christ means that the reward belongs to him, for he merited it according to his person and by his own arduous toil. Since the covenant head did all the work for this reward in the place of his people, they need nothing more than his perfect work to receive it. God freely bestows the reward of Christ upon all of his people by grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works. To think that our works determine the reward—in whatever way we could conceive—is wicked unbelief in the perfect work of Christ.
Now we move on to the wages themselves. What did
Christ earn for himself and for his people?  The apostle Paul, after speaking of Christ’s humiliation in
Philippians 2, goes on in verses 9–11 to speak about what
Christ’s wages are: 9.  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11. And that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.2
God rewards Christ with a name and place above all men so that he may be worshiped and highly exalted.
Yet there is more to this reward, as was foretold in
Isaiah 53:10–12: 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the
Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
In addition to receiving a name and place above all men, Christ received “a portion with the great”—that is, a kingdom—together with power and authority to execute God’s counsel. He also received posterity—“his seed”—and eternal life—“prolong his days.”
This eternal life is that which Christ bestows upon his posterity, who are the covenant children of God. Thus the reward of grace is nothing less than eternal life.3
Both scripture and the creeds identify the reward this way. The Canons speaks of “the reward of eternal life.”4 From scripture, Matthew 19:29: “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”5 Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord.” Also James 1:12: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.”
What is this eternal life? Bucan’s definition in Heppe is excellent:
Life eternal is the glorious state in which the elect, united most fully with Christ their Head, are to know God in heaven along with the angels, to enjoy His presence and to celebrate it eternally, to obtain the highest good acquired for us by
Christ, to be conformed in body and soul to His image, so far as he is man.6
The essence of eternal life is “to know God in heaven.”
God gives  himself  as the reward of grace. That the reward is God himself is God’s own testimony to Abram in
Canaan: “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” (Gen. 15:1). When one has God and knows God, he has life because God is life. As Christ prayed in John 17:3, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God.”
The book of  Revelation uses wonderful figures to depict the truth that eternal life is to know God in heaven. Revelation 22:4 teaches that the saints shall see the face of God, “and his name shall be in their foreheads.” God reveals himself by his name, and for him to place his name in the foreheads of his saints means that his saints will be given the knowledge of God in their minds and hearts.7
Furthermore, in heaven the saints will know God  immediately  . They “shall see the face of God.” They will know him even as they are known. This is also what scrip  ture means when it says that there is no night in New
Jerusalem. Revelation 22:5: “There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light.” Just as the medium of earthly light-bearers provides the possibility of seeing and knowing in this life, so God causes himself to be known truly without medium in life eternal.  He  is the light. God gives light to his saints and causes them to perfectly receive him.8 And God gives his light through
Jesus Christ. Revelation 21:23: “The city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.” The Lamb is the light. Through him alone is the knowledge of God, for he is the Son—the brightness of
God’s glory and the express image of his person.
That the saints might know God, they are “united most fully with Christ their Head.” It is through Christ that there is unity of life between God and his church.
“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:23). Through the wonder of grace wherein the Son of God took upon himself human flesh, suffered and died, arose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, Christ is become the life-source of the church.
He is her “hidden manna,” as Revelation 2:17 calls him.
Just as material manna sustained the life of the Israelite pilgrims through the waste-howling wilderness, so Christ is the hidden manna that nourishes all his people unto eternal life. He is for them wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.  He  is what eternally satisfies their souls.9
Christ is the life of his saints in and through his
Spirit. The Spirit is depicted in Revelation 21:6 and 22:1 as the water that proceeds from the throne of God and the Lamb. The Spirit is the living water that flows out of
God, through Christ, and into the belly of the church.
The Spirit imparts the very life of God into the glorified church, so that the church has one life with God in
Christ. Just as water sustains earthly life, so the Spirit sustains the heavenly life of the saints by imparting the fullness of Christ to them. The Holy Spirit realizes all the blessings that Christ earned by his perfect obedience.
And the Holy Spirit is an ever-flowing stream of life that eternally satisfies all who drink of him.10
Being made partakers of Christ, the saints “obtain the highest good acquired for [them] by Christ, to be conformed in body and soul to His image.” They will be made like God to the highest possible degree. The saints will bear the image of God in its highest possible development. This is what Christ means when he promises to the church in Philadelphia, “I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my
God, which is new Jerusalem...and I will write upon him my new name” (Rev. 3:12). The saints will be  like
God  , being recreated in Christ Jesus his Son. They will be clothed with the white robes of Christ’s righteousness. And being like God, true and perfect communion is possible.11  Being united to God and made like him through Christ, the saints shall “enjoy His presence” and “celebrate it.” In this connection it is clear that eternal life is the culmina  tion and perfection of the covenant of grace. That eternal life is the culmination and perfection of the covenant of grace is the doctrine of Psalm 25. Verse 13 speaks about the God-fearing man who enters the new creation: “His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.”
Then verse 14: “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.” In the culmination and perfection of the covenant of grace, God and his people enjoy each other’s presence as friends.
Such is taught in Revelation by the symbolism of the saints’ eating of the tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God (Rev. 2:7; 22:2). In Eden the tree of life was a symbol of the everlasting covenant with God. About this tree Herman Hoeksema said,
It had a certain sacramental character. It was a sign and seal of God’s favor, an emblem of God’s covenant. It was a visible and tangible sign of that higher aspect of Adam’s life which consisted in the knowledge of and fellowship with God...It was the tree of  life  ...Even though Adam’s life was earthy, nevertheless life also for Adam implied the favor and fellowship of God, his Creator-Lord.
And if in this connection we bear in mind that the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, in the very heart of Paradise the First, we may say that according to the analogy of the temple, the tree of life constituted the most holy place.
There, in the midst of the garden, where the tree of life was, dwelt God...To approach the tree of life...before the fall, was to approach God.12
In heaven there shall not merely be the sign of God’s favor and friendship, but the saints shall enjoy the ever-present reality of this favor and friendship. They shall ever be in God’s presence, knowing and speaking and tasting his goodness in Jesus Christ.
That the culmination and perfection of the covenant are realized in eternal life is also the significance of the proclamation from heaven in Revelation 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” In New Jerusalem the entire city shall be the tabernacle of God. God’s abode will be with his people perfectly and completely. He will take up his abode in them and fill them. They will be bound to one another in the unbreakable bonds of everlasting friendship.13
The saints shall know, enjoy, and celebrate God “eternally.” As Christ promises in Revelation 3:12, he will make each of his saints “a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out.” If the temple is the symbol of God’s dwelling place among men, then to be a pillar in his temple is to enter into everlasting communion with God.14
This eternal life will be possessed by the saints without interruption. Absolutely nothing will deter or reduce their life with God. It will be life to the fullest. Such is the promise of Psalm 103:2–5: 2.  Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: 3.  Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; 4.  Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies; 5.  Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s.
This fullness of life is also the symbolism of the tree of life that gives forth its leaves for the healing of the nations. Sickness of whatever form is forever excluded from the new creation because of the life-giving presence of the Spirit.15
The reward of grace that is promised in scripture is, very simply, eternal life.  Yet there is another important aspect to the reward of grace.
More specifically, the promised reward as the wages of Jesus Christ is the  name  and  place  that each elect child of God possesses in the everlasting covenant and eternal kingdom of God. That each saint has a  place  in heaven is implied by the very essence of the covenant and the kingdom.
By virtue of his peculiar creation, man was formed to stand in a covenant relationship with Jehovah God.
Man was made a covenant being, bearing the image of
God and possessing the capability to have a relationship of friendship with God. And standing in this particular relationship to God, man was given a very special place.
He was made to reign over the works of God in order to direct them unto God’s glory.
According to the infinite wisdom of God, man’s place of honor in creation was lost and forfeited in Adam in order to be regained and raised to the greatest plane of glory in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.16 The culmination and final manifestation of the covenant of grace is the kingdom of Jesus
Christ. Now that Christ has accomplished the forgiveness of sins through his blood and fulfilled all righteousness, his people have a name and place in this new kingdom.
The prominent characteristic of a kingdom is its rule. Christ rules. He rules by the decree of God, which he declares in Psalm 2. God shall give Christ absolute dominion over all nations in the way of smashing all hostile powers to pieces with his rod of iron. And he shall reign for ever and ever.
This rule Christ shares with his people, who have been perfectly united to him and who live one life with him.
He promises to the church, “To him that overcometh will
I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne”
(Rev. 3:21). Every child of God shall have a glorious place of power and rule in the new creation, given to him by
Christ the king. And together the saints will be a royal priesthood. They will use their position of rule to direct all of creation to the service and glory of God. They will do this forever without any possibility of erring.17
That the reward of grace implies a specific name and place for every saint is further underscored by the fact that the kingdom is called New Jerusalem. Eternal life in heaven is described as a city, a society. It is the perfect community. All the citizens share one life and principle and purpose as they live together in social intercourse.
Yet as citizens they each have a unique name and occupy a specific place within that community.18
There are several examples from scripture to demonstrate this truth. First of all, there is the great type of
Christ’s heavenly reign in the kingdom of Israel under
Solomon, which was characterized by its prosperity and dominion and peace. In this kingdom there were nobles, priests, singers, players of instruments, porters, officers, judges, governors of the sanctuary, scribes, the royal entourage of Cherethites and Pelethites, laborers in the fields and cellars, rulers over the vineyards and oil production, rulers over the treasuries and storehouses, keepers of the flocks and herds and camels, counsellors, captains over hundreds, captains over thousands, table servants, cupbearers, and those who sought out the exotic and precious objects from the surrounding nations. Each position had its unique activity with definite tasks and services, which served for the glory of
God and his anointed king.
Second, that each saint has a unique name and place in the kingdom of God is illustrated by Jesus’ parable of the talents, recorded in Matthew 25:14–30. The “talents” of the parable refer specifically to that unique name and place that every person in the church has on earth and subsequently in heaven. As Herman Hanko wrote,
The new heavens and the new earth are their possession. They are given the care of that new and glorious and heavenly creation, for in it and into all eternity they have their assignment and work.
There they will labor diligently and faithfully in their calling before the face of God in perfection.
There they will labor forever for the glory of God and the praise and honor of Jesus Christ, their
Master and Lord. 19
Finally, Christ himself promises to the church this unique name and place in his kingdom when he says,
“To him that overcometh will I give...a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it” (Rev. 2:17). The stone, inasmuch as it is a white stone, is a symbol of the verdict of righteousness that the saints shall receive in the day of the Lord. Yet there is more to this stone than its color.
Each saint will be given a unique stone with a new name written in it. The name will express his individual personality that he will possess through the perfect renewal of his being. The saints will not share identities. They will not be replicated like clones. Rather, they will all be unique. Personality will reach its highest degree in the
New Jerusalem, since only he who receives a stone knows his name.20
The saints will all contribute in a special way to the glory of the whole redeemed church. Hoeksema said that
“each particular child of God shall...manifest his own peculiar shade of God’s image.”21 Such is illustrated by the description of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 as it descends from God out of heaven. The glory of God permeates and fills the city with brilliant light “like a jas  per stone, clear as crystal” (v. 11). God’s knowledge is imparted to the whole glorified church. And the church manifests God’s glory in manifold beauty, for the city’s foundation is garnished with twelve layers of colorful precious stones. The glory of God radiates from Christ through the body, and the body—fearfully and wonderfully fashioned together—radiates in perfect harmony the fullness and beauty of the divine image unto the glory of God, all the while maintaining the individuality and personality of the saints.22
Thus the reward of grace as the wages of Jesus Christ includes the name and place of each child of God in the new heavens and earth. They shall live before God in their own unique places that he has determined for them according to his eternal love for them. And they shall pos  sess such a glory that has never entered into the heart of man to conceive.
Therefore, we expect the coming of the great day of the
Lord with a most ardent desire, to the end that we may fully enjoy the promises of God that are yes and amen in
Jesus Christ our Lord, unto the glory of God by us!  In Reformed dogmatics there is a lot of buzz about degrees of glory in heaven. Are there degrees of glory in heaven among the saints? If there are degrees of glory, how is everyone perfectly blessed by God in heaven? Is there correspondence between degrees of glory and good works? If good works in some sense correspond with the glory of the reward, how does this reconcile with the fact that the reward is of grace?
In addition to its implicit teaching of merit, the
“Reward of Grace” sermon also occasioned discussion about degrees of glory in heaven.23 The sermon explicitly taught degrees of reward, which the consistory of Hope
Protestant Reformed Church defended on the basis that scripture teaches degrees of glory in heaven.24 Classis East in January 2020, in dealing with a protest about this sermon, concurred with Hope’s consistory that there are degrees of glory.25
That there are degrees of glory in heaven is an inference from corroborating passages in scripture. There is the analogy of the glory of the saints to the shining of the stars in the night sky, which stars differ in brightness from one another (Dan. 12:3; 1 Cor. 15:41–42).
Christ uses superlative language when speaking about the citizens of the kingdom: “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is  greatest  in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:4). And then there is the parable of the pounds in Luke 19, wherein the two faithful servants who exercised the lord’s pounds each received a different number of cities to rule, one ten and the other five.
Degrees of glory could also be inferred from the fact that the final manifestation of the everlasting covenant is the kingdom of Christ. Since all kingdoms have rank and gradation that serve for the ordering of that kingdom,
Christ’s kingdom must also have rank and gradation. At the head of the kingdom is the Lord Jesus Christ in greatest glory and honor, and from him there are subsequent degrees of glory.26
Whenever the doctrine of degrees is taught, it is usually conditioned by the statement that each saint shall have a “cup” of glory, and this cup of glory shall be full.27 The analogy of cups is an allusion to Isaiah 22:24, which says, “They shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.” Some cups are smaller. Some cups are bigger. But every cup will be full. As Hoeksema said,
“All the saints will be completely filled with blessing, but some will have a greater capacity for blessing and glory than others.”28
Many who speak of the degrees of glory in heaven teach that these degrees are proportional to works in this life. Again, this was the doctrine of the “Reward of
Grace” sermon:
There is a correlation [between good works and the reward], so that we understand the less of a good work, or the less good that a good work is, the less or smaller the reward. The less number of works, the less of a reward one receives. So too with regard to the more. The more that one walks in good works, the more of a reward is received. 29  Although I doubt that any would be so bold as to say what was quoted above, the Reformed theologians and church fathers who taught the essence of this quote are legion.30 But let this quotation by Hanko in connection with Luke 19 suffice:
The measure of faithfulness here below will be proportionately rewarded above. The diligence with which we labor in the kingdom, the ear  nestness with which we make use of the Word of God, the single-heartedness of purpose with which we pursue our heavenly calling—all will be proportionately blessed.31
That the reward of grace corresponds to good works may appear to be what Belgic Confession article 24 teaches as well: “We do not deny that God rewards good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts.”32 When it speaks of crowning his gifts, the Confession draws its language from Augustine, who wrote on this matter, “So when God crowns your merits, he is not crowning anything but his own gifts.”33 What could be inferred by the Confession is that more good works earn a greater degree of glory.
In all my research for this article, I am surprised that
Caleb’s inheritance in Canaan is not used by those who teach that the reward is proportional to good works. It would be one of the strongest arguments. One might say that Caleb was the greatest warrior in the church during his age—perhaps even in the whole old dispensation. Against the overwhelming majority of spies who gave an evil report about the land of Canaan, Caleb defended God’s name and promise. At the ripe age of eighty-five, he battled three giants to take possession of his inheritance (Josh. 15:14).
And this faithful servant of Jehovah received a special inheritance of unusual size (14:6–15). It included two cities, and the region was so large that at the time of David it was simply called “Caleb” (1 Sam. 30:14). Since the land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly inheritance, 34
Caleb’s inheritance appears to be indisputable proof that one receives a reward according to his works.
That the reward is according to works has been commonly taught in connection with suffering and persecution.35 In a postscript after his series on the sermon on the mount, Luther took up the issue of the reward and said about the saints,
If they suffer much and labor much, He [Christ] will adorn them specially on the Last Day, more and more gloriously than the others, as special stars that are greater than others. So St. Paul will be more brilliant, more bright and clear than others.
This does not refer to the forgiveness of sins nor to meriting heaven, but to a recompense of greater glory for greater suffering...There will be a distinc  tion in the glory with which we shall be adorned, and in the brightness with which we shall shine.
In this life there is a distinction among gifts, and one labors and suffers more than another. But in that life it will all be revealed, for the whole world to see what each one has done from the degree of glory he has; and the whole heavenly host will rejoice. Let this be sufficient on the matter.36
Shall we admit of degrees of glory that correspond to our works in this life and have it be taught this way to the flock?
I contend that it is improper—even detrimental—to teach that the reward of grace is according to good works.
Instead, I contend that the only way to speak about the reward of grace is in connection with our election in Jesus
Christ. This is the election theology of the reward. But this will have to wait until next time.
—Luke Bomers  Reformed Believers Publishing 325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315  FINALLY, BRETHREN, FAREWELL  Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.  —2 Corinthians 13:11  I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.  —Psalm 120:7
Christ speaks in the psalm. He says, “I am peace.” He is peace. He is God’s peace. God gave Christ for a covenant of the people. In his own person God and man are Christ. In him, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. In him God reconciled his people and established peace. In him God reconciled the Jews and the Gentiles and out of twain made one.
Outside him there is only warfare and strife. There is warfare of man with man but more terribly, warfare of man with
God. That warfare of man with God is on account of man’s sin. But God in his eternal good pleasure willed peace for his people, to take away their sins and to reconcile them to himself. His thoughts toward his people were ever of peace.
And he gave Jesus Christ as their peace. In him is peace that passes all understanding.
And of that peace Christ speaks in the world through the word of the gospel. He ever declares that God is the God of all peace. Christ declares that God has established this peace in the cross of Jesus Christ. He says that God reconciled his people to himself. And he irresistibly calls his people to peace, draws them into that peace, and establishes them in that peace. Peace with the living God through Jesus Christ by the forgiveness of our sins. Oh, sweetest fellowship with God!
And in that very word, he also declares that there is no peace to the wicked. As soon as that word comes into the world, it stirs up a terrible opposition and hatred. Whenever and wherever that word comes, they are for war, for they hate peace. They hate peace as they hate God.
Those of Mesech and Kedar! Oh Mesech, the land of Noah’s apostate generations. Oh Kedar, the territory of the carnal children of Ishmael. To dwell among them was dangerous. So the psalmist means that the speaking of the word of God stirred up the implacable hatred and fierce opposition of perfidious and false Israelites. They hated the very existence of David among them; and when David spoke of God, the promise of God, and the peace of God, they rose up against David with their lying lips and their false tongues.
And such was also the experience of the Son of Man in his sojourn on the earth. His appearance stirred up the reprobate in the sphere of the covenant, Herod; the apostates to works-righteousness, the Pharisees; and the apostates to carnal worldliness, the Sadducees; and they all attacked and lied against the Word, and through their lies they crucified him.
And so also all those who are Christ’s must expect the very same experiences among those of Mesech and Kedar. Are we not for peace? Do we not desire the blessed gospel of peace to be heard in the whole world? Do we not desire that the sinner who is mired in his sin know the peace of forgiveness, and so we rebuke him? Do we not desire that those who labor under the heavy yoke of works-righteousness exchange that yoke for the yoke of Christ, which is easy, and whose burden is light? When you speak—when you speak the word of God that alone gives peace—then they will raise against you their lying lips and their false tongues. Because they are for war, and they hate peace. Deliver us, O Jehovah, from those lying lips and from deceitful tongues!
—NJL  

Footnotes:

1 Luke Bomers, “A Reevaluation of the Reward of Grace (1),” Sword and Shield 3, no. 5 (October 2022): 31–36. These articles were originally submitted as a seminary term paper in connection with the study of eschatology.
2 See also Ephesians 1:9–11, Hebrews 1, Hebrews 2:6–17.
3 Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics , 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2004), 2:115; cf. 207. Hoeksema wrote, “The reward for the righteous is eternal life, nothing less than the eternal, glorious inheritance.”
4 Canons of Dordt 1, error 3; Canons of Dordt 2, error 4, in Confessions and Church Order , 160, 165.
5 See also Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, Luke 18:29–30. “True believers for themselves may and do obtain assurance according to the measure of their faith, whereby they arrive at the certain persuasion, that they...will at last inherit eternal life” (Canons of Dordt 5.9, in Creeds of Christendom, 3:594). 6 Quoted in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources , trans. G. T. Thomson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 707.
7 Herman Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh!: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation , 2nd ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Associ- ation, 2000), 727–28.
8 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 728.
9 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 95. 10 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 724. 11 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 139. 12 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 725. 13 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 688. 14 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 138–39. 15 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 726. 16 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 152–53. 17 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 728. 18 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 710–11. 19 Herman Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Jesus’ Parables , 2nd ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Associa- tion, 2004), 393; see also Herman Hoeksema, Chapel Talks on the Parables in Matthew (Wyoming, MI: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1972), 123. 20 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 96. 21 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 96–97. 22 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! , 139. 23 Rev. David Overway, “The Reward of Grace,” sermon transcript, in Acts of Synod and Yearbook of the Protestant Reformed Churches in Ameri- ca 2020 , 107–17. 24 Acts of Synod 2020 , 129. 25 Acts of Synod 2020 , 138. 26 Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh!, 204. 27 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards , vol. 2, ed. Edward Hickman (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1997), 902, https://www. ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2/; Spurgeon, New Library of Spurgeon’s Sermons 2:241; Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh!, 112; Cornelis P. Vene- ma, The Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000), 418–19. 28 Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics , 2:115. 29 Acts of Synod 2020 , 114. 30 G. C. Berkouwer, Faith & Justification , trans. Lewis B. Smedes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954), 121–22; David J. Engelsma, The Belgic Confession: A Commentary , vol. 2 (Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2019), 361; Anthony A. Hoekema, Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 263–64; Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh!, 81, 680, 715; Martin Luther, Luther’s Works , vol. 21, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat , trans. and ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 293–94; Venema, The Promise of the Future , 405–19. 31 Hanko, The Mysteries of the Kingdom , 329. 32 Belgic Confession 24, in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes , 6th ed., vol. 3, The Evangelical Prot- estant Creeds (New York: Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 3:412. 33 Augustine, Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century , part 3, vol. 9, Sermons on the Saints , trans. Edmund Hill, ed. John E. Rotelle (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1994), 201; cf. Augustine, “On Grace and Free Will,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church , ser. 1, vol. 5, Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings , ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. trans. Benjamin B. Warfield (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 452, 464. Though absolutely impermissible today, I note that the word merit had not been rooted out of the vocabulary of the church at this time. Even Luther was comfortable with the word “if properly understood” (Luther, Luther’s Works , 21:291). 34 Homer C. Hoeksema, Unfolding Covenant History , vol. 4, Through the Wilderness into Canaan , ed. Mark H. Hoeksema (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2003), 358. 35 See Hoeksema, Behold He Cometh! , 81, 510–11, 531; Engelsma, The Belgic Confession: A Commentary , 2:361. 36 Luther, Luther’s Works , 21:293–94.