# Reformed Protestant Church {New Denomination}



## Reformedforever

Has anyone heard about the split from the Protestant Reformed Church this year and the resulting formation of the Reformed Protestant Denomination by Andy Lanning?


----------



## Romans922

https://firstrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.5.21-FRPC-Letter-to-PRCA-Synod-2021.pdf


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I met Rev. Andrew Lanning about 5 years ago when he spoke at a conference over here; he has a page on Sermon Audio.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Romans922 said:


> https://firstrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.5.21-FRPC-Letter-to-PRCA-Synod-2021.pdf



Thanks for this document. What is the false doctrine about which they are complaining?


----------



## Edward

Thank you for that link @Romans922 . While the letter talks around the issue, I think I could figure out the origins of the controversy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

@Edward I am currently reading this document, which appears to suggest it was something to do with justification (see the reference to Article 22 of the Belgic Confession). On page two, it states, "So this is emphatically doctrine, so that the doctrine of a further reformation theologian [Witsius] is what reigns in the editorial pages of the _Standard Bearer_, *and those who want to set forth the truth of the gospel have to form their own magazine*."


----------



## Reformedforever

They are accusing the PRC of preaching a conditional covenant


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Reformedforever said:


> They are accusing the PRC of preaching a conditional covenant



From the above document that I cited, the precise issue is that of conditional fellowship. Here is what it says on pages 9-10:

15. What are the doctrinal differences between the First Reformed Protestant Church and the Protestant Reformed denomination?

Rev. L: The main doctrinal difference is that the Protestant Reformed Churches have taught, tolerated, and defended conditional fellowship with God. Conditional fellowship is the heart of the doctrinal difference.

First Reformed Protestant Church maintains unconditional fellowship with God. That doctrine of conditional fellowship with God was brought to light in a sermon on John 14:6, where Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The sermon taught that our obedience is part of the way to the Father. And the sermon made clear that it was dealing with the experience of being with Father, the experience of covenant fellowship with God. And part of the way to that experience of fellowship is our obedience.

That doctrine of conditional fellowship has given rise to other false doctrines, such as conditional assurance instead of the assurance of faith. It is currently giving rise to corruption of the truth of total depravity. It is also giving rise to the teaching that if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do, so that the salvation and fellowship of God’s people is preached to them as man and man’s doings.

That is the doctrinal issue: conditional fellowship.

The doctrinal issue does not go by that name in the Protestant Reformed Churches. It goes by this name: fellowship in the way of obedience. That is how you will hear it in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

I do not object to the phrase “in the way of obedience” as Herman Hoeksema taught that. I do not object to that phrase as it has been used in the past by Protestant Reformed ministers, but that phrase has been corrupted. That phrase has been taken over by conditional theology in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

The sermon that taught that our obedience is part of the way to the Father was defended by a consistory—Hope’s consistory—by Classis East, and by Synod 2016. In every case the defense of that false statement—our obedience is part of the way to the Father—was done by the phrase “in the way of.” All that the sermon means, these assemblies said, is that we enjoy fellowship “in the way of” our obedience. What the assemblies got wrong was that that
was not what the sermon taught—not at all what the sermon taught. The sermon displaced Christ. The sermon made something other than faith the means of obtaining Christ and all his benefits. The sermon taught rank heresy, sheer conditionalism, though it was careful enough never to use the word condition.

Conditional fellowship is the doctrinal difference.

That shows up in the preaching. And it shows up in the preaching this way: When some fellowship or some blessing of God is held back from God’s people until first their works have been preached to them. And once their works have been preached to them, they are told, “‘In the way of’ you will now have this fellowship.” That is false doctrine. That is conditional fellowship. It is conditional covenant at its heart.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Edward

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am currently reading


Thanks. It looks like they finally get to the issue in point 15, but there is a lot of dancing around the issue before they get there. I don't have time to really read that section this morning.


----------



## Reformedforever

Seems like the RPC has leanings towards Antinomianism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

But the PRC denies the free offer and goes towards hypercalvinism....


----------



## Taylor

Romans922 said:


> But the PRC denies the free offer…


They deny the _well-meant_ offer. They affirm the _free_ offer with enthusiasm. See David Engelsma's _Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_, specifically chapter one.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922

Taylor said:


> They deny the _well-meant_ offer. They affirm the _free_ offer with enthusiasm. See David Engelsma's _Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_, specifically chapter one.


Let me be more specific and say they deny common grace.


----------



## Taylor

Romans922 said:


> Let me be more specific and say they deny common grace.


Even then, it seems to me their concern is really with the term “grace.” They certainly believe in the “common operations of the Spirit,” they just object to calling it _grace_. While we may disagree with this, it is hardly heresy or hyper-Calvinism:

“The idea of common grace is a _theologoumenon_ (theological opinion) and does not have confessional status.”​​—Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 650; italics original.​
Note: As far as I know, Letham himself affirms common grace.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformedforever

What is the difference between the well meant offer and what the PRC teaches? Do most of the Reformed world believe in the well meant offer?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The real "issue" with the PRCA, from a confessional standpoint, is their denial of the covenant of works and their raising of the covenant of grace to the ontological realm. At a practical level, their inordinate devotion to the doctrine of one recent theologian (Herman Hoeksema) and comparative lack of interest in what the Reformed orthodox have taught leads to a lot of problems.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformedforever

I think they view everything through the lense of election


----------



## py3ak

Reformedforever said:


> What is the difference between the well meant offer and what the PRC teaches? Do most of the Reformed world believe in the well meant offer?


There are a couple of differences.

There is genuine hyper-Calvinism, where people deny that there is any obligation for those who are reprobate to believe the Gospel.

At least some in the PRC might object to the term _offer._

There is the position (articulated by the Westminster Standards) that Christ is _freely offered_.

And then there is the position, which I think took its rise with John Howe and has since been inculcated by R.L. Dabney and John Murray among others, that the free offer of the Gospel indicates that God has a sincere desire to save everyone (even though it turns out he can't because of other considerations). That position can be nuanced to some degree, but it's not clear to me that any of its defenders have convincingly avoided the problem articulated by Herman Witsius: "it is unworthy of the divine majesty, to imagine that there is an incomplete, unresolved, and ineffectual volition in God." (Herman Witsius, _The Economy of the Covenants, _I:259)

One of the argumentative methods deployed by certain defenders of the well-meant offer is to assume that their view _is_ the Westminsterian view and to accuse anyone who distinguishes of hyper-Calvinism. Given the spectrum, though, that's historically underinformed or disingenuous.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Anyone contending the WMO is the Reformed confessional position needs to read Daniel's review of Waldron's book on the free offer in v16 of _The Confessional Presbyterian_. Waldron makes these kind of sweeping claims which just don't stand up to examination. 


py3ak said:


> There are a couple of differences.
> 
> There is genuine hyper-Calvinism, where people deny that there is any obligation for those who are reprobate to believe the Gospel.
> 
> At least some in the PRC might object to the term _offer._
> 
> There is the position (articulated by the Westminster Standards) that Christ is _freely offered_.
> 
> And then there is the position, which I think took its rise with John Howe and has since been inculcated by R.L. Dabney and John Murray among others, that the free offer of the Gospel indicates that God has a sincere desire to save everyone (even though it turns out he can't because of other considerations). That position can be nuanced to some degree, but it's not clear to me that any of its defenders have convincingly avoided the problem articulated by Herman Witsius: "it is unworthy of the divine majesty, to imagine that there is an incomplete, unresolved, and ineffectual volition in God." (Herman Witsius, _The Economy of the Covenants, _I:259)
> 
> One of the argumentative methods deployed by certain defenders of the well-meant offer is to assume that their view _is_ the Westminsterian view and to accuse anyone who distinguishes of hyper-Calvinism. Given the spectrum, though, that's historically underinformed or disingenuous.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> The real "issue" with the PRCA, from a confessional standpoint, is their denial of the covenant of works and their raising of the covenant of grace to the ontological realm. At a practical level, their inordinate devotion to the doctrine of one recent theologian (Herman Hoeksema) and comparative lack of interest in what the Reformed orthodox have taught leads to a lot of problems.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## kodos

My few acquaintances (on social media mostly) in the PRCA do bristle at the Westminster Standards use of _"freely offered"_.

WCF 7.3 - "...the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he *freely offereth *unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ..."

WSC Q. 31. What is effectual calling?​A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, *freely offered to us in the gospel*.​
But then again, my sample set of PRCA acquaintances is pretty low, and maybe they are confusing freely offered with the well-meant offer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor

kodos said:


> My few acquaintances (on social media mostly) in the PRCA do bristle at the Westminster Standards use of _"freely offered"_.
> 
> WCF 7.3 - "...the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he *freely offereth *unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ..."​​WSC Q. 31. What is effectual calling?​A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, *freely offered to us in the gospel*.​
> But then again, my sample set of PRCA acquaintances is pretty low, and maybe they are confusing freely offered with the well-meant offer.


I’ve also wondered, does Westminster use “offer” in the same sense we often do? Does “offer” for Westminster mean “attempt to give” or “hold before”? Both are within the semantic range, yet have clearly different connotations.


----------



## Reformedforever

I’m wondering this as well. PRCA says that offer meant something different back then in the Latin. Or does it mean the exact same as we use the word now?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo

"Offer", in law, and in the commercial world from at least the 15th century, meant simply to hold something out for acceptance or rejection.

I think that sense of offer is shown in Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17. Here is water...come and take it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Irenaeus

NaphtaliPress said:


> Anyone contending the WMO is the Reformed confessional position needs to read Daniel's review of Waldron's book on the free offer in v16 of _The Confessional Presbyterian_. Waldron makes these kind of sweeping claims which just don't stand up to examination.


WMO?


----------



## RamistThomist

Irenaeus said:


> WMO?


Well meant offer


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

kodos said:


> My few acquaintances (on social media mostly) in the PRCA do bristle at the Westminster Standards use of _"freely offered"_.
> 
> WCF 7.3 - "...the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he *freely offereth *unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ..."​​WSC Q. 31. What is effectual calling?​A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, *freely offered to us in the gospel*.​
> But then again, my sample set of PRCA acquaintances is pretty low, and maybe they are confusing freely offered with the well-meant offer.



Ironically, various PRCA people make exactly the same mistake as the WMO advocates do in thinking that the phrase freely offered can only mean the WMO. David Engelsma, however, has recognised that the term free offer does not always refer to the WMO.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## yeutter

The distinction between what is taught by the Protestant Reformed Churches and the new denomination the Reformed Protestant Churches is hard to pin down.
The Reformed Protestant Churches [RPC] leadership, Pastor Andrew Lanning, and Rev. Nathan Langerak believe that conditional theology is being tolerated in the Protestant Reformed Churches. In writing and speeches, the RPC leaders are adamant that there is no sense in which man's action precedes a blessing from God. Looking at the other side of the equation, I am left with a question, is there any sense in which the believer's sin precedes a chastisement from God? When the believer repents and turns from his sin, is God's cessation of chastisement for sin a blessing?
I have enclosed a link to the Crete Protestant Reformed Church announcement of the suspension of Rev. Langerak.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The PB has PRC members, and possibly RPC members. So let us be wise in airing controversy, that we not engender needless offenses. There is no problem with this thread. I'm merely asking for people to think before they post, and to make sure they know whereof they speak.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## yeutter

Reformedforever said:


> Has anyone heard about the split from the Protestant Reformed Church this year and the resulting formation of the Reformed Protestant Denomination by Andy Lanning?


Leah: I note that you are a member of Loveland Protestant Reformed Church. 
What additional light can you shed on this schism?


----------



## yeutter

"We do not, of course, bring our works into our justification, but the faith by which we are justified is not passive. It is not a dead faith, but a living, active faith. It is not a working faith, for faith does not work, least of all for justification, but it is (to risk stating a redundancy) a _believing _faith, a faith that receives, embraces, appropriates, etc. That living, active faith is the God-worked, graciously-given instrument by which we embrace Jesus Christ and all his benefits, and the means by which God graciously imputes to us the perfect righteousness of Christ. It does not belong to our righteousness before God, and, therefore, it is not the ground/basis of our justification, but it is the instrument by which we lay hold of the righteousness of our Savior. It is not a passive instrument, for how could faith, “the hand and mouth of our soul” (Belgic Confession, Article 35) be passive, inert, inactive?" Rev. Martyn McGeown








Passive Faith?


We do not, of course, bring our works into our justification, but the faith by which we are justified is not passive. It is not a dead faith, but a living, active faith. It is not a working faith, for faith does not work, least of all for justification, but it is (to risk stating a redundancy) a...




rfpa.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

In the Canons of Dort, Third and Fourth Heads, Article 9: "It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ, *offered* therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the word, refuse to come, and be converted: the fault lies in themselves..."

"Offered" in that usage (as Prof Engelsma in one of his books points out) simply means "set forth".
_____

I wonder what Rev. Martyn McGeown's stand in this matter is? And the RFPA's, the publishing arm? This is certainly a grievous situation.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## yeutter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I wonder what Rev. Martyn McGeown's stand in this matter is? And the RFPA's, the publishing arm? This is certainly a grievous situation.


Rev. Martyn McGeown remains a minster of the Gospel in the Protestant Reformed Churches. The Reformed Free Publishing Association removed the brethren who had joined the Reformed Protestant Churches from their organization at their recent annual meeting

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you, Thomas.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I’m still not clear on what exactly the split is about, as the language they each use is so in-house and fine-tuned – and this *is* a very important matter, i.e., is the covenant God makes with His true people – His elect beloved – not at all conditional?

From what I gather, the new RPC alleges the older PRC violates this understanding by saying it doesn’t qualify as “conditional” to require obedience – to walk “in the way of obedience” – as this is simply the fruit of a “living faith”, whereas, on the other hand, the RPC says that this _is_ positing a condition: that of obedience, without which a person is not truly justified.

Of course we are to be obedient to the word of our God, but ultimately even our obedience is guaranteed – wrought in us – by God, as He says,

Ezekiel 36:26, 27, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and *cause* you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”​
God says, in the same vein, in Jeremiah 32:40, as part of the New Covenant promises revealed in Jeremiah 31,

“And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but *I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.*”​
All this to say, is the RPC view that He undertakes to give us – to create in us – the new heart He gives His elect children? This does not obviate our responsibility to walk in holiness, and yet it is He who works this in us, so that our salvation is not _conditioned_ on our obedience: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). That is, our God fulfills this condition in the process of His making us a new creature. Is it specified how long this process will take?

Is this matter the essence of the split?

And where is Prof David J. Engelsma in this – on which side? The Elder D. Engelsma in the posted papers is a Dewey Engelsma (his son?).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder

While I am no longer in the PRC, I have been following this sad schism somewhat...
Some material on it can be found in these places:


Issues – Reformed Believers Publishing










Rev. Martin VanderWal


Read all of the posts by Rev. Martin VanderWal on Not All Pious and Ecclesiastical




notallpiousandecclesiastical.wordpress.com












About


Hi. As introductions go, this one will be rather bland. My name is Dewey Engelsma, husband to Dawn (who is amazing), father to seven kids (who are busy…but sometimes amazing), and elder at First RP…




astraitbetwixttwo.com





In the Sword and Shield magazine (first link above), I found the letter by Dr. Goosen in the November issue most informative.

We left the PRC a few years ago, and the reason we left was mostly because of our local minister, who simply was not preaching the call of the Gospel, ie., repent and believe. This, however, seems to be a tendency in the PRCA. They are so afraid to make a 'well meant offer' in their sermons that they do not bring the Gospel at all, ultimately. While they preach about Christ, Christ is not ultimately preached, His work of salvation is not central in the preaching.

Their problem with the 'well meant offer' goes back to the CRC synod of Kalamazoo, 1924, and the 3 points of common grace. Maybe oversimplified, but they object to the 3 points, in that the 'common grace' would give you enough grace to accept the offer of the Gospel, ie, it would give living hands to a dead sinner (my analogy). Thus an arminian offer

The RPC talk much about a 'grace principle' and a 'works principle', and seem to be implying a 'federal vision' problem... Also, much confusion in PRCA preaching about justification/sanctification, as well as the distinction of law and gospel.

But I think all this a just the last straw that broke the camel's back. Many mistakes were made by classes and synods in reformed church polity, which have come home to roost...

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you, Bert!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Going back to Daniel's post #6 and the document he referenced and linked to there, and section 15 of that document, which states the essential difference between the parties is conditional fellowship with God, versus unconditional: "our obedience is part of the way to the Father.... the experience of being with Father, the experience of covenant fellowship with God.... part of the way to that experience of fellowship is our obedience." Fellowship with God is conditioned on our obedience, making "something other than faith the means of obtaining Christ and all his benefits."

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## VictorBravo

I tend to simplicity, maybe too much:

Know Christ to know the Father.

If you know Christ, keep his commandments.

If you don’t keep his commandments, wake up and flee to Christ.

Obedience is a sign, not a means

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thomas @yeutter, I didn't listen to the "2021 in the PRC – Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth" video yet – though if the RFPA is still carrying and promoting Prof DJ Engelsma's books, would that mean he is still in their ranks?


----------



## yeutter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thomas @yeutter, I didn't listen to the "2021 in the PRC – Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth" video yet – though if the RFPA is still carrying and promoting Prof DJ Engelsma's books, would that mean he is still in their ranks?


Yes, to the best of my knowledge Professor David Engelsma remains a respected cleric in the Protestant Reformed Churches.


----------



## brent20

The issue is between conditional and unconditional fellowship. Meaning, does a blessing from God preceed or proceeds an act of man. The PRC believes according to Head 5 of the Canons that the believer loses a since of Gods favor for a time when he walks in the way of sin. But upon turning in the right way of repentance is then returned to Gods favor and fellowship.

The issue is if its a act of man or of God that proceeds this blessing of renewed fellowship. Is it man in his own power that repents outside the work of God? Or is it God that leads us through the experiance of a loss of fellowship that leads us to repentance. The PRC would say it is God that leads us. The RPC would claim the PRC says that man work out his own fellowship. They claim falsely something the PRC does not believe. Thus why Lanningcwas disciplined for making charges of sin, falsely, from the pulpit at Byron Center PRC.

The RPC also has a few new views since leaving. They seem to believe that Head 5 of the Canons teach that the regenerated believer will fall into sin and that God will catch you. You don't need to do anything. They seem to be very against any "doing" on the part of the believer.

It's all pretty confusing though as it seems the RPC accuses the PRC of things the PRC does not teach or believe. But let their sermons at the RPC be the judge and one can come to a true understanding of the sad state of affairs of things.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you for your comments, Brent.

I found this article by PRC pastor, Rev. Martyn McGeown, on the RFPA website very helpful: "Passive Faith?" He interacts with some of Andrew Lanning's, Nathan Langerak's, and Philip Rainey's ideas, and brings a lot of Biblical and creedal clarity to the issues. It does now appear to me that the PRCA is solid – in those teachers who represent it – and the RPC going off track.

How confusing and frightening this must be to many PRCA church members who, hearing all the accusations against them and their ministers, struggle to deal with it all. It shook me to hear some of the things I've heard, and I thank God for granting me understanding.

I think – and hope – the PRCA weathers this well, for they shine a light in many areas that are dim. They will also likely be very careful to make sure their churches stay sound and godly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Irenaeus

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thank you for your comments, Brent.
> 
> I found this article by PRCA pastor, Rev. Martyn McGeown, on the RFPA website very helpful: "Passive Faith?" He interacts with some of Andrew Lanning's, Nathan Langerak's, and Philip Rainey's ideas, and brings a lot of Biblical and creedal clarity to the issues. It does now appear to me that the PRCA is solid – in those teachers who represent it – and the RPC going off track.
> 
> How confusing and frightening this must be to many PRCA church members who, hearing all the accusations against them and their ministers, struggle to deal with it all. It shook me to hear some of the things I've heard, and I thank God for granting me understanding.
> 
> I think – and hope – the PRCA weathers this well, for they shine a light in many areas that are dim. They will also likely be very careful to make sure their churches stay sound and godly.


It sounds, based on this article, like the RPC is over-reacting based on an overwrought fear of works righteousness creeping in. Methinks they would object even to Turretin's _ordo salutis_ model (because Turretin makes conversion a human work!).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I can remember, when I was a young and ignorant believer in Christ some five decades ago, asking the Lord to "zap" me with His Spirit to give me a heart willing to be obedient and godly – as I was torn by many desires and appetites. I thought then that the way to sanctification / holiness would be the Lord doing this for me, overriding my wanton will.

Over the years, however, I came to see that how the Lord worked in my life was not to will and to act *for* me (by-passing my volition), but to so work on my heart and change it that I would want – with my whole heart, with *all* my heart – to choose godliness rather than sin. So when I referenced Philippians 2:13 earlier, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure", Paul does not mean God would work instead of me to do His will, but He would change my heart so that *I* would freely and gladly will to do His will.

It is a nuanced thing, how God works in us both to will and do His good pleasure.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 3


----------



## De Jager

I live about 10 minutes away from one of the two or three PRC churches in Canada. This small church, of about 80 people, who was already a relative outpost with basically no Ecclesiastical fellowship in our whole Country, just split over this issue. The minister was Martin Vanderwal. I don't know much about it, all I know is that I find it very sad.

Reactions: Wow 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Izaac, did you ever visit the church? If so, what was your take on it? Although I've never been in a PRC church (none in my area), the writings of PRC folks have had a great impact on me.

Hello JP @Irenaeus, when you say (post #43), "the RPC is over-reacting based on an overwrought fear of works righteousness creeping in", it appears to me that they – the Reformed Protestant Church – are the ones actually bringing in a subtle works-righteousness with their new doctrines, and that not by creeping, but with guns blazing.

I can't this moment, but shortly I'll post an excerpt from David J. Engelsma's book, _Gospel Truth of Justification: Proclaimed, Defended, Developed_, which, remarkably, starkly, beautifully shows the PRC view of unconditional election and justification, and the sanctification which proceeds from that, not from fear of failing or punishment, but from real love and gladness at having such a gracious Saviour and God.

As I said, it grieves me that there are folks in the PRCA pews who are not much given to theological thought and reflection – such as we characters here on PB – but are taken by surprise and confusion, not knowing what to think, and what the issues are. It shows the importance of making it very plain what the church believes, so that even the simpler folks can process it, and be on guard. For in these our days – and following – there shall be a great flood of destroying error washing through all the churches. 

Christ and the apostolic writings are the foundation of the church, and *sound doctrine *the pillars holding up the edifice, while that which binds the living stones together is genuine friendship and love.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PeterR

Yes @Jerusalem Blade I used to read the Standard Bearer and other PRC materials at my parents' house some 20+ years ago, and whilst I haven't really looked into these controversies, it was certainly the case that "conditional" was a bad word for the PRC and was either the reason, or one of the reasons, why they did not continue the exploration of fellowship with the "Liberated" (Vrijgemaakt, Artikel 31, also later Canadian Reformed etc) churches which had commenced after those churches seceded in the 1950s from the Dutch sister-denomination of the Christian Reformed Church from which the PRC had seceded in the 1920s. The above is me ad-libbing and may be an over-simplification, though I did Google to confirm that "conditional" had been a point of controversy between the two. What I hadn't realized was that (according to Wikipedia) there had been a very big schism in the PRC at the time which eventually resulted in many/most of the people who left the PRC rejoining the CRC - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformed_Churches_in_America#Schisms .


----------



## py3ak

On taking a quick look, it sounds like it's another retreading of the quietistic mindset which has come up from time to time throughout church history. Doctrinally, no doubt it appears under the form of taking no credit for any part of salvation; since resting and receiving ascribe too much of a role to the sinner, that act must be made out to be God's as well. At that point, _believing_ is something that happens to you.

This has some unfortunate consequences. Scripture, and the Confessions, are not shy about attributing instrumentality to human faith. A quietist mindset will always find itself in tension with both. It also has no obvious end-point to the spiral of attributing everything to God and nothing to myself. If being justified when I believe attributes too much to me, ultimately, so does existing as someone who is not God. And in doctrinal terms, I think it will create intense pressure to think of _self-renunciation_ as the real distinguishing factor between the saved and unsaved. That also will become a work; have I sufficiently negated all credit to myself? Am I not standing in the way of being saved by attributing too much to myself? We're back to justification by having the precise shade of right opinion, or to justification through self-effacement.

Perhaps those with greater information will weigh in to set me straight. When I visited Crete PRC some years ago I thought the sermon indicated a misunderstanding of justification.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## De Jager

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Izaac, did you ever visit the church? If so, what was your take on it? Although I've never been in a PRC church (none in my area), the writings of PRC folks have had a great impact on me.
> 
> Hello JP @Irenaeus, when you say (post #43), "the RPC is over-reacting based on an overwrought fear of works righteousness creeping in", it appears to me that they – the Reformed Protestant Church – are the ones actually bringing in a subtle works-righteousness with their new doctrines, and that not by creeping, but with guns blazing.
> 
> I can't this moment, but shortly I'll post an excerpt from David J. Engelsma's book, _Gospel Truth of Justification: Proclaimed, Defended, Developed_, which, remarkably, starkly, beautifully shows the PRC view of unconditional election and justification, and the sanctification which proceeds from that, not from fear of failing or punishment, but from real love and gladness at having such a gracious Saviour and God.
> 
> As I said, it grieves me that there are folks in the PRCA pews who are not much given to theological thought and reflection – such as we characters here on PB – but are taken by surprise and confusion, not knowing what to think, and what the issues are. It shows the importance of making it very plain what the church believes, so that even the simpler folks can process it, and be on guard. For in these our days – and following – there shall be a great flood of destroying error washing through all the churches.
> 
> Christ and the apostolic writings are the foundation of the church, and *sound doctrine *the pillars holding up the edifice, while that which binds the living stones together is genuine friendship and love.


I visited 2 times I think. I want to be careful what I say...My thoughts are that it is an orthodox church but very, very tight-knit, which I believe is what they want. I don't know enough of the doctrinal dispute to critique them. It makes me a little wary when a denom has precious little Ecclesiastical fellowship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter

Reformedforever said:


> Seems like the RPC has leanings towards Antinomianism.


This sermon by Rev. Nathan Langerak shows how close the Reformed Protestant Churches come to antinomianism


----------



## Contra_Mundum

No one ever accused the Apostle Paul of legalism. Antinomianism, on the other hand....

Maybe, if you're *never *accused of antinomianism... might be time to test that "line?"

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor

Contra_Mundum said:


> No one ever accused the Apostle Paul of legalism. Antinomianism, on the other hand....
> 
> Maybe, if you're *never *accused of antinomianism... might be time to test that "line?"


Not making a judgment regarding the PRCA one way or the other here, but what you said here reminds me of one of my favorite Martyn Lloyd-Jones quotes:

The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge [of antinomianism] being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel.​​—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, _Exposition of Chapter 6 – The New Man_, vol. 5, Romans (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 8.​

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## De Jager

I listened to most of the sermon. In it I was reminded that the gospel is indeed, a gracious gift and we can add nothing to it. As a Christian, it is impossible for me to hear the doctrine of justification and then have a response "guess I can go ahead and sin". The spirit won't allow me to do that, which Rev. Langerak did po8nt out near the end.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Given that the PRCA is sound in their view of justification apart from works (Romans 4:5,6,7,8 – and I will post more on this below) : Having heard from people who are _in_ the PRCA, or have been but have left, evidently there is a disconnect between the generally excellent teachings of theologians in that denomination and what goes on in some of the local churches.

Ruben, I appreciate your thoughts in post #48 on quietism, for that is surely aberrant, though I do not think it applies to the views of justification and sanctification promoted by primary PRCA teachers such as Herman Hoeksema, Homer C. Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, David J. Engelsma (among others) in their writings. What may go on in some local congregations I do not know.

A form of Quietism has been addressed by some in the early 1900s under the rubric of a dangerous “passivity”, notably in the writings of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, a Calvinistic Methodist ala Lloyd-Jones (see their _War on the Saints_ [unabridged edition only!]). Passivity is a spiritual condition allowing the demonic to operate by deception in the soul, whereas we are meant to be active in obeying Scripture and following Christ.

Your thoughts, and the views expressed here in this thread impress upon me the importance of the spiritual health and doctrinal soundness of ministers in local churches generally. I have seen some really unhealthy – or relatively immature – teaching elders / pastors, regardless of the soundness of the confessions they subscribe to! This goes for the Westminster Standards, the 3FU, and the 1689. The excellence of the confessions do not guarantee excellence of personal lives, walks, and ministries.

I’ll post something shortly from David Engelsma on justification *and* sanctification. It is a nuanced and profound subject, the balance between God’s working in us and our working, violating neither justification completely apart from works, and the charge to be zealous in doing good works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reformed grit

Howdy. I only sorta just got here and am not meaning to offend, and certainly not meaning to belittle life-&-death theological concerns where justification and fellowship with God our Creator is on the line; but might not personalities and a rush to complaints and judgments and kicking and leaving be a wee rushed in all this? I'm not intimate to all that happened in the processes, but I sat under Gordon Clark in the last bit of his time with us, and can't help but feel he was hounded to death with almost no place to go over much as this - well, the "well-meant offer" of this.

Do we champions of orthodox theology never learn to take a breath and talk things out before teeth and swords are flung about?

Oh, and please let me know if you assess me as too uncharitable in my briefest characterisation of the split:
https://calvinisedpipe.wordpress.co...sbyterian-reformed-denominations-family-tree/


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Given that the PRCA is sound in their view of justification apart from works (Romans 4:5,6,7,8 – and I will post more on this below) : Having heard from people who are _in_ the PRCA, or have been but have left, evidently there is a disconnect between the generally excellent teachings of theologians in that denomination and what goes on in some of the local churches.
> 
> Ruben, I appreciate your thoughts in post #48 on quietism, for that is surely aberrant, though I do not think it applies to the views of justification and sanctification promoted by primary PRCA teachers such as Herman Hoeksema, Homer C. Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, David J. Engelsma, and Martyn McGeown (among others) in their writings. What may go on in some local congregations I do not know.
> 
> A form of Quietism has been addressed by some in the early 1900s under the rubric of a dangerous “passivity”, notably in the writings of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, a Calvinistic Methodist ala Lloyd-Jones (see their _War on the Saints_ [unabridged edition only!]). Passivity is a spiritual condition allowing the demonic to operate by deception in the soul, whereas we are meant to be active in obeying Scripture and following Christ.
> 
> Your thoughts, and the views expressed here in this thread impress upon me the importance of the spiritual health and doctrinal soundness of ministers in local churches generally. I have seen some really unhealthy – or relatively immature – teaching elders / pastors, regardless of the soundness of the confessions they subscribe to! This goes for the Westminster Standards, the 3FU, and the 1689. The excellence of the confessions do not guarantee excellence of personal lives, walks, and ministries.
> 
> I’ll post something shortly from David Engelsma on justification *and* sanctification. It is a nuanced and profound subject, the balance between God’s working in us and our working, violating neither justification completely apart from works, and the charge to be zealous in doing good works.


Hi Steve,

Perhaps someone would have had to read between the lines more than is reasonable on my post -- Rev. N. Langerak, who forms part of the new denomination, was the minister at Crete PRC when I visited. My observation there would presumably not apply to those who remain.

Yes, I think there can be many forms of spiritual malaise lying behind doctrinal controversy, even when the controversy itself is important or well-conceived. Sometimes there is an appetite for controversy, or an inability to define oneself positively but only in contrast to others. And different maladies that pastors, no less than congregants, are subject to can have a tremendous influence on the reception and proclamation of doctrine, even if this is orthodoxly articulated in the church's confession. Thus a sensitive and legal spirit, to take one example, often recoils from hearing of any standard because all exhortations to particular conduct, being seen through a self-condemning lens, take on a dark and frightful aspect.

Thomas Boston's remarks about a new gospel "tincture" coming into his preaching after he read the _Marrow_ have stuck with me, because it gives a good name to a quality that's hard to describe or define, but that makes a large difference. A very similar sermon in terms of form and content lands quite differently in view of the tone in which it is delivered and the atmosphere that the speaker carries with him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

py3ak said:


> it sounds like it's another retreading of the quietistic mindset which has come up from time to time throughout church history. Doctrinally, no doubt it appears under the form of taking no credit for any part of salvation; since resting and receiving ascribe too much of a role to the sinner, that act must be made out to be God's as well. At that point, _believing_ is something that happens to you.
> 
> This has some unfortunate consequences. Scripture, and the Confessions, are not shy about attributing instrumentality to human faith. A quietist mindset will always find itself in tension with both. It also has no obvious end-point to the spiral of attributing everything to God and nothing to myself. If being justified when I believe attributes too much to me, ultimately, so does existing as someone who is not God. And in doctrinal terms, I think it will create intense pressure to think of _self-renunciation_ as the real distinguishing factor between the saved and unsaved. That also will become a work; have I sufficiently negated all credit to myself? Am I not standing in the way of being saved by attributing too much to myself? We're back to justification by having the precise shade of right opinion, or to justification through self-effacement.


Very interesting insights. Thank you for this. I know somebody who will really benefit from this distinction. She experienced a similar phenomenon somewhere completely unrelated.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

What you say, Ruben (in post 56), resonates with me simply because of its sensitivity and quality of discernment.

Boston's "tincture", while illustrative of a flavor (fragrance?) of heart or spirit that affords subtle nuances of content (spiritual, emotional, meaning) – yet in the context of the Marrow controversy and the situation in Scotland of those days, as well its repercussions even to our time, brings to the fore another phenomenon: that of various differing doctrines and theologies and their near labyrinthine complexities, difficult to understand and discern – all within the Reformed and Presbyterian camp.

The people in the pews, so to speak, need simplicity, clarity, and the stamp of godly common sense, so as to put doctrine to practical use in understanding and sanctified (God-loving and honoring) living.

This is one reason I like – when it comes to theology and doctrine – writers like the Hoeksemas, Herman Hanko, David Engelsma, and those of like spirit. There is a down-to-earth spiritual profundity and clarity. True, I do not agree with some of their teachings and ways, such as indissoluble marriage save in the case of death of one party, their prohibition of union membership, a very tight-knit almost _closed_ community, and other things that do not come to mind at the moment – so I maintain critical discernment.

If the Lord of the harvest grants souls to be part of the renewed Church plant I will be endeavoring shortly (the former had become degraded doctrinally and some used it as a sort of social club, and He removed it almost entirely), I will have to ask Him for health of vision and heart or spirit. *And* someone good to take over the work when my time is done – which cannot be too far off as I'll be 80 in March and slowly physically deteriorating. But nothing is impossible for our God.
_____

On another front – last night I saw the first episode of the first season of Amazon's production of the Sci Fi classic, _The Wheel of Time_ – and was struck with both the high quality of the filming _and_ of the story (I have not read the books), and the power of stories to capture the hearts and imaginations of even God's people. James K. Smith says in his _Imagining the Kingdom_ (p. 163), *“Why should the devil get all the best stories?”*

Part of why we do not compete well with the world's – with end-times Babylon's – powerful stories, is that _we do not traffic in fiction_, at least the Amillennial school does not, as the _real drama_ is going on all around us *now*, hour by hour and day by day, across the globe. How to capture such a thing and convey it to the people?

I suppose a preacher / story-teller could incorporate that into messages, mixing what is happening in God's world, to and among God's people, and the monsters seeking to destroy them, etc – with teaching. It would not be what is considered standard preaching. I'll ponder that idea, and ask the King what He thinks. He does respond when we lack wisdom, and ask Him for it. I'm not averse to innovating. "Necessity is the mother of invention."

My book (here a free digital [link working now]), although not at all fiction, and narrative in parts, and visionary – is not what I am thinking of as an offering to counter to Babylon's masterpieces. Is it even feasible? This is from the back cover of the paperback, and indicative of how I think:


----------



## De Jager

Passive Faith?


We do not, of course, bring our works into our justification, but the faith by which we are justified is not passive. It is not a dead faith, but a living, active faith. It is not a working faith, for faith does not work, least of all for justification, but it is (to risk stating a redundancy) a...




rfpa.org





This blog post, and the referenced doctrine class by Rev. Lannning (who I believe was deposed) which is on sermonaudio might help one understand the current conflict.


----------



## BertMulder

From 'Sword & Shield, November 2021 issue:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Freformedbelieverspub.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F11%2FSword-and-Shield-November-2021.pdf&clen=2332053&chunk=true

WHY DID THE GOOSEN FAMILY LEAVE?

Dear congregation of Immanuel, I write this letter to you, the beloved people of our Lord Jesus Christ, because I love you in the Lord. We have walked among you for the last fifteen years, and we care deeply for the people in Immanuel. My motive in writing this is to honor our covenant God, in love for him and out of love and concern for his precious church. “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). Many of you have heard by now that the Lord has led us to withdraw our membership from Immanuel Protestant Reformed Church. Coming to this conviction was only done after much prayer, reading, studying, considering, and reconsidering many doctrinal issues. The decision to leave Immanuel was difficult and painful. Our only reason for joining the Reformed Protestant Churches is the ongoing “controversy” in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). You might have read very little or much about this, yet I believe calling it merely a “controversy” is already part of the problem, for there is much more. Doctrinal error is present in the denomination. Calling this a “controversy” minimizes the importance of the fact that the truth of God is at stake!

Salvation is at stake! Knowing you are saved, experiencing salvation is at stake! There is truth, and there is lie. Do not be deceived into thinking that this is not as black and white as that. Do not be deceived into thinking that this is not serious. There can be nothing more important. The loss of possessions, health, children, spouses, family, and our very earthly lives simply cannot begin to compare with the corruption of the honor and glory of God and his truth. Yet there are many who deny this. I am not ignorant of that. However, denying that there is a fatal error in the denomination is only aggravating and reinforcing the error. Accusing those who voice their valid concerns of slander, schism, revolt, lies, antinomianism, or whatever else will not make the facts disappear. I entreat you to bear with me, a weak, sinful believer, as I try to explain the error in the denomination from my perspective. I have no intent to slander or lie. God is my witness.

Synod 2018
I am ashamed that I was totally ignorant regarding the doctrinal events in our denomination that had started already in 2015. This ignorance on my part rapidly changed in March 2018, when Classis West chose me to be a delegate to Synod 2018. At that point I had only heard a few rumors of some “difficult and stubborn” people out East who were causing “trouble within the denomination.” But I had to judge for myself, and the Lord had to lead me to a conviction in the matter. Synod would deal with this matter. As an elder and a delegate, I would be called upon to express my opinion and to vote on right versus wrong. The main issue before synod would be the appeal of Mrs. Connie Meyer against seventeen sermons preached by Rev. David Overway in Hope Protestant Reformed Church. To my further disgrace and embarrassment, I must admit my initial inability to grasp the issues. One moment I agreed with Reverend Overway and with Hope’s consistory and Classis East, which had defended Reverend Overway’s sermons. The next moment I would agree with Mrs. Meyer. I was quite confused. Eventually, I set all the material aside and went to scripture and the confessions, with Rev. Herman Hoeksema, John Calvin, and some of Prof. David Engelsma’s writings at my side, and studied the basics of the Reformed faith. The Lord especially laid John 15:10 on my mind: “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.” After studying the basics, I went back to the agenda material, and then I could clearly see the error preached by Reverend Overway, which error was being defended by his consistory at Hope and by Classis East. Then I could not “un-see” the problem. It became very clear that the truth was at stake and that there was a serious error in the PRC—a serious error about basic and fundamental doctrine that would lead the churches back to full-blown works-righteousness, for we always have to see where an error will end up if it fully develops. I kept wondering in amazement how some of the most learned men in the denomination could stumble or struggle like me over the building blocks of the Reformed faith. History shows though that the reason is easy to understand: the lie never comes out stating that it is a lie. We all know that the lie always has an element of truth to it and pretends to be just that. For, indeed, the devil himself comes as an angel of light. “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). Furthermore, we always find the lie attractive, as it appeals to our sinful flesh. The lie was cloaked with Reformed language and took many off guard. It sounds very pious: “We only want to promote holiness.” Nevertheless, it remains a destructive lie. I became very concerned as Synod 2018 approached, for as I read and reread the material, it became clear to me that there was a deep division in our churches. At a minimum it had begun back in 2015 already. A serious division not over homeschooling, Church Order article 21, Psalter revision, or NAPARC, but actually over fundamental scriptural truth. It could not be more serious. Already then I feared that there might be a split coming in the denomination. Finally, Synod 2018 started. I was nervous and excited. I was humbled as synod appointed me to the committee that was to deal with Connie Meyer’s protest. My humility stemmed from the fact that the Lord appointed me for this work when there were many other elders more capable and better experienced in and knowledgeable of the Reformed faith than I. Our committee spent seven very long days and nights preparing our report. After some initial disagreement, our committee became unanimous that we should sustain Mrs. Meyer in her appeal to synod. Her main contention was against her minister’s “teaching…that our obedience is a condition that we must perform in order to experience the fellowship of God.” Her protest was sustained by synod, which was significant, for Mrs. Meyer clearly stated that this is the teaching of a conditional covenant! Think about this: Reverend Overway taught that God saves us, but we don’t know it. God keeps that knowledge from us until we do something—some good work, some obedience—and then only do we know and experience the joy of salvation. Stop doing the good works, and you don’t know you are saved. If I sin (which I do every day), I lose the knowledge and assurance of my salvation. If I do good works and even more good works, I maintain my salvation and gain richer blessings and more fellowship. There simply is no comfort but only terror in such an erroneous teaching, which really is the heresy of Pelagianism brought back from hell. How can the holy God overlook the sin in my best good works? Even that one little sin in my best work still damns me before God. God’s people will live in dreadful terror if in any sense works are instrumental in salvation, or our salvation depends on or is based on what we do. The correct order is, in fact, the opposite: because God saves, redeems, and delivers us from bondage to sin and through his gift of faith, we assuredly know (experience) that we are saved, and we are incredibly thankful for that salvation. Therefore, we are obedient; we must, we will, and we can do good works; but only because of what Christ has first done for us and keeps doing in us. God always first, then us! versus that his teaching was “out of harmony with the confessions.” Nonetheless, advice written in love and not in anger is still the truth. It will still penetrate into the heart of our denomination and lead to repentance. We were going to “drop a bomb” on synod! I think it is safe to say that the majority expected that we would simply go along with the previous advice of Classis East and again reject Mrs. Meyer’s protest. So we did not state as clearly as we should have that Reverend Overway taught and others defended conditional theology. Remember, conditional theology is federal vision theology, which is in effect Arminianism, which is Pelagianism, which is out of hell! But people will connect the dots. The truth of God is at stake! Salvation is at stake! Knowing you are saved, experiencing salvation is at stake! Surely, these learned theologians (Overway, Hope’s consistory, Classis East, and the committee of classis assigned to assist Hope), whom we rebuked by telling them they had erred, would connect the dots. We don’t need to call the error rank heresy. T hey would know; they would repent; and they would confess their error. Surely, the recommendation that the Lord led synod to I have recalled many times over the years the days when our committee worked on answering Mrs. Meyer’s protest. I have pondered much over the fact that I did make some concessions while working with the committee members, holding before me the truth that “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” (Prov. 11:14). I wanted the committee’s advice to be stronger—forcibly condemning the error—for example, that Reverend Overway’s teaching “undermined the confessions” versus that his teaching was “out of harmony with the confessions.”4 Nonetheless, advice written in love and not in anger is still the truth. It will still penetrate into the heart of our denomination and lead to repentance. We were going to “drop a bomb” on synod! I think it is safe to say that the majority expected that we would simply go along with the previous advice of Classis East and again reject Mrs. Meyer’s protest. So we did not state as clearly as we should have that Reverend Overway taught and others defended conditional theology. Remember, conditional theology is federal vision theology, which is in effect Arminianism, which is Pelagianism, which is out of hell! But people will connect the dots. Surely, these learned theologians (Overway, Hope’s consistory, Classis East, and the committee of classis assigned to assist Hope), whom we rebuked by telling them they had erred, would connect the dots. We don’t need to call the error rank heresy. They would know; they would repent; and they would confess their error. Surely, the recommendation that the Lord led synod to adopt with minimal change will be a surprise to many, an embarrassment to many, and hopefully a shame to others as well. But they are brothers in Christ; no doubt they will respond with a contrite heart. Even the seminary professors—who I am reliably told all agreed prior to synod that Neil and Connie Meyer were antinomians, as supported by their personal appeals and writings—will admit their mistake, difficult as that might be, for they are men whom others look up to, and they are training the next generation of ministers who will bring the gospel to my children and grandchildren. In my heart I felt this would be the smallest obstacle to overcome. For the child of God is spiritually sensitive. When his sin is pointed out, he cries out in shame, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” And there would be no greater joy! Unity will be restored in our beloved denomination, for the truth has been maintained! Thus I even defended Hope’s consistory when it was suggested that the officebearers all should be either deposed or replaced, as they surely could not lead their minister out of the error if they themselves had missed it. I was naive, terribly so. The repentance never came. The shame and embarrassment was covered up by a continued deflection of the issue and insisting that the real problem was antinomianism. Men and their reputations were sheltered.

The Other Issue: Professor Cammenga and Neil Meyer’s Deposition
For many who did not follow the events of Synod 2018 and prior assemblies closely, it should be stated that there were several other issues in the background of this all-important synod. One of these was a protest from Prof. Ronald Cammenga that originated in 2017. He protested that Synod 2016 had erred when it did not declare Neil Meyer to be an antinomian. Professor Cammenga made a fatal flaw in his protest when he favorably quoted a federal vision theologian’s book to support his contention of antinomianism against Neil Meyer. In my mind this was significant; for according to the Form for the Installation of Professors of Theology, one of the main tasks of the professor of theology is to “caution them [the students] in regard to the errors and heresies of the old, but especially of the new day” (Confessions and Church Order, 297). However, Professor Cammenga did exactly the opposite. He failed to warn the churches against a new book from Mark Jones. Instead of pointing out the errors in the book and warning the churches against Jones’ false teaching (the book essentially calls those who maintain an unconditional covenant antinomian), he used the book in support of his (false) arguments. Surely, this will create a firestorm. Surely, Professor Cammenga will need to be rebuked, perhaps even disciplined, and perhaps even removed from the seminary. Most certainly, synod will connect the dots: a professor uses a federal visionist in order falsely to call Neil Meyer an antinomian! Reverend Overway preached federal vision theology, and Professor Cammenga supports Reverend Overway. Surely, even the so-called “spiritual idiot” can connect the dots. Sadly, the opposite happened. Neil Meyer was instead rebuked for his “charges of heresy against Prof. R. Cammenga.” Yet more reason for Hope’s consistory to wrongfully keep Neil Meyer under discipline for the false charge of antinomianism. Let’s not forget that Neil Meyer by then had been deposed from office and was under discipline for three years. Let’s not forget that the litmus test for elders in applying discipline is that the sin is so serious that it needs to lead to excommunication if not repented of; it needs to be so serious that eventually the sinner will be placed outside the kingdom; he will not be saved; he will go to hell and eternal damnation if he does not repent. But the charge was false! Neil Meyer did not sin! The opposite is true. A straw-man argument, a distraction from the real issue. Conditional theology was preached, defended, and maintained for years. Neil Meyer correctly pointed this out. Not a word was said against Professor Cammenga— sadly, not by me either.

After Synod 2018 and Currently
God’s truth triumphed momentarily in the PRC. The correct doctrine was upheld. Repentance will follow, as these men are brothers in Christ. Preaching and writing will have to follow to expose the error—to explain to the people exactly what the error was, to explain the error clearly, and to set it over against the truth—so that it will never, ever creep back into the PRC. If I did not see the error, if Professor Dykstra admitted on the floor of synod that he did not see the error, if Hope’s consistory did not see the error, if Classis East did not see the error, obviously many in the denomination did not see it either. But they all see it now because synod explained it to them. God judged through synod and spoke. The decision is settled and binding, after all. I could not have been more wrong! The aftermath was completely the opposite of what I had hoped and prayed for. Instead of being rooted out, the error would develop and grip the denomination further. The soft rebuke was twisted to state that the synod was actually “balanced”— incredibly, even to the point of stating that Classis East and synod actually agreed in 2018, which was a fullorbed lie. This lie became evident already at synod. Right after the decision was passed to sustain Mrs. Meyer’s protest and the doctrinal statement was condemned, Rev. Carl Haak—one of the authors of the doctrinal position paper that contained the same error as Reverend Overway’s condemned sermons—stood up and addressed the synod. Reverend Haak expressed that this [the doctrinal errors just condemned by synod] was the way he had always preached, and he would continue to preach that way. He was not rebuked for his open and public rebellion. As a delegate, I did not rebuke him; Rev. Ronald Van Overloop, the president of synod, did not rebuke him; nor did any delegate publicly rebuke him.

Nobody brought up the “settled-and-binding”-Church Order-article-31 argument at that time. No, that would be reserved for others. The Standard Bearer began right after synod to sound a word just slightly different than the synodical decision. I was disappointed in Professor Dykstra’s article in the Standard Bearer right after synod. We had worked closely together in a committee for several days, hammering out the advice. He had admitted on the floor of synod that he had not seen the error before. Surely, if anyone was going to take the lead in exposing the error, it would be Professor Dykstra! Yet he did, indeed, minimize the error by distraction—focusing on warning and threatening with excommunication anybody who would call the error “Federal Vision, or a conditional covenant.” That was not what synod had said! Our committee was not going to be harsh. Professor Dykstra even pleaded for soft language for those “solid Reformed men” when our committee came to deal with the erroneous doctrinal position paper. But we all knew it was conditional theology; we all could connect the dots. The error was boldly and forcibly repeated with the well-known article by Rev. K. Koole: “If a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” A clear heretical statement that he has never retracted but continues to defend. Open criticism of the correct theology of Rev. Herman Hoeksema followed. Dreadful promotion of Witsius’ conditional theology followed. Professor Cammenga came out with his insistence that there are antinomians in the denomination. He brought distortion and destruction of assurance. He further denigrates Christ in his preaching: “Jesus [does not] accomplish himself personally every aspect of our salvation.” The fact that the professor qualifies his statement with “personally” makes no material difference, as you cannot separate Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ. After Synod 2018 there never was any clear explanation of the error; it was never exposed. And it’s not just that there was silence in the Standard Bearer and on many pulpits (our own included) regarding the error; there was rather a continuation of the same error that synod had rejected. God’s judgment on this led to the preaching of full-orbed false theology, as pointed out by Rev. Nathan Langerak in the Sword and Shield: grace that is available to us, Christ who did not personally do everything for our salvation, two-track theology and conditions in the maintenance of the covenant, being active in the matter of assurance—all Arminian statements!14

What Was and Remains the Error
Because God saves, redeems, and delivers us from bondage to sin and through his gift of faith, we assuredly know (experience) that we are saved, and we are incredibly thankful for that salvation. Therefore, we are obedient; we must, we will, and we can do good works. In short: Faith was made a work. Faith was twisted to be the activity of faith or the exercise of faith, which can still be correct if it means that we turn from self to Christ, cling to him, embrace him, hunger after him, thirst for him, rest in him. Faith has fruit (good works and obedience), but the fruit of faith was confused with faith itself. The fruit of faith (wrongly defined as either the “activity of faith” or the “exercise of faith”) is held out as a condition (prerequisite) that we must fulfill first, before we experience fellowship with God. But faith is never a work. Faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Christ. Faith is chiefly a bond, so that we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Faith is active. Nobody denies that, but the chief activity of faith is to look away from self to Christ—to his work, his obedience, his merit, not ours. Faith is not being presented as a gift from God but as something “we must do.” T he Reformed faith has always maintained that the essence of faith is assurance, but erroneously, assurance has been destroyed by making faith a work. Herman Hoeksema is quite emphatic regarding faith and assurance in his commentary on Lord’s Day 32:

True and saving faith does not require any props, or external supports. It can and does indeed stand alone. For faith is itself assurance… We must therefore never say that faith is assured by good works. For faith itself is assurance. We must never attempt to make our good works the ground of our assurance of faith… Never forget that the Holy Spirit is the author of our faith. And He is also the author of the assurance of faith. Faith and the well-being of faith both are the work of the Holy Spirit. I will give but a few examples of how faith is being made a work. Reverend Overway preached, “We look at our good works [the fruit of faith] in the same way. Never of any value to make me be declared righteous before God, but always of help in finding and maintaining assurance…”16 T he doctrinal position paper—after first wrongly defining the activity of faith this way: “It is by the exercise of this faith [later defined as obedience] that the believer experiences fellowship with the Father”—concluded with this: “It is important to establish why a holy life of obedience [exercise of faith] is necessary to experience fellowship with God.”17 Professor Cammenga wrote just four weeks ago in the Standard Bearer: “These are the evidences of grace [earlier defined as obedience and good works] within the children of God, which confirm their assurance of salvation…But assurance that they have been ‘chosen to everlasting life’ [election] is enjoyed by those who are faithful, living and active church members.” Note that it is not faith itself that assures us but rather being faithful. Faith is made synonymous with being “faithful,” a clear and classic line of argumentation from the federal vision. Even more troubling is Professor Cammenga’s favorable attitude toward the “mystical syllogism” in this article, but that as a side note.18 Finally, it is my contention that Synod 2020 and Synod 2021 at the very least have severely weakened the decision of Synod 2018, and at worst the decision has effectively been overturned. I will try to demonstrate this briefly. Synod 2018 declared as doctrinal error the following statement: If we but meet these requirements [obedience and godliness] a little bit, by the grace of God, of course, and by God’s grace working them in us— if we meet these requirements but a little, then we will enjoy a little of God’s fellowship. That’s the truth. If we meet these requirements a lot, then we will enjoy much of God’s fellowship. Yet Synod 2020 and Synod 2021 dealt with protests against Reverend Overway’s preaching in December 2018, which preaching stated: We do little, God rewards greatly. And yet there is a correlation, 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. [Significantly, part of the reward was described as fellowship.] Synod 2020 and Synod 2021 failed to uphold protests that showed that these statements militated against Synod 2018.21 They failed to judge these statements as heretical and failed to point out that, although different language was used, the exact same principle had been taught. Synod 2021 even agreed that the two statements are similar, yet synod declared that that does not prove militancy.22 T his is erroneous though, because the same minister continued to preach false doctrine after it had been condemned as false by Synod 2018. Now that false doctrine becomes the very definition of heresy. That continuing false doctrine must be judged as militating against previous settled and binding decisions. If not that, it should have been declared heresy. How will we ever get rid of the error, if in love for God we are not willing to condemn it when it is repeated? Going the way of articles 79 and 80 of the Church Order is still an act of love for the brother. I am also concerned that the decisions [that became doctrinal positions] of Synod 2020 and Synod 2021 weaken and will compromise the gospel, especially as they are given in the context of protests against conditional preaching.

Synod 2021, in rejecting a protest against Reverend Overway’s preaching, declared: Mr. Doezema denies the plain teaching of the Canons by saying, “Canons V-5 does not teach that repentance is some necessary activity that we must perform before we will again experience God’s fatherly countenance.” Mr. Doezema’s understanding is contrary to Scripture’s teaching that repentance precedes the reception of God’s merciful pardon in Christ by faith: Prov. 28:13, Ps. 32:5… Repentance occurs temporally prior to the reception of God’s pardon by faith. I am very concerned about the current emphasis that there is some necessary, temporal, God-wrought activity that precedes a blessing from God. For if we develop this concept, we can completely justify De Wolf’s heretical statement from 1953: “Our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom.” De Wolf clarified later that he was emphasizing “daily entering, always entering, and conscious activity.” This presentation also strongly suggests that a heretical statement, such as “If a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,” is indeed completely correct. Synod 2021 quoted Psalm 32:5 as proof of its assertion. However, studying Calvin’s commentary on the entire Psalm 32, Calvin emphasizes that God first declares the blessedness of man established on the basis of Christ’s work for us in reconciling us to God and removing our guile. That is the blessing (vv. 1–2). This includes removing the guile of not having a heart that is bothered by God’s wrath or heavy hand against sin. Then we are placed under the heavy hand of God, in time, before we repent. This heavy hand of God, this anguish of bones waxing old and moisture turned to drought, however, is part of the blessing of salvation. It is a blessing, not a curse. The blessing is not for the wicked; it is only for the elect, as Calvin states: “Those [the elect]…whom God has truly awakened so as to be affected with a lively sense of their misery, are so constantly agitated and disquieted that it is difficult to restore peace to their minds.” After this follows repentance and confession with its joy, and the first verse is again experienced. And the wicked reprobate are never bothered by the hand of God. They “put away from them, as far as they can, the terrors of conscience, and all fear of Divine wrath.” Thus always God first, in every aspect, even temporally. Another text illustrates this: “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” (John 15:10). Calvin comments, “For the obedience that believers render is not the cause why he continues his love toward us, but rather the effect of his love.” Not us, but God f irst, and then because God has regenerated us, God has called us, God has given us faith, we do experience his blessings (which can include the severe anguish of his hand); we do repent; and we are converted to experience the blessing already established. Finally, in support of the argument of Synod 2021, appeal is made to Lord’s Day 45: “God will give His grace and Holy Spirit to those only who with sincere desires continually ask them of But faith is never a work. Faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Christ. Him” (Confessions and Church Order, 134). This exposes the danger of focusing on the temporal order, which is far less important than the logical order of our salvation, leading to conditional thought. A good friend reminded me what Ursinus wrote regarding Lord’s Day 45: “The effect [receiving God’s grace after prayer] is not prior to its own cause in order and nature, but in time they both exist together.”27 In other words, praying and then receiving grace happen simultaneously. Ursinus states this repeatedly.

Edmonton, Rev. A. Lanning, and Rev. N. Langerak
I cannot agree with the manner in which Classis West dealt with Edmonton’s consistory. Calling it a “revolt” to voice serious and valid concerns about the compromise of the gospel, truth, and salvation completely misses the point. Classis West matter-of-factly dismissed the consistory’s concerns and enforced the church visitors’ advice that Edmonton’s grounds for separation were unsubstantiated and then, even worse, sinful and slanderous. T he truth of the matter is that Edmonton’s concerns were not unsubstantiated slander. Edmonton’s officebearers were fulfilling their duty to watch over the flock
Christ has appointed them, to “maintain faithfulness to the only Head and King of the Church our Lord Jesus Christ.” For Classis to pretend that “all is okay” and “there is nothing to see here or be concerned about” is not an honest assessment of what transpired over the last several years in our denomination. A consistory has the God-given right, in the care and interest of the spiritual welfare of themselves and the f lock, to remove the congregation and itself from a denomination. Rev. T. Miersma, the church visitors, Immanuel’s consistory, and finally Classis West undermined the autonomy of the local congregation in this sordid affair by leveling charges of sin against the consistory. They should have allowed the consistory to deal with this matter as they saw fit. T he proper procedure for the Miersma group would have been to separate from Edmonton if they did not want to acquiesce with the consistory’s decision “to remove the Church.” But until then the Miersma group still remained under its consistory, which was still the God-appointed rule of Christ over the group. Be consistent: if you want to insist that the consistory removed itself, you must necessarily admit that the entire congregation is then also removed from the PRC. And the documents make it clear that the consistory’s intent was only to act once the congregation had approved the consistory’s recommendation. T his letter’s content also points out that Rev. A. Lanning and Rev. N. Langerak were absolutely correct in calling out the denomination for minimizing and not ridding herself of the error. They have been valiantly fulfilling their God-given calling. Their deposition and suspension were wrong. Indeed, they were persecuted for rebuking her for her errors (Confessions and Church Order, 64), while the rebukes of ministers and consistories against them (and Edmonton) are not deemed sin but instead justified. Principles work through. If the above is not understood by a minister, it will reflect in his preaching. I do believe that the preaching in our own congregation has indeed changed. It is not my intention to demonstrate this at length, but suffice it to say that I had significant difficulty with recent sermons. In essence, the preaching is not Christ-centered but centers on man, our “activity,” and our experiences. Reverend Bleyenberg sadly missed the point of the whole controversy with his letter “Pastor’s study.” In his very first concrete writing about the controversy, he completely ignores that the “activity of faith” was and still is wrongly presented as obedience. When that happens, preaching essentially becomes Christless. For then who has a need of Christ if our good works must be brought to the congregation as necessary for any blessing of salvation? I also want to emphatically state that the recent events that happened in the school, the implied charges of sin leveled against us by a deacon, and the whole difficulty with COVID plays absolutely no part in our decision to withdraw. It is and always will be distracting background noise. None of those things concern salvation.

Conclusion
I never intended to be this long-winded. It is difficult to summarize all that has happened in the last six years. Many other issues could be mentioned. There are wrongs on both sides, and I am not blind to that. I do not claim to know it all. I do not claim to know more, have more spiritual insight, and have more knowledge or ability than any of you. Yet I cannot ignore these issues. I cannot live with this theology. I cannot agree with the PRC’s dismissal of the controversy as a mere weakness. It is repackaged Arminianism in the covenant. It will choke me, my wife, and our children to death. In Christian love, Hilgard

Reactions: Informative 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Izaak, could you please summarize in a few pithy sentences what you saw in the sermon?


----------



## pgwolv

Taylor said:


> Not making a judgment regarding the PRCA one way or the other here, but what you said here reminds me of one of my favorite Martyn Lloyd-Jones quotes:
> 
> The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge [of antinomianism] being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel.​​—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, _Exposition of Chapter 6 – The New Man_, vol. 5, Romans (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 8.​


Thanks for the quote. We are currently in Rom 6 in our Lord's Day morning expositional series. Our Pastor has also share some of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' comments on these things with us. Romans really is an eye-opener to the heart.


----------



## reformed grit

If I may, 14 minutes trough 23 minutes into the "doctrine class" frame the RPC claims fairly well. It still doesn't get to the crux of the dispute, in my opinion, though Rev. Lanning certainly insists it does. About 35 mins. in he addresses the "gift" factor of justifying faith (on which I'd say both the PRC & RPC agree as well) and the imputation of Christ's righteous _upon_ us. Doctrinally, it's the old, long-standing Reformed clash of Paul _against_ James, which in the inerrant consistency of Holy Scripture is a false though understandable quandary difficult for many far more studied than I. Rev. Lanning does interpret James through Paul. Rev. Lanning and the PRC are working through (still, one may hope), or at least working with differing definitions and implications of _passive faith_. And, in my opinion, the RPC actually aren't insisting _passive faith_ isn't active, but that any activity is all from God toward man (or even God toward God, through man), and not man toward God, and further that it is wholly external to us. Not addressed in this doctrine class, one might do well to delve into the particulars of what the RPC defines as *our* thankfulness, though in refinement since this particular dispute began, the RPC at least has honed in on a perceived distinction regarding justification, where they see in the PRC as teaching of justification by the 'active' works of man.
52 mins. in is also revelatory.
Again if I may (I haven't spoken personally to any parties in this, as Scripture and the Standards direct), both, or rather all human sides in this bear guilt. We, brethren of these, as we bacame aware, ought to be moving heaven and earth to preserve the Bride of Christ in unity and reconciliation, in my opinion. Yes, peace without purity is no peace at all; but at least both sides admit to being sinners - maybe not heretics, but sinners.

Gal. 2:20 (KJV): "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Rom. 3:21-28 (KJV): "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God _which is_ by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth _to be_ a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, _I say_, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
"Where _is_ boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

James 2:14-26 (KJV): "What _does it_ profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what _does it_ profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
"But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
"Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent _them_ out another way?
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What you say, Ruben (in post 56), resonates with me simply because of its sensitivity and quality of discernment.
> 
> Boston's "tincture", while illustrative of a flavor (fragrance?) of heart or spirit that affords subtle nuances of content (spiritual, emotional, meaning) – yet in the context of the Marrow controversy and the situation in Scotland of those days, as well its repercussions even to our time, brings to the fore another phenomenon: that of various differing doctrines and theologies and their near labyrinthine complexities, difficult to understand and discern – all within the Reformed and Presbyterian camp.
> 
> The people in the pews, so to speak, need simplicity, clarity, and the stamp of godly common sense, so as to put doctrine to practical use in understanding and sanctified (God-loving and honoring) living.


I recall a man in Mexico who wrinkled his nose with a look of disgust and asked "Why would anyone want to do that?" when the question was brought up if the reality of free justification made us indifferent to holiness. That was very simple, but very effective. Because he loved Christ, he hated sin. He never took freedom in Christ as meaning freedom to continue in sin, because he grasped quite directly and clearly that sin is unpleasant. He didn't need the more convoluted discussions.

They do become necessary because of error. And I think they get overruled for good, not least because it is sometimes from the materials of controversy that one finds the tools to address a spiritual disease. Someone who is sick may need a lot of complexity that wouldn't come up for a healthy person.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I will have to listen to the sermon by Rev. Nathan Langerak (post #50), “The Necessary Defense of Justification”, to see his view, though I think I should desist from commenting until a greater clarity arises out of the present confusion. I am thankful I am not in the midst of it – among the parties – though it does impact us who have looked to the PRCA for light and soundness.
_______

Here's an entrée from David J. Engelsma’s book, _Gospel Truth of Justification: Proclaimed, Defended, Developed_, Chapter 21, “Paul and James”, (2017, RFPA) :

Always the objection to the gospel truth of justification by faith alone is the fear, whether real or concocted, that the doctrine leads to carelessness of life and sheer lawlessness. Justification by faith alone is a danger to the Christian life of love for God and the neighbor in obedience to the good and holy law of God! Such is the fear and charge of the foes of justification by faith alone.

Let us do full justice to the alleged fear. Justification by faith alone means, and vigorously proclaims to the believing people of God, that the good works of those who believe the gospel from the heart add absolutely nothing to their righteousness with God and that their carelessness, sins, and immorality detract absolutely nothing from their righteousness with God. It means and openly teaches that God’s verdict upon them, now and in the final judgment, depends not at all on their holiness and good works. Justification by faith alone is unconditional forgiveness and unconditional imputation of the obedience of another, even Jesus Christ. The righteousness of the guilty sinner with God has absolutely nothing to do with his own obedience to the law of God. Regarding his righteousness, and therefore the salvation that depends on this righteousness, the law is excluded, completely excluded (not regarding Christ’s obedience to the law in his stead, but regarding any and all demands of the law on the sinner himself as conditions of righteousness and salvation).

“The righteousness of God _without the law_” (Rom. 3:21, emphasis added). “By _the works of the law _shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16, emphasis added). “By grace are ye saved…_not of works_” (Eph. 2:8-9, emphasis added).

…The fear, if fear it is, that justification by faith alone makes people careless or even profane, so that in order to achieve godly living and good works, the church must teach justification by faith and works or a conditional covenantal salvation, is an utterly mistaken and wicked fear…

The fear that the biblical truth of justification needs the help of contemporary theologians to safeguard godly living is unbelief. Unbelief does not trust grace to save the elect believer to the uttermost, that is, to sanctify as well as to justify, to deliver from the power of sin as well as from the guilt and shame of sin. Unbelief does not trust grace to save fully because it does not _know_ the grace of God.

…Underlying the fear of salvation by grace alone is the notion that the real motivation to holiness of life and zeal for good works must be the conviction that one must himself earn his salvation, or that his salvation depends upon his own good works, or that failure to work means hell. The result in those who are driven by this foolish and wicked fear is that they try to live the Christian life like a slave or out of terror…

…It is impossible that the divine act of the justifying by faith alone of the elect ungodly, apart from his own works, should bring about, or lead to, or allow carelessness or profanity of life. First, the true faith by which one is justified is spiritual union with Christ. Spiritual union with Christ brings the life of Christ into the heart of the justified sinner. The sin-overcoming life of the risen Christ rules in the justified sinner, producing love for God and love for the neighbor. One can no more be united to Christ by the faith that justifies and not bring forth the fruits of good works than a branch can be grafted into a tree and not bring forth, by the life of the tree, leaves, blossoms, and fruit.

The faith that is the means of justification is always also the faith that is the means of sanctification, God’s work of making the elect sinner holy, so that he obeys the law and performs good works…

Second, it is impossible that justification by faith alone makes one careless… The sinner experiences deliverance from the guilt of sin unto a right standing with God the judge as the greatest good. For this deliverance he is thankful. Such is his thankfulness that he loves the Savior and the God who gave him. In this love the forgiven sinner obeys the will of the gracious God… (pp 435, 436, 437, 439, 440)​
[End Engelsma quotes]

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## reformed grit

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I will have to listen to the sermon by Rev. Nathan Langerak (post #50), “The Necessary Defense of Justification”, to see his view, though I think I should desist from commenting until a greater clarity arises out of the present confusion. I am thankful I am not in the midst of it – among the parties – though it does impact us who have looked to the PRCA for light and soundness.
> _______
> 
> Here's an entrée from David J. Engelsma’s book, _Gospel Truth of Justification: Proclaimed, Defended, Developed_, Chapter 21, “Paul and James”, (2017, RFPA) :
> ...​Second, it is impossible that justification by faith alone makes one careless… The sinner experiences deliverance from the guilt of sin unto a right standing with God the judge as the greatest good. For this deliverance he is thankful. Such is his thankfulness that he loves the Savior and the God who gave him. In this love the forgiven sinner obeys the will of the gracious God… (pp 435, 436, 437, 439, 440)​
> [End Engelsma quotes]


Not that the issues involved don't go way back in many Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, but Reformed Covenanter in post 8 succinctly addresses the doctrinal issues of conditional fellowship. Things went wrong early and often back in 2015-18 in the matter of Rev. David Overway of Hope PRC (where Rev. Jon Muhtani (of Lanning's doctrinal class address) now shepherds - Rev. Overway asked for and was granted to be deposed last year). Everyone seems to be admitting of those errors now. Unfortunately, due to court conclusion in those matters that what was being taught was that we enjoy fellowship with the Father "in the way of" our obedience, the "Way to the Father" was misconstrued. I've not listened to Rev. Overway's sermons of evidence before the courts. 

I don't think any involved every doubted that our praying to God, our Bible study and fellowship with believers, our helping a Samaritan beat-up and lying in a ditch on the side of the road, our care of widows, visitation to the sick and those in prison, all in Christian love and with a thankful heart toward God enriches the communion, the fellowship, the way of walking betwixt us - that God is pleased with such. (I'd post more on that, but it's perhaps too untoward here.) This, as denoted by Engelsma above, is at least part of what was intended and interpreted early on. The dispute of course goes beyond that, in particular reference to our justification; but though human error is most certainly found in all parties of this disputation (as in each of us), whether of preaching or other actions, I find both the PRC & RPC agree on justification through Christ. Both the PRC & the RPC are definitely not agreeing they agree. In fact, they so ardently disagree that they agree so as to say the matter of their disagreement is perhaps the most important issue in all of Christendom, worth whatever other briars and brambles befall the Bride of Christ.

Given our own history it might be thought an odd thing for a PCAer to say, but I would hope my dear family of both PRC & RPC would empathise that (given God's providence) I, as many, cannot express the depth of sadness this brings. I warrant many a fine and dear member of our family have passed from us unto the Lord over such grievous disputations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward

reformed grit said:


> but might not personalities


Not commenting on the current kerfuffle amongst the Contenintalists, but in the case of the continual splits in the Presbyterian micros, the dispute is more frequently caused by egos and personalities rather than substantial theologial distictions.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Irenaeus

Edward said:


> Not commenting on the current kerfuffle amongst the Contenintalists, but in the case of the continual splits in the Presbyterian micros, the dispute is more frequently caused by egos and personalities rather than substantial theologial distictions.


A lot of intramural Presbyterian disputes can be summed up by whatever the theological analogy of this would be:

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## reformed grit

Edward said:


> Not commenting on the current kerfuffle amongst the Contenintalists, but in the case of the continual splits in the Presbyterian micros, the dispute is more frequently caused by egos and personalities rather than substantial theologial distictions.


I wrote a piece years ago incorporating _You've Got Mail_:
Joe Fox: [It was business,] It wasn't... personal.
Kathleen Kelly: What is that supposed to mean? I'm sick of all that. All that means is that it wasn't personal to you. But it was personal to me. It's *personal* to a lot of people. And what's so wrong with being personal, anyway? ... Whatever else anything is, it ought to begin by being personal.

Again, I think beyond theological 'purity' all parties see the personalness of most all Presbyterian and Reformed kerfuffles since the Reformation began. But you're right, and hit the nail on the head on this one too. Machen was kicked out of the PCUS[A], but forming the OPC was over real boogey-men. Hoeksema was kicked out of the CRC, but his concerns were obvious and remain. 60% of his PRCA returning to the CRC in the 50s-60s maybe says, "Hey, we can tolerate common grace and some other things"; though OK, the CRC(NA) has unraveled since then. I was around when theonomy hit with Rushdoony, Bahnsen, North, Morecraft, Jordan, & others. I think maybe most of those would have tried to mitigate brother Joe.

I'm a wee regulative myself, and sympathetic to folk ditching the Roman calendar and focusing music more toward Holy Writ. I don't mind shepherds standing up for Reformed theology or even particular personal beliefs they find important. But hey, there ain't nothing wrong with learned men listening to other learned men and sitting down over sweet-tea, tater salad, and even chopped pork to work out their differences, before chucking it all and dragging whole churches and other denominations into the fray, esp. if a whole lotta folk looking on are of an opinion that the hill of beans ain't that big... yet. My church sings hymns, celebrates Christmas, even (I'm truly ashamed to say) a trunk-or-treat dressed as something... tolerable (like maybe even Calvin or Luther). Do I scream about it? Yes. But I don't disassociate myself from the church over it or travel 100 miles to somewhere else. The next closest churches to me are a church who left the PC(USA) to join the EPC, lost their property, and went down the street and built a whole new building. I'm old. I've listened to women preachers before (no, not at our church), and once I even found myself at some hair salon getting my hair cut by a... homosexual (I've cut my own hair for 40 years since then). Foxhole companions aside, I'm telling you I'll be dead before I find myself staring wide-eyed up from a pew eating a wafer with a swig of honey-mead severed by some lady in pants and a halter.

These days some say we're very very selfish and individualistic. Near as I tell we humans have always been that way. We church-hop, churches denomination-hop, and whole denominations denomination-hop. But when we point fingers and cry, "heretic!" at the top of our lungs, it seems to me we better have gone through more than a few tea-and-tater meals with one another first, esp. if we're totting a boat-load of sheep in our wake. With all due apologies to any it may offend, if one finds oneself in a living room with twelve disciples after exiting church after church, well, I'd be ashamed to even think I qualify for a "presbyterian" moniker, let alone "reformed". I mean, I know it came down to Noah, or Abraham & Lot, but surely the Spirit has led us a long way since then.


----------



## Edward

reformed grit said:


> Machen was kicked out of the PCUS


PCUSA.; Typo or mistake.


----------



## reformed grit

Edward said:


> PCUSA.; Typo or mistake.


Both I think. I really do know better.
Chart.
And corrected. Thanks.
I have nifty portraiture there too, but haven't gotten 'round to illustrating Machen or you... yet.


----------



## BertMulder

A few interesting things from the blog of Dewey Engelsma in this controversy:









2 Corinthians 7:11


It was not difficult for the Apostle Paul to identify true repentance in the church at Corinth. Sorrow after a godly sort. Carefulness. Clearing. Indignation. Fear. Vehement desire. Zeal. Revenge! …




astraitbetwixttwo.com

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Grant Van Leuven

Taylor said:


> They deny the _well-meant_ offer. They affirm the _free_ offer with enthusiasm. See David Engelsma's _Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_, specifically chapter one.


A very important and much appreciated clarification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Grant Van Leuven

Taylor said:


> Even then, it seems to me their concern is really with the term “grace.” They certainly believe in the “common operations of the Spirit,” they just object to calling it _grace_. While we may disagree with this, it is hardly heresy or hyper-Calvinism:
> 
> “The idea of common grace is a _theologoumenon_ (theological opinion) and does not have confessional status.”​​—Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 650; italics original.​
> Note: As far as I know, Letham himself affirms common grace.


Another appreciated clarification. The Westminster Standards use distinctions like general and special providence as well as common operations of the Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Grant Van Leuven

Per the topic addressed within this post that I've briefly responded to twice above, related to the Westminster Standards, here's something our church put together years ago for interacting with various Presbyteries (part of a larger work) while seeking a denominational home for whom it may be of interest:

"Searching the Westminster Standards (in Bible Works), the exact phrase, “free offer”, does not exist (and of course, nor does “well-meant” in any way). The only places where “freely” and “offered” appear in the same paragraph, or “freely offereth” are:

WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) 3:1: Here, “freely” speaks of God’s own will to do whatever He chooses. And “offered” refers to violence not being offered on the will of the creatures in God’s execution of His will. The sincerity of the offer is not the referent with “freely” or “offered” considered alone or together, but rather God’s not being dependent on man; this is at odds with a portrayal of God eagerly anticipating the reprobate’s response.

WCF 5:2: Notice “freely” here again is related to God not being contingent on what will happen.

WCF 7:3: Here “freely offereth” speaks of the general offer to all sinners _indiscriminately_, yet requiring the condition of faith [which is God's gift]. And His promise to give eternal life (salvation) is only said to be given “unto all those that are ordained to eternal life” so that they are in fact “willing, and able to believe”. So “freely offereth” refers to an unconditional offer to everyone (other than the need to believe). Here, the _Sum of Saving Knowledge_ would be helpful to consult, where the emphasis is on “whosever wills” and a sinner’s sincere response to God’s wrath and offer of forgiveness; it never discusses God’s “internal” intention.

WCF 9:4: Here the free will is the sinner’s, to whom it is divinely given to by God (also in 10.1).

WCF 11:1 This speaks of those God effectually calls, whom He “freely justifieth”, communicating not God’s intent (it is free) but the gift of justification as “no strings attached”, no payment to be made by the sinner. WCF 11:3 makes this especially clear, “freely” being contrasted with “anything in them”. We are building the case that “freely” is always used in contrasting reference to “conditional works”.

WCF 11:3: Here is a discussion of the assurance of things being “freely given him of God”. Here again, “freely” is being used not in reference to God’s will toward the reprobate, but His gift being without cost.

WCF 19:7: Here God’s subduing a Christian to now do the moral law “freely” and not under compulsion, coercion, or condemnation -- free of ill will. It does not refer to God’s will to the reprobate in preaching.

WLC (Westminster Larger Catechism) 32: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant in that God “freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by Him”. Notice here the offer is connected with the provision to “mankind” in general (see B.B. Warfield’s explanation of “world” in John 3:16, for instance). The Mediator is presented free of cost before all sinners that some might embrace Him. Freely, not conditionally, is the point. Freely is not referring to God’s sincerity toward the reprobate. It is a sincere presentation in a general call for “whosoever will” respond to it. Notice faith is required in the general call, but then the question goes on to clearly focus on what is promised and provided to the “elect” who have been “enabled” and “appointed … to salvation”, the special aim of the general call.

WLC 67: Here the question refers to effectual calling, and so specifically has in view God’s will and effectual execution of it toward the elect alone. So any discussion of God’s intent is restricted to His intent toward the elect. The reprobate (or even all mankind) are not in view in discussion of God’s “well meant” or “good intentions” in the Gospel call. Here, though, the “freely” relates to the elect’s new ability to actually will to answer the general Gospel call (effectually administered by the Spirit inwardly), and does not speak of God’s inner intent (let alone, to the reprobate). The word “offered” referring to grace is not connected to “freely”, but still it does refer to the offer of grace. Important to note is that the context is the effectual call, so the object of the special call within the general is restricted to God’s elect. 

WLC 141 and 144 use the word “freely” but not remotely connected to the Gospel call.

WSC (Westminster Shorter Catechism) 31: Here “freely offered” is in the context of “effectual calling”, so the general call has only God’s intent to save His elect in view, and so it ends with “freely offered” “to us”. Freely offered again is making an emphasis that salvation is not earned by conditional works but is received by grace. God’s intent toward the reprobate in the general call is nowhere in view.

WSC 105: Here is considered what do we ask for in the fifth petition, and included in the answer is that God would, for Christ’s sake, “freely pardon all our sins”. The obvious connection again is the grace able to forgive in the end of the answer. Again, “freely” means a gift in contrast to conditional payment.

In conclusion, when we see “freely offered” or “offereth” in the Westminster Standards, “freely” is not referring to God’s will or intention or “well meaning”, even to the elect, as its direct referent, but rather what is being referred to is the freeness of salvation as a gift of grace rather than a conditional work. It is not commenting on God’s intent to anyone in its direct usage, but rather the idea of “no hidden strings attached”. It is communicating “free sovereign grace” against the idea of man’s meritorious work. Salvation cost us nothing but to receive what cost God His Own Son. Thus, the burden of proof would seem to be on those who argue a “well meant offer” is inherently Confessional or obligatorily understood as a synonym with “free offer” or “freely offered”, and that this is not rather anachronistic reading."

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Doesn’t it come down to us as the instrument, or vessel, of faith. That the gift of faith is freely given.

I don’t really love the word offer myself. It’s almost like it cheapens the divine gift when improperly applied by today’s standards of the contingency of natural man’s response. But in the context of preaching and sharing the gospel, it’s not conditional or half-hearted in any way. That’s where the ‘offer’, more appropriately, the gospel call, comes in. That we are indiscriminately *called* to come out of darkness. To ‘offer’, appears to remove the unconditionality from election.

See: 2 Corinthians 4:7 for the free, divine gift of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder

Rev. Blackateer of the CRCNA wrote an essay on the Three Points of Common Grace in the Calvin Theological Journal. In the above context, I find it very useful. It can be found here:






The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation


(The following copyrighted article is taken from the Calvin Theological Journal, April, 2000-a publication of Calvin Theological Seminary, 3233 Burton Street, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546. It is reproduced with permission and can not be copied without permission of the staff of the Calvin...




www.prca.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder

Romans922 said:


> But the PRC denies the free offer and goes towards hypercalvinism....


It is true that the PRCA denies the wellmeant offer. Also, sadly enough, because many ministers are so afraid to preach any kind of offer, they neglect to preach the call of the Gospel, period.


----------



## Taylor

BertMulder said:


> It is true that the PRCA denies the free offer.


How are you defining "free offer"? Because David Engelsma in his book _Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_ seems to assert that the PRCA categorically _affirms_ the free offer—i.e., that the gospel is to be proclaimed freely to all, and all are to be called to believe it, because all have a duty to believe it. It is rather the _well-meant_ offer they deny.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder

Taylor said:


> How are you defining "free offer"? Because David Engelsma in his book _Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel_ seems to assert that the PRCA categorically _affirms_ the free offer—i.e., that the gospel is to be proclaimed freely to all, and all are to be called to believe it, because all have a duty to believe it. It is rather the _well-meant_ offer they deny.


My apologies, I should have said 'wellmeant offer'. However, the word 'offer' is not normally used in the PRCA. And, like I stated above, in practice, many preachers do not want to be tainted with heresy, and avoid any 'Call of the Gospel'. Because of that, sadly, Christ is not preached. A such, there is a variance of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. And that is also part of the present controversy, as I understand from personal conversations with men that have left the PRCA...

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## A.Joseph

BertMulder said:


> My apologies, I should have said 'wellmeant offer'. However, the word 'offer' is not normally used in the PRCA. And, like I stated above, in practice, many preachers do not want to be tainted with heresy, and avoid any 'Call of the Gospel'. Because of that, sadly, Christ is not preached. A such, there is a variance of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. And that is also part of the present controversy, as I understand from personal conversations with men that have left the PRCA...


I wonder if that could be a trapping of extreme Reformed distinctiveness. Theology and doctrine without the heart of it, which is the Gospel of Christ. As if our inability negates our accountability and ultimately acceptance into the Body of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I finally listened to / saw the preaching of Rev. Nathan Langerak’s sermon, “The Necessary Defense of Justification” on Youtube (the sermon starts at 33 minutes, 40 seconds).

I found no fault with it – it was sound, and his whole heart was in it. I would now like to hear him preach on sanctification. It is very true that our righteousnesses are as filthy rags to God, as our best works are polluted with our remaining corruption and wicked self-centeredness. Only the righteousness of Jesus Christ is acceptable to God as warrant to enter His presence and His paradise New Earth, and when it is imputed to us as a gift, through the gift of faith, we are received by the Almighty God even as He receives His Son the Lord Jesus, holy and beloved. It was a refreshing sermon, even though his heart was heavy amidst all this business.

I would like to hear Pastor Nathan speak on the work of the Spirit of Christ in sanctifying us, both the “mechanics” of how He does that (as in Romans 8:13), and how God views His ongoing work of purifying our hearts by faith. We do have sayings of the Lord Jesus as regards the latter:

*Matt 5:8*, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”

*Luke 8:15*, “But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

*Luke 6:45*, “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”

We know it is the Lord who does this work in us, as it is written, “the Holy Ghost…purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8, 9), and, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). I am interested in these things, and His working, and ours (for in sanctification we both work, cf. Col 1:29; 1 Cor 15:10; 3:9).

I also noted that Prof. Engelsma reproved one of the editors of the Standard Bearer, Rev. Kenneth Koole, for his offensively ridiculing a saying of Herman Hoeksema, after no one else objected: from the April 2019 issue of the _Protestant Reformed Theological Journal _(PRTJ), posted on Dewey Engelsma’s blog :



https://astraitbetwixttwo.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Combined-Material.pdf


----------



## Irenaeus

@Jerusalem Blade - if your Cyprus plans don't work out, I nominate you to mediate this dispute in the PRCA - which is another way of saying I appreciate your careful study of and comment on this issue.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, JP, for the kind view of me, but I could not mediate between such powerful opponents. The best I can do is try to sort my way through people – and a church, now churches – I highly respect so as to order my own life and way, and that which I will be preaching and teaching to others, if the Lord blesses our labor to replant a church. We can learn from the troubles of others, and be sharpened from the failures of others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cmiersma

As far as the PRCA's position on the offer is concerned, the best description is to be found in the Declaration of Principles: "This preaching of the particular promise is promiscuous to all that hear the gospel, with the command, not a condition, to repent and believe." The issue is that the word offer is used in the Canons in both a positive and a negative way. The position in the Declaration carefully divides up the concept of the preaching of the gospel into two components, both of which are general, but which nevertheless present particular grace. The goal of this is to ensure that the relationship between God and the elect is always based on the types of figures taught in scripture, such as a parent-child, master-servant, last will and testament, etc. These figures all involve one-sided initiation and maintenance, although they all involve real interaction. The concept of a contractual covenant, along with any associated uses of the word offer, places God and man on an equal footing, as business partners. As such, a contractual covenant can imply perfectionism. In addition, if you properly understand Heads 3-5, the expression "in the way of," which is standard PRCA terminology, normally implies irresistible grace.

Both Lanning and N. Langerak have vocally denied any distinction between a condition and a way. In addition, Rev. Overway used the expression "in the way of," in a context that did not imply the correct order of salvation, stirring up an element of suspicion towards the phrase in the minds of some. This is at the root of the split. The RPC appears to stand for a rejection of both expressions. Depending on how you understand it, their position could be taken as antinomianism, hyper-calvinism, or legalism.

I would add that we do also recognize that we have some challenges as a denomination. I was a member of the same congregation with Bert Mulder during the last years he was in the PRCA, about which he has mentioned leaving. I brought protests against that minister, for teaching that God's providence was similar to human foresight as well as teaching that conversion consists of a progressive regeneration, both of which were taught over many years. Often, people in the pew, including elders, can hear that there are problems, but actually finding heretical statements, protesting them, and carrying the point is difficult. I personally am to blame in some of this, as I should have protested much earlier than I did.

I believe the real dispute is about the order of salvation, and that this can actually be generalized across several different cases.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BertMulder

cmiersma said:


> As far as the PRCA's position on the offer is concerned, the best description is to be found in the Declaration of Principles: "This preaching of the particular promise is promiscuous to all that hear the gospel, with the command, not a condition, to repent and believe." The issue is that the word offer is used in the Canons in both a positive and a negative way. The position in the Declaration carefully divides up the concept of the preaching of the gospel into two components, both of which are general, but which nevertheless present particular grace. The goal of this is to ensure that the relationship between God and the elect is always based on the types of figures taught in scripture, such as a parent-child, master-servant, last will and testament, etc. These figures all involve one-sided initiation and maintenance, although they all involve real interaction. The concept of a contractual covenant, along with any associated uses of the word offer, places God and man on an equal footing, as business partners. As such, a contractual covenant can imply perfectionism. In addition, if you properly understand Heads 3-5, the expression "in the way of," which is standard PRCA terminology, normally implies irresistible grace.
> 
> Both Lanning and N. Langerak have vocally denied any distinction between a condition and a way. In addition, Rev. Overway used the expression "in the way of," in a context that did not imply the correct order of salvation, stirring up an element of suspicion towards the phrase in the minds of some. This is at the root of the split. The RPC appears to stand for a rejection of both expressions. Depending on how you understand it, their position could be taken as antinomianism, hyper-calvinism, or legalism.
> 
> I would add that we do also recognize that we have some challenges as a denomination. I was a member of the same congregation with Bert Mulder during the last years he was in the PRCA, about which he has mentioned leaving. I brought protests against that minister, for teaching that God's providence was similar to human foresight as well as teaching that conversion consists of a progressive regeneration, both of which were taught over many years. Often, people in the pew, including elders, can hear that there are problems, but actually finding heretical statements, protesting them, and carrying the point is difficult. I personally am to blame in some of this, as I should have protested much earlier than I did.
> 
> I believe the real dispute is about the order of salvation, and that this can actually be generalized across several different cases.


What do you believe is the correct ordo salutis?


----------



## cmiersma

BertMulder said:


> What do you believe is the correct ordo salutis?


regeneration, effectual calling, faith, conversion justification, sanctification, preservation and perseverance, glorification. Note that I have regeneration before effectual calling. I acknowledge that there might be some ineffectual external calling prior to an immediate regeneration. Some period of ineffectual external calling must be acknowledged, even if infants are regenerated before they are born, which was evidently the case with John the Baptist and David. I also distinguish between faith and conversion, as Herman Hoeksema and Homer Hoeksena do, rather than lumping them together under the heading of saving faith as the PRCA essentials book does. Likewise, I distinguish preservation and perseverance. Also, I include glorification, as the activities and experience of faith, can be understood as signs to us of God's work in us, and thus a beginning of glorification in this life. I believe this is the most accurate terminology to reflect the breadth of biblical and confessional language, as well as reflecting the doctrinal thinking underlying the decisions of the PRCA Synod from 2016-2021, the Declaration of Principles, and the Conclusions of Utrecht. In addition, because I distinguish conversion and perseverance, I prefer to avoid the term progressive sanctification, which I have found has too many erroneous possible meanings. For example, progressive sanctification can imply perfectionism, or it can imply theological liberalism. Instead, I point out that regeneration in the narrowest sense is immediate, that calling is a process, that the effects of calling are progressive, and that therefore elements of initial conversion and perseverance are both progressive. I believe my thinking on this point aligns with the late Prof. Homer Hoeksema: (https://sb.rfpa.org/the-order-of-salvation-2/). Adding to that, I would distinguish adoption as the legal aspect of immediate regeneration and the consciousness of adoption as an aspect of conversion, though the 3 Forms do not have a separate article on the subject of Adoption. The word is used only twice in scripture, but it makes sense to associate it with both election and regeneration. I've done a bit of research on this, and I believe this also reflects the thinking of Voetius and Hoornbeeck, from shortly after Dordt. In addition, Bavinck, although he places calling before regeneration does acknowledge immediate regeneration, which leads to the same result.


----------



## BertMulder

cmiersma said:


> regeneration, effectual calling, faith, conversion justification, sanctification, preservation and perseverance, glorification. Note that I have regeneration before effectual calling. I acknowledge that there might be some ineffectual external calling prior to an immediate regeneration. Some period of ineffectual external calling must be acknowledged, even if infants are regenerated before they are born, which was evidently the case with John the Baptist and David. I also distinguish between faith and conversion, as Herman Hoeksema and Homer Hoeksena do, rather than lumping them together under the heading of saving faith as the PRCA essentials book does. Likewise, I distinguish preservation and perseverance. Also, I include glorification, as the activities and experience of faith, can be understood as signs to us of God's work in us, and thus a beginning of glorification in this life. I believe this is the most accurate terminology to reflect the breadth of biblical and confessional language, as well as reflecting the doctrinal thinking underlying the decisions of the PRCA Synod from 2016-2021, the Declaration of Principles, and the Conclusions of Utrecht. In addition, because I distinguish conversion and perseverance, I prefer to avoid the term progressive sanctification, which I have found has too many erroneous possible meanings. For example, progressive sanctification can imply perfectionism, or it can imply theological liberalism. Instead, I point out that regeneration in the narrowest sense is immediate, that calling is a process, that the effects of calling are progressive, and that therefore elements of initial conversion and perseverance are both progressive. I believe my thinking on this point aligns with the late Prof. Homer Hoeksema: (https://sb.rfpa.org/the-order-of-salvation-2/). Adding to that, I would distinguish adoption as the legal aspect of immediate regeneration and the consciousness of adoption as an aspect of conversion, though the 3 Forms do not have a separate article on the subject of Adoption. The word is used only twice in scripture, but it makes sense to associate it with both election and regeneration. I've done a bit of research on this, and I believe this also reflects the thinking of Voetius and Hoornbeeck, from shortly after Dordt. In addition, Bavinck, although he places calling before regeneration does acknowledge immediate regeneration, which leads to the same result.


And how do the RPC differ on this point?


----------



## Irenaeus

cmiersma said:


> regeneration, effectual calling, faith, conversion justification, sanctification, preservation and perseverance, glorification. Note that I have regeneration before effectual calling. I acknowledge that there might be some ineffectual external calling prior to an immediate regeneration. Some period of ineffectual external calling must be acknowledged, even if infants are regenerated before they are born, which was evidently the case with John the Baptist and David. I also distinguish between faith and conversion, as Herman Hoeksema and Homer Hoeksena do, rather than lumping them together under the heading of saving faith as the PRCA essentials book does. Likewise, I distinguish preservation and perseverance. Also, I include glorification, as the activities and experience of faith, can be understood as signs to us of God's work in us, and thus a beginning of glorification in this life. I believe this is the most accurate terminology to reflect the breadth of biblical and confessional language, as well as reflecting the doctrinal thinking underlying the decisions of the PRCA Synod from 2016-2021, the Declaration of Principles, and the Conclusions of Utrecht. In addition, because I distinguish conversion and perseverance, I prefer to avoid the term progressive sanctification, which I have found has too many erroneous possible meanings. For example, progressive sanctification can imply perfectionism, or it can imply theological liberalism. Instead, I point out that regeneration in the narrowest sense is immediate, that calling is a process, that the effects of calling are progressive, and that therefore elements of initial conversion and perseverance are both progressive. I believe my thinking on this point aligns with the late Prof. Homer Hoeksema: (https://sb.rfpa.org/the-order-of-salvation-2/). Adding to that, I would distinguish adoption as the legal aspect of immediate regeneration and the consciousness of adoption as an aspect of conversion, though the 3 Forms do not have a separate article on the subject of Adoption. The word is used only twice in scripture, but it makes sense to associate it with both election and regeneration. I've done a bit of research on this, and I believe this also reflects the thinking of Voetius and Hoornbeeck, from shortly after Dordt. In addition, Bavinck, although he places calling before regeneration does acknowledge immediate regeneration, which leads to the same result.


I'm with Bavinck on this one. How can one be regenerated without an initial effectual call? It's the call that, by the power of the Spirit, breathes new spiritual life into us... at least that's how I've understood it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brent20

Regeneration is the new birth. How can a dead man answer the call of Him who is Life unless the man is first given life. I go back and forth on this one in my mind too and in a way both views make sense. Doesn't their have to be some life first before we can effectually be called?


----------



## Taylor

Irenaeus said:


> I'm with Bavinck on this one. How can one be regenerated without an initial effectual call? It's the call that, by the power of the Spirit, breathes new spiritual life into us... at least that's how I've understood it.


WCF 10.1, WLC 67, and WSC 31 seem to teach that effectual calling _is_ regeneration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter

BertMulder said:


> And how do the RPC differ on this point?


I have not detected any difference at this point. The Reformed Protestant Churches do not claim to differ from historic Protestant Reformed theology. They just claim to be more consistent


----------



## cmiersma

As far as regeneration and calling is concerned, the issue is that in Canons Head 3/4 Art. 11, which describes the works of grace in detail, regeneration is essentially bracketed between external and internal calling. Preaching, illumination, actuation, and strengthening all belong to calling, where as circumcision, and the principle of new life belong to regeneration. When I read Voetius, one of the authors of the Canons, he explicitly describes calling as a process. The figure in the Canons is really that of a pregnancy, with conception being aligned with immediate regeneration and birth with conversion. Preaching doesn't infuse new qualities. That's like imagining that a husband can beget children by merely speaking to his wife. A husband speaking to his pregnant wife, can stir a child in the womb into activity.

Also, the Conclusions of Utrecht are really helpful on this point: (https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-conclusions-of-synod-utrecht-1905/).

The issue with the order of salvation in the RPC is that, in their opposition to conditions, they have included the concept of A before B in their definition of a condition. This has led to a denial that faith in a sense precedes conversion in our experience in time. The confessional answer is that actuating precedes strengthening, and therefore believing does precede some benefit of salvation. The issue in regard to the order of salvation can be characterized as a failure to understand effectual calling and/or a failure to properly distinguish faith and conversion. I don't think it's really a denial of the order regeneration, calling, etc. The issue occurs further down the line.


----------



## Irenaeus

brent20 said:


> Regeneration is the new birth. How can a dead man answer the call of Him who is Life unless the man is first given life. I go back and forth on this one in my mind too and in a way both views make sense. Doesn't their have to be some life first before we can effectually be called?


The effectual call is life-giving. God speaks, and the dry bones are raised and enfleshed.


----------



## Reformedforever

(LD 38) The Fourth Commandment


Rev. Andrew Lanning | First Reformed Protestant Church




tinysa.com






Quote from this sermon.
“To those who say, you must believe, you must must repent. The word that we say back is, no, you mustn’t! No, you mustn’t believe, no you mustn’t repent. YOU mustn’t believe, YOU mustn’t repent. I know, I know what the call of the gospel is and I know what it means. The call of the gospel certainly is you must believe. The call of the gospel certainly is you must repent. But the call of the gospel is never you, you, you must! That’s the law! The call of the gospel is this: the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ who has come for the salvation of sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ who has accomplished it all and who has said about everything that must be done for the salvation of His people, it is finished! And the Lord Jesus Christ who came as the foreordained Lamb who was from the foundation of the world so that on the eternal counsel of God, the salvation of His people was accomplished and complete. THAT’S the gospel! And the call of the gospel then, believe in Him and repent of your sins, does not mean anything about you…it doesn’t! It’s not the law that’s laid on your shoulders. But the whole meaning of that call, repent and believe, the whole meaning of it is Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished-that’s the gospel.” AL

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Irenaeus

Reformedforever said:


> (LD 38) The Fourth Commandment
> 
> 
> Rev. Andrew Lanning | First Reformed Protestant Church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinysa.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote from this sermon.
> “To those who say, you must believe, you must must repent. The word that we say back is, no, you mustn’t! No, you mustn’t believe, no you mustn’t repent. YOU mustn’t believe, YOU mustn’t repent. I know, I know what the call of the gospel is and I know what it means. The call of the gospel certainly is you must believe. The call of the gospel certainly is you must repent. But the call of the gospel is never you, you, you must! That’s the law! The call of the gospel is this: the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ who has come for the salvation of sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ who has accomplished it all and who has said about everything that must be done for the salvation of His people, it is finished! And the Lord Jesus Christ who came as the foreordained Lamb who was from the foundation of the world so that on the eternal counsel of God, the salvation of His people was accomplished and complete. THAT’S the gospel! And the call of the gospel then, believe in Him and repent of your sins, does not mean anything about you…it doesn’t! It’s not the law that’s laid on your shoulders. But the whole meaning of that call, repent and believe, the whole meaning of it is Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished-that’s the gospel.” AL


I'll have to look at the rest of the sermon. Out of context, that quote is problematic. It mischaracterizes law by conflating the distinction between works as a way of salvation and works as a fruit of salvation. The former is not found in Scripture. The latter is. This appears to be the antinomian error of including sanctification in justification.

The call of the gospel is not "the Lord Jesus Christ". That empties his name of meaning and degrades it. The call of the gospel is to believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that Christ is Lord. It is a call to human action. The error lies in attributing any of the credit or source of salvation to human effort rather than seeing the human effort as a response to a wholly gracious saving work; but that human action is a required response is, I think, clearly shown in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Repeating Moderation from way back in post #28: "people to think before they post, and to make sure they know whereof they speak."

Commenting critically on anything before making a full and thorough acquaintance with both substance and context is unwise. There is too much speculation by trying to form one's opinion in a public forum, getting and giving of ideas and impressions from snippets of sermons, etc., by folks who are not invested in the shepherding controversy itself. Natural curiosity is leading to interpretive evaluations that are tenuous and tendentious.

Men have risked their livelihoods and reputations, while congregations and church have imposed censures on those they believe are in the wrong. This is serious business, and offering up impressions and half-formed judgments (even salted with caveats and admissions) is unwise.

Post your data, or just read the first hand evidence; and pray for the people, the families, the congregations involved. Please do not post an evaluation without thoroughly clearing yourselves of a charge of ignorance, Prv.18:13.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## cmiersma

I have been involved in observing the split since before it began, and I know quite a few of those who have joined the RPC. My assessment, first of all, over and above everything else, is that the RPC is not unified internally.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

cmiersma said:


> The issue with the order of salvation in the RPC is that, in their opposition to conditions, they have included the concept of A before B in their definition of a condition. This has led to a denial that faith in a sense precedes conversion in our experience in time.



That seems like a succinct way of expressing things. If one can't have A ordinarily preceding and conducing to B, then means cease to have any value.


----------



## cmiersma

py3ak said:


> That seems like a succinct way of expressing things. If one can't have A ordinarily preceding and conducing to B, then means cease to have any value.


More than that, religion per se ceases to have any value. Assuming that we do actually believe the wonder of the resurrection in time, and then it actually happens, then A necessarily precedes B (I. Thess 4:14). In the PRCA this reality would be explained using the order of salvation. I would described believing as a sign to us and an organic necessity rather than a condition or even a means, since properly speaking the bond/gift/quality of faith is the means, and the external aspect of the use of the means of grace stirs faith into activity (Phil 1:6; Rom. 10:9; 2 Pet. 3:1). As you can see, that is all biblical language.


----------



## Irenaeus

cmiersma said:


> More than that, religion per se ceases to have any value. Assuming that we do actually believe the wonder of the resurrection in time, and then it actually happens, then A necessarily precedes B (I. Thess 4:14). In the PRCA this reality would be explained using the order of salvation. I would described believing as a sign to us and an organic necessity rather than a condition or even a means, since properly speaking the bond/gift/quality of faith is the means, and the external aspect of the use of the means of grace stirs faith into activity (Phil 1:6; Rom. 10:9; 2 Pet. 3:1). As you can see, that is all biblical language.


Have you seen any indication in the PRCA that this in practice turns into legalism or a sense of conditionality as a part of the requirements for being saved?


----------



## BertMulder

cmiersma said:


> I have been involved in observing the split since before it began, and I know quite a few of those who have joined the RPC. My assessment, first of all, over and above everything else, is that the RPC is not unified internally.


Thank you for your explanation Christopher. However, the ordo salutis is a logical order, and you seem to be implying that it is an order in time. As such, in the history of the reformation, there has been many different ways and terms to describe the ordo salutis, Read Hoeksema on this matter, and as such I would hesitate to say that they mean something different by their different expression, as also Hoeksema reiterates.

I must say, also, that I am somewhat confused by the history:


----------



## cmiersma

BertMulder said:


> Thank you for your explanation Christopher. However, the ordo salutis is a logical order, and you seem to be implying that it is an order in time. As such, in the history of the reformation, there has been many different ways and terms to describe the ordo salutis, Read Hoeksema on this matter, and as such I would hesitate to say that they mean something different by their different expression, as also Hoeksema reiterates.
> 
> I must say, also, that I am somewhat confused by the history:


Read the article by Homer Hoeksema that I linked. He makes the order of salvation I mentioned both a temporal and logical order. Some of the decisions of Synod recognize that temporal element.

As far as the history is concerned, I think you have some details wrong. I don't have the time at the moment to go into all the details, but I would say that you have a twisted version of events.


----------



## cmiersma

Irenaeus said:


> Have you seen any indication in the PRCA that this in practice turns into legalism or a sense of conditionality as a part of the requirements for being saved?


Most of the decisions and articles that I've read carefully distinguish between meeting requirements and those elements that involve a temporal aspect in the order of God's working. There are always legalists present in any denomination, but, in general, I would say that this helps to counter legalism.


----------



## Irenaeus

cmiersma said:


> Most of the decisions and articles that I've read carefully distinguish between meeting requirements and those elements that involve a temporal aspect in the order of God's working. There are always legalists present in any denomination, but, in general, I would say that this helps to counter legalism.


Thank you. That is helpful.


----------



## Irenaeus

Gentlemen, is it possible that this part of the conversation - regarding personal involvement and allegations of inconsistent behavior - might be best carried out privately, one on one?


----------



## BertMulder

have voluntarily withdrawn some comments so not to inadvertently cause offense


----------



## cmiersma

BertMulder said:


> have voluntarily withdrawn some comments so not to inadvertently cause offense


No offense taken. I have also removed anything that we might be expected to take up privately.


----------



## jongsg01

You can read more bout this on the RFPA website in the blogs of Rev. Martyn McGeown. I think he is a gifted writer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MrOtter

Reformedforever said:


> Seems like the RPC has leanings towards Antinomianism.


They are hyper calvinists


----------



## MrOtter

De Jager said:


> I live about 10 minutes away from one of the two or three PRC churches in Canada. This small church, of about 80 people, who was already a relative outpost with basically no Ecclesiastical fellowship in our whole Country, just split over this issue. The minister was Martin Vanderwal. I don't know much about it, all I know is that I find it very sad.


It is sad, Rev Vanderwall was my pastor in the church in california…


----------

