# Thoughts on the PRC



## Goodcheer68 (Jul 20, 2020)

Moderators can you change the title to read Thoughts on the PRC?

I’m looking for any thoughts on the PRC denomination. I’m not really familiar with it. I’m up in the Coeur dAlene ID area and am looking for churches. We have been attending the OPC here for the last couple of weeks but want to look at other options. The only other option seems to be the PCA in Spokane.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 20, 2020)

Preface with this: I like a lot of their material and Engelsma has some good stuff against Kuyper.

Distinctives:
1) No divorce ever.
2) No covenant of works.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 20, 2020)

Though monocovenantalists, they are ardently against anything that introduces conditions i.e. Federal Vision, New Perspective, etc.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jul 20, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Preface with this: I like a lot of their material and Engelsma has some good stuff against Kuyper.
> 
> Distinctives:
> 1) No divorce ever.
> 2) No covenant of works.


I thought they rejected the CoW but didn’t know their view on divorce- interesting


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jul 20, 2020)

Always distinguish between the Protestant Reformed Church and the Presbyterian Reformed Church. The Presbyterian RC is a 1647 WCF denomination.

There is also Trinity Church in Coeur d'Alene that subscribes to the WCF and ecumenical creeds. It is in the CREC, so some may have a problem with that. Perhaps visit and find out what they believe.









Statement of Faith - Trinity CDA


Statement of Faith “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are...




trinitycda.org





Note: nowhere in Trinity Church's exceptions to the WCF do they state they believe in paedocommunion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 20, 2020)

There was a thread on this topic about a year ago, though I am struggling to find it just now.

I have many friends in the PRCA, I attend some of their gatherings, and I agree with some of their views. Given the seriousness of their divergence from the doctrine of the Westminster Standards and Reformed orthodoxy more generally, I would not recommend attending one of their congregations if there is another Reformed church within driving distance.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jul 20, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Always distinguish between the Protestant Reformed Church and the Presbyterian Reformed Church. The Presbyterian RC is a 1647 WCF denomination.
> 
> There is also Trinity Church in Coeur d'Alene that subscribes to the WCF and ecumenical creeds. It is in the CREC, so some may have a problem with that. Perhaps visit and find out what they believe.
> 
> ...



I’m definitely staying away from the CREC but thanks.


----------



## Jake (Jul 20, 2020)

Between Protestant Reformed and CREC, I would pick Protestant Reformed. I listened to a sermon from Rodney Kleyn (their pastor in Spokane) once which seemed solid. However, the OPC is right in town and seems like the better option.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 20, 2020)

Here is the link to the specific thread that I had in mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jul 20, 2020)

Jake said:


> Between Protestant Reformed and CREC, I would pick Protestant Reformed. I listened to a sermon from Rodney Kleyn (their pastor in Spokane) once which seemed solid. However, the OPC is right in town and seems like the better option.


I would probably pick a Protestant Reformed over a paedocommunion CREC, but this particular congregation affirms the WCF view of the Lord's Supper. 

As to Mr. Brink, if there is an OPC nearby it seems that would be a good choice.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jul 20, 2020)

Jake said:


> Between Protestant Reformed and CREC, I would pick Protestant Reformed. I listened to a sermon from Rodney Kleyn (their pastor in Spokane) once which seemed solid. However, the OPC is right in town and seems like the better option.


 I’ve been going to the OPC but so far right theology and liturgy doesnt always add up to graciousness and hospitality in living which I think are just as important.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jul 20, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I’ve been going to the OPC but so far right theology and liturgy doesnt always add up to graciousness and hospitality in living which I think are just as important.


I am sad to hear that. I will pray you find the right church for you, and I will pray for the OPC as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 20, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I’ve been going to the OPC but so far right theology and liturgy doesnt always add up to graciousness and hospitality in living which I think are just as important.


From someone who has lived in locations where the church my family attended was _not_ our first choice (it was literally our _only_ choice), I highly recommend sticking it out. Maybe you can model these behaviors you find wanting within the congregation and contribute in that way?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 20, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I’ve been going to the OPC but so far right theology and liturgy doesnt always add up to graciousness and hospitality in living which I think are just as important.


I am sorry to hear this. I have the complete opposite experience with the OPC. I had been attending broadly evangelical churches most of my life and finally hit the point where I needed to start being feed and growing in Christ. I had also found my way into the reformed tradition (still a baby in that though) These forums suggested an OPC. I have gone twice now, but have already met most of the congregation and this last Sunday the associate pastor invited basically anyone that wanted to go to his house. He provided the food and we spoke theology the entire day until evening service.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jul 20, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> I am sad to hear that. I will pray you find the right church for you, and I will pray for the OPC as well.





retroGRAD3 said:


> I am sorry to hear this. I have the complete opposite experience with the OPC.


 We might end up staying at the OPC, but I do want to check out other options. I’ve been to other OPC churches before and have had good experiences. I don’t want to paint them as bad (in terms of hospitality) because I have only been there a few times but my initial Impression leaves me scratching my head a bit.

Reactions: Praying 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Jul 21, 2020)

Greetings from Spokane.

I know a few people at the PCA church here and if you are looking for a solidly Reformed, confessionally devoted church I think you might be disappointed from what I have gathered.

I have heard Rodney Klein speak once in public and listened to one of his sermons online - I would recommend you listen to quite a few to get a feel for what they are about. We do know one family there so I could get more info if you wanted it.

About a year ago when we were looking for a new church I did some initial investigating of all these churches including your OPC plant. As a Baptist, none were quite the right fit for us. Presbyterians looking for strong, confessionally Reformed churches that are not CREC don't have a lot to choose from in this area.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Jul 21, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I’ve been going to the OPC but so far right theology and liturgy doesnt always add up to graciousness and hospitality in living which I think are just as important.



Interesting that you would say that. I've been in the OPC since 1996 and had only pleasant experiences with most people in the three churches I've been a member of.


----------



## mgkortus (Jul 21, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Distinctives:
> 1) No divorce ever.



This is not true. The Protestant Reformed Churches maintain that adultery in a marriage is a biblical ground for divorce. What makes us distinct from other Reformed and Presbyterian churches is our view of remarriage, namely, that it is not permitted, even for the innocent party.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## mgkortus (Jul 21, 2020)

Covenant of Grace PRC in Spokane would be an excellent option; I strongly recommend visiting. Rev. Rodney Kleyn is an outstanding minister. And I am confident that you will be warmly received.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2020)

mgkortus said:


> This is not true. The Protestant Reformed Churches maintain that adultery in a marriage is a biblical ground for divorce. What makes us distinct from other Reformed and Presbyterian churches is our view of remarriage, namely, that it is not permitted, even for the innocent party.



Thank you for the clarification. That's better. I still disagree on remarriage, but I acknowledge where I was wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 22, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is the link to the specific thread that I had in mind.



Daniel, I was looking over that thread again and some of your comments there—specifically on the PRC view of remarriage after divorce—and wonder if you are able to refute that teaching, or know of teaching that does? So far the best refutation is Jay E. Adams', _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible_. Know of any others?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 22, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Daniel, I was looking over that thread again and some of your comments there—specifically on the PRC view of remarriage after divorce—and wonder if you are able to refute that teaching, or know of teaching that does? So far the best refutation is Jay E. Adams', _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible_. Know of any others?



Greetings Steve, William Perkins anticipates many of the objections to the PRCA view of divorce and remarriage in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. I will try to publish the relevant extract(s) on my blog in the near future.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jul 22, 2020)

For the sake of fairness, I would like to know if there are any readily available resources on the PRCA's position of denying remarriage. Pastor Kortus, any recommendations?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 22, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> For the sake of fairness, I would like to know if there are any readily available resources on the PRCA's position of denying remarriage. Pastor Kortus, any recommendations?











Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage


Rev. Nate Decker | Trinity Protestant Reformed Church




www.sermonaudio.com


----------



## Jake (Jul 22, 2020)

By the way, I like Jon Mahtani, a pastor in the PRC. He's a good preacher. https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....urrsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jon_Mahtani


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 22, 2020)

Warren @W.C. Dean,

Here are some, and here.

By the way, I hold the PRC, and David J. Engelsma, in high esteem. He and his colleagues in that communion I consider the best theologians; in this area I disagree with them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jul 22, 2020)

As noted above, I just want to pop in to emphasize that the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA) under discussion are a distinct and different denomination than the Presbyterian Reformed Church (PRC).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## mgkortus (Jul 22, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> For the sake of fairness, I would like to know if there are any readily available resources on the PRCA's position of denying remarriage. Pastor Kortus, any recommendations?



The sermon that Trent posted and the links that Pastor Rafalsky posted would be great places to start for "readily available resources."

I would also recommend David Engelsma's book: _Marriage, the Mystery of Christ and the Church_. The second half of the book is devoted to a historical survey of what the church has taught regarding divorce and remarriage through the ages. Engelsma shows the earliest writings after the apostolic age demonstrate that the church taught there were no grounds for remarriage, even of the innocent party. Engelsma also shows that this was true of Augustine as well. The point being: the Protestant Reformed position is in line with the ancient church.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## mgkortus (Jul 22, 2020)

A comment was made earlier that the Protestant Reformed Churches have diverged from Reformed orthodoxy.

I believe that the Reformed confessions are the standard that determines Reformed orthodoxy. Our churches officially subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt. As churches we not only affirm everything taught in the TFU, we also actively teach and defend the truths set forth in the TFU.

Therefore, while acknowledging that we have weaknesses and shortcomings, I believe it is inaccurate and uncharitable to say that we have seriously departed from Reformed orthodoxy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jul 22, 2020)

The PRC has some unique views on the free offer of the gospel. For example, one of their fathers, Herman Hoeksema, said in this sermon that one cannot state the gospel as "If you believe, you will be saved" because the gospel is not conditional. This view strikes me as both unbiblical, in that the bible uses conditional language, and schismatic, in that it represents valid statements of the gospel as false gospels and false teaching.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 22, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> I would probably pick a Protestant Reformed over a paedocommunion CREC, but this particular congregation affirms the WCF view of the Lord's Supper.


I'm not so sure:


> Baptism is a covenantal rite that formally acknowledges you as a child of God and grants you access to the privileges of the family of God. Just as you are born once, so you are baptized once. But that child gets dinner every time the family eats. So baptism is a sacrament of initiation, and the Lord’s Supper a sacrament of continuation. Baptism is an individual sacrament, and the Lord’s Supper is a community sacrament.


Source: https://trinitycda.org/about-our-worship/

Also, on their "Resources" page, under, "Helpful Links," the first link is to a document entitled What to Expect in a CREC Church. This document has a section with a heading of "Child Communion," explaining paedocommunion.

You'll be hard pressed to find a church that wants to take on the stigma of the CREC when they can just as happily belong to another denomination. The two issues that make the difference are paedocommunion and justification.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 22, 2020)

With regard to the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, I think the way to discern between the PRC (and Prof Engelsma, who often speaks for the PRC in this matter) and Jay Adams' _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible_, is to compare the exegesis and exposition of each view — which is what I am endeavoring to do.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 22, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> The PRC has some unique views on the free offer of the gospel. For example, one of their fathers, Herman Hoeksema, said in this sermon that one cannot state the gospel as "If you believe, you will be saved" because the gospel is not conditional. This view strikes me as both unbiblical, in that the bible uses conditional language, and schismatic, in that it represents valid statements of the gospel as false gospels and false teaching.


The position of the Protestant Reformed Churches on the free well meant offer of the Gospel is not as unique as you indicate. Their position on that issue is not significantly different from the position held by Dr. John H. Gerstner.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jul 22, 2020)

yeutter said:


> The position of the Protestant Reformed Churches on the free well meant offer of the Gospel is not as unique as you indicate. Their position on that issue is not significantly different from the position held by Dr. John H. Gerstner.


I'm just saying what Hoeksema said, brother. I'm not aware of the extent to which his thought on the issue is taught or expected in the denomination at present.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 22, 2020)

Allow me to observe that Rev. Jon Smith used to pastor an independent reformed congregation in Post Falls, Idaho, a suburb of Coeur d' Alene. Fellowship Reformed Church held to the Three Forms of Unity and was essentially in Protestant Reformed congregation except that they took exception to the PR position on divorce and remarriage.
Rev. Jon Smith has since retired, and he and his wife now live in the Grand Rapids area.
Fellowship Reformed Church disbanded a couple of years ago.
It would be interesting to know where the former members of that congregation now worship.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 23, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> I'm just saying what Hoeksema said, brother. I'm not aware of the extent to which his thought on the issue is taught or expected in the denomination at present.


I am sorry I did not make myself clear.
You cited Herman Hoeksema. Yes, you are correct; Hoeksema's position, rejecting the free well meant offer, is the position of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
My point was that the rejection of the free well meant offer, especially as it is taught by John Murray, and Ned Stonehouse, is not unique to the Protestant Reformed Churches.
By way of example, the late John H. Gerstner, broke ranks with his old professor Ned Stonehouse, and rejected what Stonehouse taught concerning the free well meant offer of the Gospel.
Gordon Clark, and William Young were two other note worthy Presbyterians who believed that the free well meant, offer as taught by John Murray was not sound Biblical teaching.
In the Netherlands, the late Cornelius Steenblok, as does the denomination with which he was associated, Gereformeerden Gemeenten in Nederland, rejected the free well meant offer.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 23, 2020)

John Gerstner Against the Well-Meant Offer:




__





John Gerstner Against the Well-Meant Offer – CPRC






cprc.co.uk






It is also known by those who have looked into the PRC’s theology – and particularly Herman Hoeksema and David J. Engelsma in their writings – they deny the “Covenant of Works” of standard Reformed theology. Cornelis Venema has remarked on John Murray (toward the end of his article) :

Venema on John Murray also denying the Covenant of Works:





__





Recent Criticisms of the Covenant of Works






www.grebeweb.com





“What you find in Murray's treatment of the WCF's doctrine of the covenant of works, then, is not so much a repudiation of any of its essential teaching as a revision and refinement of some aspects of the WCF's formulation that he finds objectionable or misleading. Without denying the important sense in which Christ's mediatorial work involved an act of obedience as the second Adam, fulfilling Adam's original obligation of obedience, intensified and concentrated in the probationary command, Murray wants to accent the elements of grace in the "Adamic administration."[1] In Murray's judgment, the WCF's use of the common language of a "covenant of works" inadequately accounts for these aspects of the first covenant. Furthermore, the WCF does not clearly indicate to the extent that it might have that this first covenant or "Adamic administration" was a divinely initiated and sovereignly administered disposition of God toward his image-bearers.”

[1] See Murray, _Collected Works_ Vol 2, chapter “Adamic administration” pp 47ff

-----

Some info, relatively brief, on the unique PRCA view of the Covenant:

The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers, Prof. David J. Engelsma




__





The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers – CPRC






cprc.co.uk





-----

After I listen to the Hoeksema sermon, I'll comment on Charles Johnson's (Charlie J of old here at PB?) thoughts in post #30 re Hoeksema, "one cannot state the gospel as 'If you believe, you will be saved' because the gospel is not conditional".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jul 23, 2020)

yeutter said:


> I am sorry I did not make myself clear.
> You cited Herman Hoeksema. Yes, you are correct; Hoeksema's position, rejecting the free well meant offer, is the position of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
> My point was that the rejection of the free well meant offer, especially as it is taught by John Murray, and Ned Stonehouse, is not unique to the Protestant Reformed Churches.
> By way of example, the late John H. Gerstner, broke ranks with his old professor Ned Stonehouse, and rejected what Stonehouse taught concerning the free well meant offer of the Gospel.
> ...


I agree that the PRC is not unique in rejecting the language of a free or well-meant offer. Would those people cited go so far as to say that the gospel cannot be stated conditionally though?


----------



## yeutter (Jul 23, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> I agree that the PRC is not unique in rejecting the language of a free or well-meant offer. Would those people cited go so far as to say that the gospel cannot be stated conditionally though?


I do not read Dutch, but I am told that Steenblok said that the Gospel should not be conveyed using conditional language. 
If memorary serves me well, Gordon Clark said that the Gospel could not be stated as a conditional offer.
Steve shared a link to Dr. Gerstner's thoughts on the topic in the post immediately above yours. He said that the Gospel should not be preached conditionally. William Young expressed himself on the issue in the minority report to the OPC General Assembly that dealt with the question.
www.opc.org/GA/free_offer.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Jul 23, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Moderators can you change the title to read Thoughts on the PRC?
> 
> I’m looking for any thoughts on the PRC denomination. I’m not really familiar with it. I’m up in the Coeur dAlene ID area and am looking for churches. We have been attending the OPC here for the last couple of weeks but want to look at other options. The only other option seems to be the PCA in Spokane.



Rodney Kleyn--the current pastor of the PRC congregation in Spokane--was my pastor for 6 years in Michigan. Kleyn is an exceptional pastor and an excellent preacher and my family was greatly blessed by his work. We also attended an OPC church for 5 years in the early 2000's. God used that OPC congregation and denomination for our good too, and we fondly remember our time with them. After moving back to an area with a PRC (PRCA) congregation, we have been happy members of the PRC again for many years. I encourage you to check out the Spokane PRC congregation, and say hello to Pastor Kelyn for me!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 24, 2020)

Listening to the Herman Hoeksema (HH) sermon Charles Johnson referenced (in post 30), with the statement, "one cannot state the gospel as 'If you believe, you will be saved' because the gospel is not conditional", I found the sermon not easy to listen to, and so I found similar Hoeksema material in writing, which I shall post below, and then briefly comment on.

Herman Hoeksema, on Conditions 1




__





As to Conditions (1)


This article first appeared in the October 15, 1949 issue of the Standard Bearer (Vol.26, No.2) and was penned by the editor, Rev. Herman Hoeksema. As the reader knows there has been, for the last year or so, a controversy in our papers about the question of conditions in the covenant of God...




www.prca.org





‘And when it is said that God establishes His covenant with us, or that we are saved, “on condition of faith and obedience”, the impression this expression makes upon the minds of the people (and not without reason) is that the will of man is one of the determining factors in the matter of salvation. And thus, on the wings of a term, one instills _nolens volens_ [unwilling (or) willing : like it or not] the Arminian heresy into the minds and hearts of the people.’​​‘The question is, of course, whether faith may be presented as a condition of salvation, and whether the establishment and continuation of God’s covenant with us is in any sense of the word contingent upon our fulfilling the conditions of faith and obedience. This, unless we juggle words, is the plain and simple meaning of the question, and in this simple form it certainly will stand before the minds of the people.​​‘But I dare say that, in this sense, the term condition not only has no room in the Reformed system of doctrine, but is, as far as our Confessions are concerned, thoroughly unreformed.​​‘For our Confessions uniformly present faith not as a condition which we must fulfill, but as a God-given means or instrument empowering the soul to cling to Christ and to receive all His benefits, and that is a radically different conception from that of condition. And as far as obedience or walking in the way of the covenant is concerned, also this is never presented as a condition but rather as the fruit, in fact, as the inevitable fruit, of our being engrafted into Christ.​​‘Let us consult our Confessions on these points.​​‘In the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day VII, question and answer 20, we read: “Are all men, then, as they are perished in Adam, saved by Christ? No; only those who are engrafted into him, and receive all his benefits, by a true faith.”​​‘Notice that faith here is the spiritual means or, as it is often called, the instrument, whereby we are engrafted, incorporated (ingeljfd, einverleibt) into Christ. This is an entirely passive notion. Man has nothing to do with it. Besides the Word of God plainly teaches us that this instrument is given us of God. Man does not have the power to believe in Christ of himself. This, too, is taught by the Heidelberg Catechism in the next question and answer, which reads as follows: “What is true faith? True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His word, but also an assured confidence which the Holy Ghost works, by the gospel, in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given me by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merit.”​​‘The point is, of course, that if faith is an instrument which God uses and works in the heart of man, it certainly cannot be, at the same time, a condition which man must fulfill in order to obtain salvation, or to enter into the covenant of God. How different the sense of question and answer 20 of the Catechism would become if we would read: “Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ? No; but only those that comply with the condition of faith, and receive all his benefits.” I am well aware, of course, that those Reformed theologians that favor the term “conditions”, usually add that God Himself fulfills all conditions. But this is plainly camouflaging the truth that there are no conditions which man can or must fulfill to obtain salvation.’​​‘Also here, let me point out, there is no room for anything man can or must do. We are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by a true faith and of that faith the Holy Ghost alone is the author. Where would there be any room for the notion that faith is a condition unto salvation? There is no room for it whatever.’​
Charles, I don't think this is unbiblical, or against the Reformed Confession (3FU). When the Philippian jailor said to Paul, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas said to him, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house" (Acts 16:30,31,32), and he believed. This is consistent with the remarks of HH above.

When we are saved, is it not *all* of God? Irresistibly He wins our hearts to cleave to Christ in love, so that our response is also His working in us to will and to do of God's good pleasure (Phil 2:13).

-----

But I would rather focus my thoughts on the marriage, divorce, and remarriage matters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 24, 2020)

I just finished rereading Jay E. Adams', _Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible _(it's only 99 pages, fairly small print), after reading some of David J. Engelsma's articles I referenced in post 26, and I find Adams' exegesis and exposition far more comprehensive and solid than Prof Engelsma's.

It grieves me to go against a man (DJE) I hold in very high esteem, and who has been a help to me over the years — both personally in correspondence, and through reading his books — and is a better than I in the kingdom, yet for those who have an interest in this matter, either personally or pastorally, I think Adams' is the superior and is Biblically faithful. To uphold the PRC view one must first refute the Jay Adams' book, which is, incidentally, the definitive work among the Reformed (excluding the PRC) on this topic.

Sometimes I have to go against men who are my betters — and I do so with trepidation — yet have to stand before my Lord in my integrity. This also has occurred in the area of eschatology, which also is a burning topic in these mad days.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jul 26, 2020)

It is entirely consistent with the reformed confessions to call faith a condition of salvation, as the WLC does:

Q. 32. _How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?_
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; *and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him*, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.

Moreover, the language of Paul and Silas to the philippine jailer _is _conditional. The conditional used is known in English grammar as the first conditional. The only grammatical difference between what's cited in the linked article and the text quoted is the use of _if_, which does not change the conditional nature of the thing - the use of _if _is simply incompatible with the imperative mood of the first part of Paul and Silas's statement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JFSolis (Jul 26, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> It is entirely consistent with the reformed confessions to call faith a condition of salvation, as the WLC does:
> 
> Q. 32. _How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?_
> A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; *and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him*, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
> ...


One of the problems in the discussions on the subject of faith as a condition is that we do not account for differences in types of conditions. In doing reformed theology and understanding conditions in the light of election, there are two conditions which must be satisfied, one is objective and the other is subjective. The objective condition is election; the subjective condition is faith. It cannot be that the elect do not come to faith; neither can it be that those who come to faith are not elect. I don't have the location citation at hand, but one of the best expositions I've read is in Turretin's _Institutes of Elenctic Theology,_ though I'm sure other theologians have also covered it well. It would have been well if the Westminster Standards could also have spelled that out; on the other hand, as a confessional statement, it may have been a bit much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 26, 2020)

In relation to the use of the terms condition and offer, from what I have observed, some PRCA ministers will admit in private that these terms have a legitimate usage. In fact, David Engelsma is pretty clear in his book on the Federal Vision that he does not object to the term condition as it is used in the Westminster Larger Catechism. He does not object to faith being described as a condition in the improper sense as a requirement, rather than in the proper sense of a moving or meritorious cause.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 27, 2020)

Here's a book review I just finished on a PRCA title (could be a little rough still) — Homer C. Hoeksema's, _Unfolding Covenant History: An Exposition of the Old Testament - Vol. 1: From Creation to the Flood_:

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 28, 2020)

There are many nuances to words and their meaning when put together in language, and it is the mark of skill to so construct them that they are simple and clear in their meaning. This is especially true in theology. For example, it is a _condition_ of being saved that a man is born again of God’s Spirit. That is, his being saved is dependent on his being born again, as it is written of such, they “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).

Thus it depends on how the word _condition_ is used, and if it is used so that an implication or even a hint it is _allowed_ that its fulfilment depends upon an action of man, when it is clear that the action is _solely_ of God, its use is inappropriate because it did not make clear it must not be applied to the man.

Of course the word _condition_ may be used in various theological discussions.

The point Hoeksema is making – using stark absolutist language – is that as far as man is concerned his coming to have belief is unconditional. For the man plays no part in his election, his effectual calling, or his regeneration. Given the history of the PRC, CRC and others in the ranks of the Reformed, it is little wonder that Herman Hoeksema and those PRC theologians who followed him all but anathematized the word _conditional_, given the onslaught of Arminianism in the Presbyterian and Reformed communions.

It is the Arminian who asserts, “I can fulfil that condition, and I will – from my own heart and volition, with a little help from God, perhaps.” And I see plenty in purportedly Calvinistic churches that reeks of the Arminian boast.

It’s not that complicated.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## yeutter (Jul 29, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The point Hoeksema is making – using stark absolutist language – is that as far as man is concerned his coming to have belief is unconditional. For the man plays no part in his election, his effectual calling, or his regeneration....It’s not that complicated.


That is an excellent summary of the appeal of the PRC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

