# Soliciting Thoughts on PRCA Theologians (H. Hoeksema & D. Engelsma)



## B.L. (Oct 29, 2019)

Over the weekend I stumbled upon the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) and in turn the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA) and I was curious to learn what folks think about the writings of Herman Hoeksema and David Engelsma. I read a little bit about the history of the denomination and was curious if there are any books that stand out as being worthy of shelf space in one's library. Thoughts?

Have a joyful evening friends!

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 29, 2019)

Their material is generally interesting but is problematic in certain respects. It is a mixed back so be discerning. They remind us that there is a place in the Reformed tradition for rejecting things like the well-meant offer and modern theories of common grace. They have also been very good at reaffirming the confessional position that only the elect are properly in the covenant of grace. 

Regretfully, they tend to be obsessed with certain subjects to the point that if they were writing about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, they would still find a way to talk about their distinctive opinions. Although to be fair, that observation is less true of Herman Hoeksema and his son Homer than with later Hoeksemite writers. 

On several issues, they are out of accord with the Reformed confession. They tend not to see the covenant as an act of providence, but as being _ad intra_ to God. Flowing from this error, they deny the covenant of works with Adam. They also tend to see a univocal likeness between the covenant of grace and the covenant of marriage - rather than viewing the latter as a covenant of duty, which is analogous to Christ's marriage covenant with the church. Hence, they also reject the Westminster Confession's teaching on divorce and remarriage. They also dissent from the original Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate. 

To end on a positive note, Herman Hoeksema is one of the best devotional writers that the Reformed faith produced in the 20th century.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 4


----------



## py3ak (Oct 29, 2019)

There are certain idiosyncrasies, and I think it's pretty clear that none of their other writers really hold a candle to Herman Hoeksema in terms of ability, though Engelsma is able to make his points clearly. Hoeksema's sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism (_The Triple Knowledge_) are quite exciting and will certainly make you think. I wouldn't trust him as an authoritative guide or a reliable source, but there is a distinctive brilliance in what he does that is well worth engaging.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## bookslover (Oct 29, 2019)

py3ak said:


> Hoeksema's sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism (_The Triple Knowledge_) are quite exciting and will certainly make you think. I wouldn't trust him as an authoritative guide or a reliable source, but there is a distinctive brilliance in what he does that is well worth engaging.



In other words, he's wrong, but he writes well.

Seems to me that the former would cancel out the latter.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 29, 2019)

One particularly good book by a PRCA author is Herman Hanko's _When You Pray_. Their works on practical subjects do tend to be very useful.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 29, 2019)

There are a few honorable participants of the PB who are members in good standing of faithful PRC congregations. They do not need to apologize for their distinctives, even if they disagree with those having permission to disagree with them.

PRC do not believe their views are contrary to what _specifically _their churches confess in the 3FU (no exceptions or scruples), even if they do not stand with certain majoritarian historical interpretations of various doctrines. The PB is a place where both sides may openly and freely debate, only with mutual respect.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Amen 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Nate (Oct 29, 2019)

I've benefitted from Engelsma's Gospel Truth of Justification. A worthy addition to the topic of Justification in the context of the FV and NPP. 
https://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-david-j-engelsma/products/gospel-truth-of-justification

Reviewed by Douglas Douma here: https://www.douglasdouma.com/2018/09/11/review-of-gospel-truth-of-justification-by-david-j-engelsma/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Minh (Oct 29, 2019)

I read their magazines a lot. The Standard Bearer is worth reading for a devotional purpose. Here's a link: https://rfpa.org/pages/the-standard-bearer

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## B.L. (Oct 30, 2019)

Thanks all. I appreciate the feedback on this.

Have a joyful Wednesday in the Lord!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PaulCLawton (Oct 30, 2019)

Has anyone here read Engelsma's commentary on the Belgic Confession and is willing to provide a review? I picked up a copy of Vols 1 and 2 and have referred to it occasionally, but I am probably not sharp enough to pick up on any idiosyncrasies.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2019)

Avoid them all.


----------



## B.L. (Oct 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Avoid them all.



Can you provide some reasons for why you offer this counsel? Which works have you read and what did you find particularly troubling about them?

Thank you.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Can you provide some reasons for why you offer this counsel? Which works have you read and what did you find particularly troubling about them?
> 
> Thank you.



They are high supralapserians who deny common grace and the well-meant offer and border on hyper-calvinism.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> They are high supralapserians who deny common grace and the well-meant offer and border on hyper-calvinism.



That explains why they have missionairies, then...

They also aren't the only reformed people to deny the well-meant offer, and common grace.

I wouldn't be afraid to read anything by our PRC brothers. Just read with a discerning eye. One can do much worse than the PRCA, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2019)

De Jager said:


> That explains why they have missionairies, then...
> 
> They also aren't the only reformed people to deny the well-meant offer, and common grace.
> 
> I wouldn't be afraid to read anything by our PRC brothers. Just read with a discerning eye. One can do much worse than the PRCA, in my opinion.



One could also do a lot better.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> One could also do a lot better.


Can you, without doing a google search, name 3 of their active ministers? And perhaps some of the teachings you have found suspect, and who the proponents are?

For example, two of their more esteemed teachers are Ron Hanko and David Engelsma. What have they said that you have objected to?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Can you, without doing a google search, name 3 of their active ministers? And perhaps some of the teachings you have found suspect, and who the proponents are?
> 
> For example, two of their more esteemed teachers are Ron Hanko and David Engelsma. What have they said that you have objected to?



Is this a pop quiz?


----------



## De Jager (Oct 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Is this a pop quiz?



I just figured that if you would be willing to tell a person to avoid an entire denomination, you should have something to back up the claim beyond what appears to be anecdotal evidence....it just seems rather uncharitable otherwise...

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## B.L. (Oct 30, 2019)

De Jager said:


> For example, two of their more esteemed teachers are Ron Hanko and David Engelsma.



Ron Hanko. This is a new name for me. Thank you. I read the earlier comment by Daniel that referenced Herman Hanko. Relatives, I presume?

What contribution is Ron Hanko most noted for? Any particular work you have appreciated?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I just figured that if you would be willing to tell a person to avoid an entire denomination, you should have something to back up the claim beyond what appears to be anecdotal evidence....it just seems rather uncharitable otherwise...



I object to their supralapserianism, their denial of common grace, and their denial of the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I think they tend towards rationalism.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 30, 2019)

I like some of their stuff and Rev Engelsma has been gracious to me in emails. I think their analysis of Kuyper is spot on. I just get weary of seeing how their views on marriage/divorce are made explicit in every. single. theological. conversation. regardless. of. topic.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## B.L. (Oct 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I object to their supralapserianism, their denial of common grace, and their denial of the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I think they tend towards rationalism.



Presuming you have first-hand exposure to the distinctives of the PRCA you are the first Baptist I have met who is familiar with this group. 

I appreciate those who drink wide and are unafraid to wade into Protestant traditions that are different from their own for the sake of learning. In my view this is one of the ways we can better know what we believe and why we believe it...a sort of iron sharpening if that makes sense.

I have grown increasingly interested in better understanding the heritage of our Dutch Reformed brethren and hope to learn more about the various groups out there, etc.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## yeutter (Oct 30, 2019)

Another Protestant Reformed pastor is Rev. Angus Stuart, who is pastor of a parish in Ulster. His parish website has a relatively comprehensive collection of the three Oecumenical Creeds, and the Three Forms of Unity in vernacular languages. www.cprf.co.uk/languages.htm

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I object to their supralapserianism



What is so bad about supralapsarianism? Is it heretical? Has it been denied by all Reformed Theologians or Confessions? You may not like the view or think it is Scriptual, but you stand pretty much alone in a blanket denunciation the works by supra. adherents.

*List of Supralapsarians*
Alphabetical by last name –

William Ames (1576-1633)
Louis Berkof desired to hold to both views (cf. Systematic Theology, pp.124-25).
Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) , Synod of Dort president
Thomas Bradwardine (1290 – 1349)
Johannes Braun (1628-1708)
Martin Bucer (1491 – 1551)
John Calvin (1509-1564)
Gordon Clark (1902-1985)
Isaac Chauncy (1632-1712)
Vincent Cheung
Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669)
Alexander Comrie (1706–1774)
Tobias Crisp (1600-1643)
Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649)
Andreas Essenius (1618-1677)
David Engelsma
Francis Gomarus (1563-1641)
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)
Gottschalk of Orbais (808 – 867)
Gregory of Rimini (c. 1330-58)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
G.H. Kersten
John Knox (1505-1572)
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644)
Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563)
Mathias Nethenus (1618-1686)
William Perkins (1558-1602)
Arthur Walkington Pink ( 1886 – 1952)
Amandus Polanus (1561-1610)
Peter Ramus (1515-1572)
Robert Reymond (1932 – 2013) considered having a modified form
John W. Robbins (1949-2008)
Robert Rollock (1555-1598)
Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)
John Collett Ryland (1723 – 1792)
Daniel Tilenus (1563 – 1633)
Robert Traill (1642-1716)
Augustus M. Toplady (1740–1778)
Robert Traill (1642-1716)
Theodore Tronchin (1582-1687) Beza’s son-in-law
Benedict Turretin (1588-1631) Francis Turretin’s Dad
William Twisse, (1578-1646)
Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562)
Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)
Gerhardus Vos (1862-1949)
Antonius Walaeus (1573-1639)
William Whitaker (1548-1595)
Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)
Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

EDIT: I thought this exchange should be added to this post

*My friend @Alan D. Strange wrote the following to me privately:*


Alan D. Strange said:


> My dear brother:
> 
> Where did you come up with such a list? One cannot put any pre-Reformers or first generation Reformers on this list (certainly not Martin Luther), as the question of the logical order of the eternal decrees was not one that they explicitly addressed in their writings. It was not explicitly raised until Beza and following. I don't claim that none of these earlier ones on the list might not have affirmed supralapsarianism (or that they didn't hint at such) but not explicitly, as those that we can rightly denominate supralapsarians did.
> 
> ...



*This was my answer:*


Ed Walsh said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> The link where I got it is at the top of the list. It was posted at monergism.com
> https://www.monergism.com/infralapsarianism-and-supralapsarianism
> ...



Alan wrote back and gave me permission to post the above.

Ed

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 30, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Ron Hanko. This is a new name for me. Thank you. I read the earlier comment by Daniel that referenced Herman Hanko. Relatives, I presume?
> 
> What contribution is Ron Hanko most noted for? Any particular work you have appreciated?



I have listened to a debate between him and David Silversides regarding common grace and was impressed. I also have listened to a sermon by him on Psalm singing. I thought it was helpful. 

For those who are interested, there is a sermon on Sermon Audio entitled "The Gospel to Unbelievers" by a PRC mijister, Rev. Brian Huizenga. Perhaps that may make clear their stance on the offer of the gospel.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> What is so bad about supralapsarianism? Is it heretical? Has it been denied by all Reformed Theologians or Confessions? You may not like the view or think it is Scriptual, but you stand pretty much alone in a blanket denunciation the works by supra. adherents.
> 
> *List of Supralapsarians*
> Alphabetical by last name –
> ...



Supra is included in the reformed tradition, yes, but I believe it is wrong and that the Canons of Dort assume infralapserianism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 30, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> What is so bad about supralapsarianism? Is it heretical? Has it been denied by all Reformed Theologians or Confessions? You may not like the view or think it is Scriptual, but you stand pretty much alone in a blanket denunciation the works by supra. adherents.



While I have leaned towards supra in the past, it does have its problems. It's a valid position but it implies that creation was merely the means by which God could damn some people. The only way damnation could be pulled off is for God to create the world. That's Letham's critique.


----------



## Minh (Oct 30, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> What is so bad about supralapsarianism? Is it heretical?


Just a question. Does supralapsarianism implies fatalism? I believe in it but I need a good argument against the charge of fatalism.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 30, 2019)

An explanation I found informative of the two positions;
http://www.the-highway.com/election4_Boettner.html


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 30, 2019)

Minh said:


> Just a question. Does supralapsarianism implies fatalism? I believe in it but I need a good argument against the charge of fatalism.


No. The lapsarian debate is about the teleolgical relationship between the decrees. The execution of the decree is the same on both schemes, so men freely choose the destiny God assigned them on both schemes.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## py3ak (Oct 30, 2019)

bookslover said:


> In other words, he's wrong, but he writes well.



No, not at all. Herman Hoeksema does write well. There are specific points where I do think he is wrong (though not always the same specific points that others on the thread mention). Because of his idiosyncrasy, I don't think it's possible to assume that when he explains the Catechism he is giving the original meaning accurately at all times. But his takes are invigorating, worth pondering, and yield something of value even if one quibbles over historical accuracy. In a long series of sermons on a document as complex as Heidelberg, such acknowledgements of areas of disagreement are likely both trivial and inevitable. In terms of theological writing, I think he likely represents the best the PRCA has to offer, and that best is very good indeed.



bookslover said:


> Seems to me that the former would cancel out the latter.



Only in a two-dimensional world. Sir Thomas Browne gets certain things wrong, of course, but there's a lot of value to be gleaned from what he says and from the way in which he says it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 30, 2019)

Minh said:


> Just a question. Does supralapsarianism implies fatalism? I believe in it, but I need a good argument against the charge of fatalism.



Raymond  (Afterthought) is right in his quote below


Afterthought said:


> The execution of the decree is the same on both schemes, so men freely choose the destiny God assigned them on both schemes.



A rather long sentence by the Apostle Paul from Ephesians might help.

Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. ​
I think we can safely say that "before the foundation of the world" was, before the fall. Paul did not say that He chose us from among the ranks of fallen man. God, in eternity past, set out on a program similar to Abraham's providing a bride for his son Isaac. God is, was, and always will be interested primarily in a display of His glory. Much much more needs to be said.

That's all I have time for right now, but I am sure others could add to and improve my brief answer.

Ed

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 30, 2019)

To say that we should completely ignore the PRCA writers is being ridiculously sectarian. Granted, sometimes they can be overly harsh and ridiculously sectarian themselves but two wrongs hardly make a right. That said, the bulk of our reading is better focused on works that have stood the test of time, which is not something that may be said for the writings of Herman Hoeksema et al. My advice is to read PRCA material occasionally and in small doses. 

Their stuff is similar to the literature that the Reconstructionists put out back in the day in the sense that it is interesting, but a bit too quirky.[1] And if you spend too much time reading people with funny ideas (with the possible exception of great minds whom you have obvious differences with such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther), you may end up embracing those funny ideas yourself.

I have also noticed that most critics of the PRCA only (or perhaps mostly) tend to fault them on things that are intra-mural debates among confessional Reformed believers, rather than focusing on the more serious, anti-confessional errors that they espouse such as raising the covenant of grace to the ontological level and denying the covenant of works.

[1] I realise that their eschatology is the opposite of that espoused by the Reconstructionists, but that is not my point.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 30, 2019)

Why do all these PRCA guys have Frisian names?


----------



## ZackF (Oct 30, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To say that we should completely ignore the PRCA writers is being ridiculously sectarian. Granted, sometimes they can be overly harsh and ridiculously sectarian themselves but two wrongs hardly make a right. That said, the bulk of our reading is better focused on works that have stood the test of time, which is not something that may be said for the writings of Herman Hoeksema et al. .



<snark>Since Hoeksema died in '65 the test of time is almost impossible. Augustine, Aquinas and Luther died centuries ago. </snark>


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 30, 2019)

ZackF said:


> <snark>Since Hoeksema died in '65 the test of time is almost impossible. Augustine, Aquinas and Luther died centuries ago. </snark>



Which is precisely my point.


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 30, 2019)

Both the Supra and Infra claim Calvin... The lists of those that support each side are flawed, we have no idea where many of the reformers and puritans stood. R.C. was certain of the Supra position and he is still one of my favorite theologians, even though I am in the Infra camp. 
(Seems like such a mute point.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Oct 31, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Why do all these PRCA guys have Frisian names?


Most of the Protestant Reformed guys, that I know, are Groningeners not Frisians

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 31, 2019)

Also, from what I have heard from friends of mine in the denomination, the PRCA has no official position on the lapsarian question, though most of their ministers prefer supralapsarianism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 31, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> One could also do a lot better.





De Jager said:


> Can you, without doing a google search, name 3 of their active ministers? And perhaps some of the teachings you have found suspect, and who the proponents are?
> 
> For example, two of their more esteemed teachers are Ron Hanko and David Engelsma. What have they said that you have objected to?





Pergamum said:


> Is this a pop quiz?



From what has been said in this thread regarding some of the distinctive beliefs of the PRC it would seem some of them, whilst not the majority views of the Reformed churches, are within orthodoxy. However there are a couple of beliefs which are troubling. I'm thinking particularly of their denial of the free offer and their views on the covenant (which I don't pretend to have a handle on but the few comments I've seen worry me). That is not to say that they are not godly people. But I would have to ask if it's wise to take the position: "why not read these people and just discard what one doesn't like? Iron sharpening iron." The distinctives of the PRC are not minor issues. It would seem doubtful that one could read much in their writers without encountering these ideas. Instead of looking at this issue from the perspective of one who is very informed in theology and able to spot the most minute permutations, we should look at it from the perspective of one who might quite easily be swayed by ideas not recognising that they are, at the very least, idiosyncratic. These issues have been engaged with in the past by very able men. If we wish to get a better understanding of our own tradition in contradistinction to others we should do so by reading men of our own tradition who engage with other ideas and can offer a strong rebuttal. That would be a safer approach than assuming we are best equipped to do so ourselves and to recommend such an approach to others.

That is not to say there is nothing profitable in the writers of PRC men but what is profitable is almost certainly found elsewhere and without the more problematic beliefs. Why not just read those sources? And this is also not to say the PRC are outwith the bounds of Reformed Christianity. But it is to say that how they interpret the creeds and confessions is not, in certain important instances, how the bulk of Reformed churches have interpreted them over the years and because of this we shouldn't be so quick to give blanket endorsements to those within our own traditions.

I think this is where Pergamum is coming from. I would agree.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 31, 2019)

Regarding the supra- infra- debate (which is most definitely an inter-Confessional debate), I side with Dabney:

"In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have been raised."

—Robert Lewis Dabney, _Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia_, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 233.​

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 31, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm thinking particularly of their denial of the free offer and their views on the covenant (which I don't pretend to have a handle on but the few comments I've seen worry me).



Their denial of the well-meant offer was also held by the Revd Hugh Cartwright, who was one of the ablest ministers in your own church (I once had the pleasure of spending an evening in his company). Although it must also be said that Mr Cartwright and others (such as our friend Matthew Winzer) expressed themselves much more judiciously on the subject than the PRCA men.

I would agree with the substance of the rest of your post. I have been to some of their meetings in Northern Ireland and have heard and met David Engelsma, however, their errors on federal theology are not minor and their denial of the covenant of works is one of the pillars on which the Federal Vision was built.

Conversely, had I not encountered the PRCA authors, I would probably not have embraced the Bostonian notion of the unconditional covenant of grace with the elect alone. Then again, it is better to read Thomas Boston on the subject, as you get the good bits of the PRCA view without the accompanying errors.

Reactions: Like 5 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 31, 2019)

Following on from what Alexander has noted, we should be aware that, from a Reformed point of view, the PRCA's error on divorce and remarriage is a serious one. Our forebears would not have viewed it as a light matter - especially as the Hoeksemites accuse the Reformers and the Westminster Confession of sanctioning adultery. The National Covenant of Scotland (1638), moreover, condemns the Pope for "his cruelty against the innocent divorced." Hence, the Hoeksemite view is a significant departure from Reformed teaching on the subject.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 2


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 31, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Most of the Protestant Reformed guys, that I know, are Groningeners not Frisians


Funny--I thought they were Midwesterners for the most part.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 31, 2019)

One other point about divorce: as I understand it, the PRCA judge those who have gotten remarried after a divorce to be unsaved, as adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. They believe that repentance for remarriage requires one to end the second marriage and live as a eunuch for Christ's sake.

According to the PRCA Synod of 1987, "One is free of the sin and guilt of adultery in this matter of an adulterous marriage, when: 1. He ceases to live (co-habitate) with his spouse in the adulterous marriage. 2. He confesses his sin of adultery before God and publically renounces his evil vows of marriage to a divorced person (Acts, p. 35)."

The PRCA does not view the issue as a minor one, and those of us on the other side of the debate may not do so either. It effectively accuses the Reformers and the Reformed confession of sanctioning adultery, which, in turn, raises the question of whether or not PRCA members regard the Reformers and later Reformed divines as true believers.

Given that we regard not only open homosexuals but those religious teachers that facilitate their evil as false prophets, surely, if logically consistent, the PRCA must view not only those who engage in such "adulterous marriages" but those who facilitate them as being unsaved. I do not believe that they are logically consistent on this point, but the question still stands.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 5


----------



## py3ak (Nov 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The PRCA does not view the issue as a minor one, and those of us on the other side of the debate may not do so either. It effectively accuses the Reformers and the Reformed confession of sanctioning adultery, which, in turn, raises the question of whether or not PRCA members regard the Reformers and later Reformed divines as true believers.



Not only that, but on our view they effectively require the remarried spouse to engage in the sin of abandonment.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 1, 2019)

py3ak said:


> Not only that, but on our view they effectively require the remarried spouse to engage in the sin of abandonment.



I had not thought about that point, but, yes, it is entirely correct.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## B.L. (Nov 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> According to the PRCA Synod of 1987, "One is free of the sin and guilt of adultery in this matter of an adulterous marriage, when: 1. He ceases to live (co-habitate) with his spouse in the adulterous marriage. 2. He confesses his sin of adultery before God and publically renounces his evil vows of marriage to a divorced person (Acts, p. 35)."





py3ak said:


> Not only that, but on our view they effectively require the remarried spouse to engage in the sin of abandonment.



Coincidentally, I heard a tragic story yesterday of a man in his 40s who committed adultery with a young lady in her early 20s, got her pregnant, and then divorced his wife of 20+ years and left her and his children from that marriage to be with the young woman and her baby instead. The man apparently married the young woman and they continue to live in the same city as his first wife and kids. 

In what way would the PRCA's views on marriage/divorce be in error in the handling of a situation like this? I ask this question honestly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 1, 2019)

If I understand correctly the PRCA position on marriage is not to allow for divorce and remarriage under any circumstance, is that correct? Whereas the Westminster Confession would allow for divorce in the cases of adultery or abandonment and allow for the innocent party to remarry (but not the guilty party, I believe).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 1, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> If I understand correctly the PRCA position on marriage is not to allow for divorce and remarriage under any circumstance, is that correct? Whereas the Westminster Confession would allow for divorce in the cases of adultery or abandonment and allow for the innocent party to remarry (but not the guilty party, I believe).



Yes, that is exactly correct. They view marriage as an unbreakable bond just like the covenant of grace. Whereas the Reformed view is that it is a covenant of duty.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## B.L. (Nov 1, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> But I would have to ask if it's wise to take the position: "why not read these people and just discard what one doesn't like? Iron sharpening iron." The distinctives of the PRC are not minor issues. It would seem doubtful that one could read much in their writers without encountering these ideas....These issues have been engaged with in the past by very able men. If we wish to get a better understanding of our own tradition in contradistinction to others we should do so by reading men of our own tradition who engage with other ideas and can offer a strong rebuttal. That would be a safer approach than assuming we are best equipped to do so ourselves and to recommend such an approach to others.


 


alexandermsmith said:


> I think this is where Pergamum is coming from. I would agree.



Thank you for your thoughtful post brother. In regards to the excerpts above, I would respectfully disagree a little bit with this advice. I see your point and can agree with the carefulness one must take when reading the views of others that are deemed to be in error, but how better to understand opposing views than by reading/listening directly to the pen/lips of those who hold them? Take infant baptism for example, if I lived in an echo chamber where I only consumed the works of those holding strongly to the credo position I would be missing out on the best arguments out there for the paedobaptist position. Yes, there are credos out there who engage with the best of paedo arguments, but I find those critiques most helpful after having read the opposing view for myself. I've got a shelf full of books on baptism and half are written by Presbyterians and/or Evangelical Anglicans. Perhaps my Baptist brothers would want to strap a rope around my waist and tie it to a large tree since so many have changed views by taking my approach, but I've profited a lot by venturing out of my fold to learn from others. 

I never want to venture outside my little bubble without a map and compass, which is why I solicited thoughts on PRCA writers here. Folks here, to include yourself, have given me plenty of direction to help ensure I don't get lost.

Thanks all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 1, 2019)

To All,

I added to my post that listed purported adherents to Supralapsarianism. It is part of a private exchange between me and @Alan D. Strange 
Here's the link to the post - The EDIT is at the bottom of the page.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ans-h-hoeksema-d-engelsma.99863/#post-1219682


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 1, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Ron Hanko. This is a new name for me. Thank you. I read the earlier comment by Daniel that referenced Herman Hanko. Relatives, I presume?



Ronald Hanko is the son of Herman Hanko. The former was the pastor in Ballymena at one point.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 2, 2019)

I have a number of Baptist friends that have a high regard for the PRCA. Most of these sovereign grace Baptists also think very highly of John Gill, and A. W. Pink.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## B.L. (Nov 3, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I have a number of Baptist friends that have a high regard for the PRCA.



Can you elaborate some on this? What do you think is the appeal for your Baptist friends?


----------



## B.L. (Nov 3, 2019)

I listened to a couple lessons and sermons given by PRCA men noted on this thread and have been reading through some of the articles available on the PRCA website and what I've encountered has been really quite good. I write this in response to the sentiment "avoid them at all costs" that I read by some in this thread.

For those with direct first-hand knowledge of this denomination -- has anyone ever characterized some in the PRCA as "Dutch fundamentalists" or something of the like? I know the word "fundamentalist" comes with a host of baggage and I in no way use it in a pejorative sense, but one thing I noticed in what I've read and listened to is the tone is very passionate and communicated with power and conviction. The _style_ reminds me quite a bit of some Free Presbyterian Church, Bible Presbyterians, and even some Fundamentalist Baptists that I've been exposed to. This may not be a helpful musing for the discussion here, but it's a rather unpolished first impression I had.

Have a joyful Lord's Day today everyone!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 3, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Can you elaborate some on this? What do you think is the appeal for your Baptist friends?


One old Baptist pastor told me, words to the effect that, if you ignored their doctrine of the covenant their preaching was really good. They find that message that is at the heart of the text and preach Christ from that text. He especially appreciated Professor Homer Hoeksema on Isaiah, and Rev. Cornelius Hanko on First Peter

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 3, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> For those with direct first-hand knowledge of this denomination -- has anyone ever characterized some in the PRCA as "Dutch fundamentalists" or something of the like? I know the word "fundamentalist" comes with a host of baggage and I in no way use it in a pejorative sense, but one thing I noticed in what I've read and listened to is the tone is very passionate and communicated with power and conviction. The _style_ reminds me quite a bit of some Free Presbyterian Church, Bible Presbyterians, and even some Fundamentalist Baptists that I've been exposed to. This may not be a helpful musing for the discussion here, but it's a rather unpolished first impression I had.



These observations are most interesting. On the one hand, the passion with which PRCA authors write means that they are more likely to attract people from fundamentalist denominations such as the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and the Plymouth Brethren than are the Bourgeois Reformed types, who tend to look on their fundamentalist brethren as unwashed Deplorables. 

On the other hand, I doubt that anyone who is well-grounded in confessional Reformed theology is ever likely to join the PRCA owing to both their oddities and to their overly simplistic understanding of the Reformed faith. That point does not mean there is nothing that other Reformed people cannot learn from the PRCA and, despite my criticisms of their views, I do not believe that they should be completely shunned or despised as hyper-Calvinists.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Nov 3, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Regarding the supra- infra- debate (which is most definitely an inter-Confessional debate), I side with Dabney:
> 
> "In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have been raised."
> 
> —Robert Lewis Dabney, _Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia_, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 233.​



It is worth noting, however, what directly proceeds this statement:

"Both schemes are illogical and contradictory to the true state of facts. *But the Sublapsarian is far more Scriptural in its tendencies, and its general spirit far more honorable to God*. The Supralapsarian, under a pretense of greater symmetry, is in reality the *more illogical of the two*, and misrepresents the divine character and the facts of Scripture in a repulsive manner. The view from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with reference to a finite mind. God’s decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. *In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God’s thought.* The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## psycheives (Nov 4, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Over the weekend I stumbled upon the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) and in turn the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA) and I was curious to learn what folks think about the writings of Herman Hoeksema and David Engelsma. I read a little bit about the history of the denomination and was curious if there are any books that stand out as being worthy of shelf space in one's library. Thoughts?



I am a High Calvinist and I love both Hoeksema and Engelsma's work. It isn't always the easiest to understand for me (looking into the Dutch historical debates from the outside) but once I muddle through, their work really opens my eyes to some possible "solutions" to some of the major historical debates in Reformed history. Definitely something I would HIGHLY recommend.

I find the books on Federal Vision heresy SUPER interesting - PRCA claims to have had the solution (a unique Covenant Theology) for ages and even predicted Shepherd/FV would happen. Did you know that it's happened before many times over in the Dutch and Scottish Churches (MacLeod's Scottish Theology)? My understanding is that Scotland lost most of their churches to Arminianism creeping in through Covenant Theology and though they knew the solution was to tweeked their Covenant Theology again and again, they never were able to come up with the right formula of Covenant Theology. Based on history, it isn't clear any modern denom has ever come to any permanent "solution," so it is doubly interesting that the PRCA supposedly has already solved this problem via a unique Covenant Theology.

Also I find their work against the Free Offer of the Gospel (as defined by John Murray in the OPC report) very enlightening. This is also supposedly tied in to Arminianism. And this debate has also repeated from the Scottish Marrowmen and AndrewFuller/Fullerism/Spurgeon/Duty-Faith affirmers/so-called Arminians vs Gill/Banks/Duty-faith deniers/so-called-Hyper Calvinists. What is the solution to this debate? Read the PRCA view, since they are neither Fullerites nor Duty-Faith deniers but lie between.

I recommend:

Engelsma, "Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root."
Hoeksema, "Believer's And Their Seed"
Hoeksema, "The Triple Knowledge"
Hoeksema, "Reformed Dogmatics"
Engelsma, "Be Ye Holy: The Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification"

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 4, 2019)

PaulCLawton said:


> Has anyone here read Engelsma's commentary on the Belgic Confession and is willing to provide a review? I picked up a copy of Vols 1 and 2 and have referred to it occasionally, but I am probably not sharp enough to pick up on any idiosyncrasies.



I cannot provide a review, Paul, as I have not read it and only possess an e-book copy of the first volume. One significant methodological problem with Hoeksemite commentaries on historical Reformed confessions is that most of their authors (with the possible exception of Homer Hoeksema's commentary on the Canons of Dort) tend to reject what they see as "historicism", i.e. interpreting the confessions in light of the writings of the Reformed divines who framed them and their contemporaries.

For example, when you point out to them that Zacharias Ursinus believed in a covenant of works by referencing his both his commentary on the Heidelberger and his Large Catechism, and thus certain statements in the Heidelberg Catechism must refer to the covenant of works, they will dismiss that point on the grounds that the covenant of works is not expressly mentioned in the catechism and that we are not bound by Ursinus's private opinions.

This method of interpreting a historical document reminds me more of postmodern relativism than something that you would expect from those committed to objective truth. If you adopt this approach, then the confession does not mean what the framers intended it to mean but whatever the church now decides that it means.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4


----------



## timfost (Nov 4, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I cannot provide a review, Paul, as I have not read it and only possess an e-book copy of the first volume. One significant methodological problem with Hoeksemite commentaries on historical Reformed confessions is that most of their authors (with the possible exception of Homer Hoeksema's commentary on the Canons of Dort) tend to reject what they see as "historicism", i.e. interpreting the confessions in light of the writings of the Reformed divines who framed them and their contemporaries.
> 
> For example, when you point out to them that Zacharias Ursinus believed in a covenant of works by referencing his both his commentary on the Heidelberger and his Large Catechism, and thus certain statements in the Heidelberg Catechism must refer to the covenant of works, they will dismiss that point on the grounds that the covenant of works is not expressly mentioned in the catechism and that we are not bound by Ursinus's private opinions.
> 
> This method of interpreting a historical document reminds me more of postmodern relativism than something that you would expect from those committed to objective truth. If you adopt this approach, then the confession does not mean what the framers intended it to mean but whatever the church now decides that it means.



Daniel, this is very helpful. Hopefully it's not too far from the OP, but in Hoeksema's mind, how is it that Christ merited eternal life for us through His obedience if perfect obedience did not lead to eternal life_ in the presence of God_? 

I'd love to read his works out of curiosity, but I don't have the time to do so now. This question is not only directed to you, but anybody more familiar with his writings. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding some of his distinctives.


----------



## psycheives (Nov 5, 2019)

timfost said:


> how is it that Christ merited eternal life for us through His obedience if perfect obedience did not lead to eternal life_ in the presence of God_?



"The merit and obedience which Christ obtained by His perfect life, His sacrificial sufferings and death in our nature, which He imputes to His people, fulfils (a) the same law to which perfect obedience is demanded of all men ... and (b) the same penalty that fell upon the race by the breaking of that [law], and thereby delivering His people from its curse. ... Because of the union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ, His merits and obedience, in our nature, are of infinite worth."

(Charles L. Rodman, "A Desire of God for the Salvation of the Reprobate: An Ambiguous Doctrine Refuted and the Reformed Evangelical Church Vindicated" p. 34 [2019 edition -- coming soon])

I actually LOVE Hoeksema's Covenant Theology. It is a MUST read. It's a bit unique but it seems to fix/correct some of the concerns other Reformed have argued back and forth for ages. Such as issue of Adam/man meriting from God - he can't. And issues with the Reformed claim that man merits heaven through obedience -- which actually means this --> Man merits heaven for ALL humanity simply by NOT disobeying while Christ has to live a perfect life and die to merit the salvation of the elect. That's so unbalanced. I think Hoeksema is on to something that gives God a higher place and is more beautiful.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## psycheives (Nov 5, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One significant methodological problem with Hoeksemite commentaries on historical Reformed confessions is that most of their authors... tend to reject... interpreting the confessions in light of the writings of the Reformed divines who framed them and their contemporaries.



I appreciate Daniel's comment here. He's got to be one of the most fair evaluators of PRCA I've come across. It is not uncommon to see others misunderstanding, resorting to strawmen and slandering PRCA writings.

I would offer one alternative perspective on this. Just as PRCA does, at Westminster Seminary CA, it is argued that *often we must only go by the Confessions themselves* (not the authors) because those are the words that were intentionally and carefully chosen as the best words for outlining the desired doctrines upon which the Reformed were to unify. Thus, although it may be helpful to read the authors to better understand what they meant, many times we must not import their views into the Confessions.

Example: All the private and unique views of the Divines must not be read into the Confessions. The Reformed did not sign off on those private views. They signed the written doc. The Divines held different views on the atonement, covenants, lapsarian views etc. But one view was solidified in the Confession and sometimes that one view is not encompassing of all the unique views of the men who wrote it.

Also, while Ursinus was the principle author of the Heidelberg Catechism, it is believed that more than a dozen guys helped. Are we sure that Ursinus' individual interpretation was always the one represented by the words of the HC and not a broader view to encompass other authors?

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 5, 2019)

psycheives said:


> "The merit and obedience which Christ obtained by His perfect life, His sacrificial sufferings and death in our nature, which He imputes to His people, fulfils (a) the same law to which perfect obedience is demanded of all men ... and (b) the same penalty that fell upon the race by the breaking of that [law], and thereby delivering His people from its curse. ... Because of the union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ, His merits and obedience, in our nature, are of infinite worth."
> 
> (Charles L. Rodman, "A Desire of God for the Salvation of the Reprobate: An Ambiguous Doctrine Refuted and the Reformed Evangelical Church Vindicated" p. 34 [2019 edition -- coming soon])
> 
> I actually LOVE Hoeksema's Covenant Theology. It is a MUST read. It's a bit unique but it seems to fix/correct some of the concerns other Reformed have argued back and forth for ages. Such as issue of Adam/man meriting from God - he can't. And issues with the Reformed claim that man merits heaven through obedience -- which actually means this --> Man merits heaven for ALL humanity simply by NOT disobeying while Christ has to live a perfect life and die to merit the salvation of the elect. That's so unbalanced. I think Hoeksema is on to something that gives God a higher place and is more beautiful.


Psyche,
I think you've misunderstood the historic view on both these points. Regarding Adam meriting eternal life--it would be wrong to say that he could make God his debtor simply by being a good creature; however, if God freely chose to set the terms for Adam meriting eternal life or whatever else, that's different. The historic Reformed view is that God condescended to make a covenant with Adam that he might win the reward.

Also, on the second point, Adam would have had to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as as himself. He would have had to obey the whole law, not merely its prohibitions.

Every blessing!

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## B.L. (Nov 6, 2019)

I received a free copy in the mail today of "_Communion with God_" by Herman Hoeksema under the Reformed Spirituality series edited by David Engelsma. This book consists of selected meditations originally written by Hoeksema for _The Standard Bearer_ magazine between 1924-1947.

I've only barely dipped into it thus far, but I can clearly see why some would commend Hoeksema as a devotional writer. He is quite poetic in his style of writing.

Well...I just wanted to pass along this quick update is all.

Have a joyful night everyone!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## psycheives (Nov 6, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Regarding Adam meriting eternal life--it would be wrong to say that he could make God his debtor simply by being a good creature; however, if God freely chose to set the terms for Adam meriting eternal life or whatever else, that's different. ... He would have had to obey the whole law, not merely its prohibitions.



Thank you very much for taking time to offer sharpening and clarification, brother. I do understand the historic views on this topic. I was trying to show a contrast between PRCA's view and some of the views Reformed theologians have held and debated. As I understand it, PRCA does away with all notions of merit. Not even covenantal merit or merit in a gracious covenant. So you won't get debates like between Klineans (who push merit) and others who are more careful about meritorious language. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## B.L. (Nov 9, 2019)

I was reading bits and pieces of Ronald Hanko's book _"Doctrine According to Godliness"_ and under the sections on the plenary and verbal inspiration of scripture (p. 15-17) I read what I'm wondering are peculiarities within the PRCA. Are they "KJV-Only" across the entire denomination? Does anyone know of other Reformed denominations that hold similar views on the inspiration of scripture?

_"Fifth, plenary inspiration means that even Scripture's grammar, vocabulary, and syntax are inspired....Every letter, every word, and every sentence is important and must therefore be carefully translated. Because of plenary inspiration we do not accept paraphrases of Scripture, or even Bible versions that are a compromise between accurate translation and paraphrase, such as the New International Version (NIV)."

"Scripture is not only the Word of God, but also the words of God. We teach and emphasize this over against those who piously prate about Scripture being inspired in its teachings and doctrines, but not in its words and details. Such teaching is, of course, simply nonsense, for it is impossible that Scripture be the inspired Word of God in its teachings and thoughts if the words in which those teachings are given are not themselves inspired and infallible. A belief in verbal inspiration makes us as English-speaking Christians strong proponents of the King James (Authorized) Version (KJV). One important feature of this version, found in few of the modern versions, is that it puts in italics those words that are not found in the original Hebrew of Greek..."
_​Later in this section Ronald Hanko discusses how the NIV often changes the words of Scripture to "bring it into line with our own thinking" and suggests that to do so is a denial of verbal inspiration.

I love the KJV and there are some things Hanko writes that resonate with me, but as I was reading this section I couldn't help but recall the times I've heard Fundamentalist Baptists out in my rural neck of the woods make similar comments about modern translations altering God's Word, etc.

At any rate...I thought these were interesting points he chose to emphasize under this doctrinal section of his book.
​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 9, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> I was reading bits and pieces of Ronald Hanko's book _"Doctrine According to Godliness"_ and under the sections on the plenary and verbal inspiration of scripture (p. 15-17) I read what I'm wondering are peculiarities within the PRCA. Are they "KJV-Only" across the entire denomination? Does anyone know of other Reformed denominations that hold similar views on the inspiration of scripture?


I would characterize the PRC as "soft" TR advocates. Soft, in the sense that they have a preference for it in a self-consciously traditional sense; and they may insist that (for consistency's sake) their ministers read and preach from it in public worship. I do not believe they take a dogmatical stance on the KJV, or maintain an official denominational opinion on the TR text-family. I could be wrong on this.

The issue I see Rev.Hanko addressing is one of doubt as to the emphasis some (especially modern) translations give to the translation principle of dynamic equivalence. Historically, the Reformation's Protestants have valued a close reliance on the words of Scripture, as the indispensable vehicle for accurate transmission of the ideas of Scripture. The KJV will be found demonstrating occasionally the principle of dynamic equivalence, though with far less reliance than (for example) the NIV. The KJV is most accurately described as essentially verbally-equivalent.

I think you will find the Free Reformed (see this page, http://frcna.org/about-us/what-we-believe #17), Netherlands Reformed, and Heritage Reformed churches have a similar KJV preference or insistence, maybe with differing intensities. There is something to be said for worshipping and personal/family reading of Scripture with the previous generations. Likewise, there are benefits to taking advantage of the progress of study in the ancient text of the Bible since 400yrs. The KJV we're all most familiar with is the last 18th Century revision (1769) of the text, prior to the introduction of the Revised Version (1885) and American Standard Version (1901).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 9, 2019)

From what I have read from the PRCA men on the KJV, I would concur with Bruce's assessment. If I remember correctly, however, I seem to recall Herman Hoeksema quoting either the Revised Version or the American Standard Version (with approval) in some of his books. Assuming that my memory is reliable on this point, which it may not be, I wonder if it was the later involvement of the CRC with the NIV that pushed the PRCA down a relatively soft KJV-preferred road?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## psycheives (Nov 10, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> I'm wondering are peculiarities within the PRCA. Are they "KJV-Only" across the entire denomination?



Great question, B.L. PRCA are *Majority Text/Textus Receptus only*, holding to the preservation of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit and quote the WCF 1.8 on this (being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages). So the Geneva or KJV would be fine. They reject the CT argument because older does not mean better and older could easily mean the adoption of an early bad text. See this article by Ron Cammenga.

For their churches, they use *KJV as a preference* for uniformity. They reject KJV-only view. "We continue to make use of the KJV out of the collective conviction that it remains the best translation of the Bible available in the English language. ...we are not in principle opposed to a new and improved English translation of the Bible. ...the KJV are judged by many experts to be much more easily memorized than so many of the other modern English versions." (Prof. Cammenga)

*Engelsma on the RSV:* "the Revised Standard Version. It is the Bible of the "liberal," i.e., heretical, National Council of Churches and reflects the unbelief of the heretical leaders of this group. It weakens the Biblical teachings regarding the Virgin Birth, the deity of Jesus, and the Trinity."

With regard to the *New King James Version*, the PRCA websites continue to promote the KJV and they offer the Trinity Bible Society's "The New King James Version" by G. W. Anderson. You can read Anderson here. Also, TBS is critical of the NKJV, so it appears that PRCA has not embraced the NKJV. Example of from TBS.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## B.L. (Nov 10, 2019)

Greetings,

I dug around a little bit on the PRCA website and found an article by Rev. Steven Houck titled "The King James Version of the Bible", which is also helpful for better understanding the "KJV strong-preferred" stance of the denomination. It reads quite similar to the pamphlet Joel Beeke wrote years back on the reasons to retain the KJV.

Have a joyful Lord's Day everyone!

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Nate (Nov 11, 2019)

I am a PRCA member. Regarding our stance on the KJV, the practical results are: all pastors read from the KJV in worship services, readings during Bible studies are from the KJV, and all pew Bibles are KJV.

Yet, it is not uncommon for pastors to indicate where the KJV is either weaker or wrong compared to the original language or other translations, every pastor I know personally owns multiple translations, and members are certainly not discouraged from using other versions for their personal study.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 5


----------



## Steward (Nov 28, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Over the weekend I stumbled upon the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) and in turn the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA) and I was curious to learn what folks think about the writings of Herman Hoeksema and David Engelsma. I read a little bit about the history of the denomination and was curious if there are any books that stand out as being worthy of shelf space in one's library. Thoughts?


Greetings B.L. McDonald,

(a) The only way to understand the PRCA is to go to the beginning and read Rev. Herman Hoeksema's _*Reformed Dogmatics*_

Warning: It is not easy, light reading! But is Calvin or Luther or Vos or Owen or any other theologian and mightily used _"Man of God"_ of substance a quick, easy walk in the park?

(b) A study of the PRCA's stance regarding "Uncommon Grace" can begin easily and painlessly by reading Prof. Barry Gritter's article _*Grace Uncommon*_

https://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_55.html

(c) any questions you have regarding anything about the PRCA please feel free to message me. I have been studying their denomination for many years, and am acquainted with many of their ministers and professors.

Yours In Christ, s.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Steward (Nov 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> They are high supralapserians who deny common grace and the well-meant offer and border on hyper-calvinism.


Greetings Pergumum,
Your signature says you are a baptist. Since you are in this group I assume you are Calvinistic. If so, you must certainly affirm that only the elect are saved. What is the fate of all who are not elect?


----------



## Steward (Nov 28, 2019)

Well,

Pergumum has blocked me.

I'm weary of those like Pergumum calling those who deny cg & wmo hyper-calvinists and accusing them of not evangelizing.

This old missionary is tired to the bone of this.

God has decreed to save His elect via hearing the Gospel of His beloved son, Jesus Christ.

Only God knows who the elect are, but Jesus promised us that His sheep will hear His voice when the Gospel is proclaimed.

And we are commanded to proclaim His precious Gospel that cost Him so dearly.

And Pergummon will call someone who just spoke those words a hyper-calvinist.

sickening ... and wearying ...

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 28, 2019)

---<Moderating>---


Steward said:


> Well,
> 
> Pergumum has blocked me.
> 
> I'm weary of those like Pergumum calling those who deny cg & wmo hyper-calvinists and accusing them of not evangelizing.



*And that's more than enough martyrdom from you. Maybe, Pergy doesn't have time for a month-old thread (the last time he was engaged, Oct.30), or a newcomer pursuing him on his hobby horse? So, he blocked you.

No one can be compelled to engage with someone else. You can accept that, you can use the PB venue to charitably promote your own views within confessional bounds, or you can go elsewhere. First warning.*

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 29, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Presuming you have first-hand exposure to the distinctives of the PRCA you are the first Baptist I have met who is familiar with this group.



Some of the most ardent "fans" of the PRCA that aren't PRCA members are obnoxious Hyper-Calvinist Baptists, especially online. Their obnoxious behavior (in which they appear to be determined to do nothing but argue where they differ from the majority of Reformed teachers through the ages, sometimes even consigning some of them to hell) probably contributes to the sharp anti-PRCA sentiment among some who have witnessed it. By contrast, some of those who I've encountered online who actually are PRCA members and ministers tend to be much more irenic and balanced.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 29, 2019)

Steward said:


> Well,
> 
> Pergumum has blocked me.
> 
> ...




So this is Pergamum,


And this is quite a wake-up with my morning coffee...

I've never called any particular missionary a hyper-calvinist. I am not even very well-acquainted with you, though if you are a missionary and a brother I would be honored to get to know you better. Where do you serve and what do you do? What do your activities involve?

I have laid out the marks of hyper-calvinism, and what they have in common:

1. Supralapserianism. (And yes, I believe Dort assumes an infra position).
2. The denial of the well-meant offer (Yes, I believe God desires the salvation of all who hear the gospel).
3. The denial of common grace (Yes, I believe that God loves all his creation with some love, even as he gifts the elect with saving love).

But none of these ultimately make one a hypercalvinist, just a high Calvinist (which isn't as bad).

4th point. Then many will further deny that the gospel going out is an invitation. Many will state that they preach the Gospel as a mere command, and not as an invitation. This gets closer to hypercalvinism.

But the Gospel is also described as an invitation. The parables describing it are things such as a King's wedding party, where servants go out to the highways and hedges to invite people in to dine. So missionary work means that we invite sinners in to dine with the King.

Further, you claim that I have blocked you. Is this even possible on the PB? Is there even a block option? I certainly would like to use it sometimes, if it existed. And surely some would have blocked me long ago. But I don't think there is a block option. I see all of your posts, after all. And you seem to see all my posts. So it seems I did not block you.

I am looking over the latest PRCA thread now where Hanko And Hoeksema are mentioned to see why you would be mad at me.

My advice is to "Avoid them all" and then in comment #13 I say, "They are high supralapserians who deny common grace and the well-meant offer and border on hyper-calvinism."

Perhaps the phrase, "borders on hyper-calvinism" upset you?

When I went down to South Texas near the Rio Grande, I bordered Mexico, but that didn't make me a Mexican, after all. I even put on a sombrero at a gas station. But that didn't turn me Mexican. I even got close enough to the border to see that it was an unpleasant place to live, but I did not turn Mexican.

In comment #20 I write, "I object to their supralapserianism, their denial of common grace, and their denial of the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I think they tend towards rationalism."

Did this upset you? Yes, sorry, I believe these two writers tend towards rationalism instead of embracing the tension of Scripture that God both desires the salvation of those who hear the gospel and yet has not ordained them all to believe.

In comment #26 I write, "Supra is included in the reformed tradition, yes, but I believe it is wrong and that the Canons of Dort assume infralapserianism."

And yes, I believe the Canons of Dort assume the infra position.

I see no other comments on that thread except for these 4 comments.

Yes. Sorry, I don't like Hanko and Hoeksema. But my 4 comments hardly seemed inflammatory enough to set you off. Lots of people have reservations about the PRCA.

I do like their use of the King James Bible very much, though.

On page 3 of that PRCA thread in Comment $75 you write:

"Greetings Pergumum,
Your signature says you are a baptist. Since you are in this group I assume you are Calvinistic. If so, you must certainly affirm that only the elect are saved. What is the fate of all who are not elect?"

It seems that I did not answer you. I did not even see the comment, sorry. To answer you now, Yes, I am Calvinistic. Yes, only the elect shall be saved. We are agreed there.


Then one comment after, in Comment #76, you write:

"Well,

Pergumum has blocked me.

I'm weary of those like Pergumum calling those who deny cg & wmo hyper-calvinists and accusing them of not evangelizing.

This old missionary is tired to the bone of this.

God has decreed to save His elect via hearing the Gospel of His beloved son, Jesus Christ.

Only God knows who the elect are, but Jesus promised us that His sheep will hear His voice when the Gospel is proclaimed.

And we are commanded to proclaim His precious Gospel that cost Him so dearly.

And Pergummon will call someone who just spoke those words a hyper-calvinist.

sickening ... and wearying ..."

Sorry, brother, I did not even see your comments #75 or #76. I was not even purposely ignoring you. And yes, I agree with almost everything you wrote in Comments #75 and #76. I even get sick of myself sometimes and my shenanigans.

I am not sure I even looked at, much less commented, on that thread for like a month because smarter people made similar points than me better than I could have.

If God and your church has sent you as a missionary and you take the gospel to those who do not know it, then I heartily praise God for you and I am glad to count you a missionary and a brother. Even if I could block you, I certainly would not.

I can certainly be a jerk sometimes, I am positive of that. Yesterday I went after Doug Wilson and his silly trailer pretty hard (though I think he deserves the flack he gets). But you certainly do not deserve any flack, nor do I remember giving you any flack.

My apologies to you, brother, I will certainly be more attentive to any replies you direct towards me.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## B.L. (Nov 29, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> Some of the most ardent "fans" of the PRCA that aren't PRCA members are obnoxious Hyper-Calvinist Baptists, especially online. Their obnoxious behavior (in which they appear to be determined to do nothing but argue where they differ from the majority of Reformed teachers through the ages, sometimes even consigning some of them to hell) probably contributes to the sharp anti-PRCA sentiment among some who have witnessed it. By contrast, some of those who I've encountered online who actually are PRCA members and ministers tend to be much more irenic and balanced.



Where online are these obnoxious Hyper-Calvinist Baptist "fanboys" of the PRCA hanging out? I know you are serious and I don't doubt what you've written, but this made me chuckle some at the thought of it. I'm interested in seeing what these Baptists are saying about this group and how they came in contact with them. I mean the PRCA has something like ~30 churches and some 8,000 members. Not exactly a group you'd cross paths with easily...though they do seem like the are much better organized/resourced than other micro-denominations...and of course with the internet anything is possible today.

Have a joyful day my friend!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 29, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Where online are these obnoxious Hyper-Calvinist Baptist "fanboys" of the PRCA hanging out? I know you are serious and I don't doubt what you've written, but this made me chuckle some at the thought of it. I'm interested in seeing what these Baptists are saying about this group and how they came in contact with them. I mean the PRCA has something like ~30 churches and some 8,000 members. Not exactly a group you'd cross paths with easily...though they do seem like the are much better organized/resourced than other micro-denominations...and of course with the internet anything is possible today.
> 
> Have a joyful day my friend!



Off the top of my head, in chronological order, more or less, with some of the same individuals encountered on two if not all three of the platforms:

1. Yahoo Groups (There were many active theological discussion groups there prior to the advent of blogging and Facebook)

2. Paltalk (There were several active channels or whatever they were called dedicated to Reformed Theology and theology in general)

3. Facebook

It's possible there were a few on here ca 2002 or so when the requirements for membership were much looser and discussion was more rough-and-tumble, but they would have been banned for their antics long ago.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 29, 2019)

psycheives said:


> I actually LOVE Hoeksema's Covenant Theology. It is a MUST read. It's a bit unique but it seems to fix/correct some of the concerns other Reformed have argued back and forth for ages. Such as issue of Adam/man meriting from God - he can't. And issues with the Reformed claim that man merits heaven through obedience -- which actually means this --> Man merits heaven for ALL humanity simply by NOT disobeying while Christ has to live a perfect life and die to merit the salvation of the elect. That's so unbalanced. I think Hoeksema is on to something that gives God a higher place and is more beautiful.



Flush this out for me in the language I am familiar with if you can please Psycheives. Remember I am bicovenantal and hold to the two Adam scheme of understanding things. I also believe the following is an incorrect assumption concerning how Adam merits life.... "Man merits heaven for ALL humanity simply by NOT disobeying." I honestly believe that is rather simplistic assumption in the whole scope of the Garden scheme.

I think it I could benefit from your knowledge here. Help me out.



psycheives said:


> Thank you very much for taking time to offer sharpening and clarification, brother. I do understand the historic views on this topic. I was trying to show a contrast between PRCA's view and some of the views Reformed theologians have held and debated. As I understand it, PRCA does away with all notions of merit. Not even covenantal merit or merit in a gracious covenant. So you won't get debates like between Klineans (who push merit) and others who are more careful about meritorious language. Hope that makes sense.



If you could also help me understand, I would appreciate how doing away with all notions of merit or reward is beneficial and biblical. Is this something that you think Hoeksema is on to that gives God a higher place and is more beautiful?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 29, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Where online are these obnoxious Hyper-Calvinist Baptist "fanboys" of the PRCA hanging out?



A few months ago we would have a new one every week on PB. They would literally start the same thread (i.e., every topic boils down to monocovenantalism and no remarriage after divorce and those two are the same thing).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A few months ago we would have a new one every week on PB. They would literally start the same thread (i.e., every topic boils down to monocovenantalism and no remarriage after divorce and those two are the same thing).


What the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage is a hot topic among independent, fundamental, Landmark, Baptists; both those who are Calvinistic, and those who are free-will. Prof. David Engelsma's writings on the topic are read with approval by many in Baptist circles.
A number of Anglican clerics, including some that tend to be anglo-catholic,
also read and recommend Engelsma on the topic of divorce and remarriage.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 23, 2019)

@psycheives

Hey psycheives,

Thanks for your boldness to speak up in a controversial area! I also am a lover of the PRC, and of Hoeksema and Engelsma. I’m currently reading, _The Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology_, by Pascal Denault, and the conflict between the Baptists and the Presbyterians he displays . . . I wonder if the PRC view of the covenant isn’t a better answer. So I took Hoeksema’s, _Reformed Dogmatics_, and Herman Hanko’s, _God’s Everlasting Covenant of Grace_ off my shelves to see what they say. Have you any suggestions as to which of the PRC books on the covenant is the best to get a clear picture of it? Thanks!

(I'm involved with a friend in a discussion of infant baptism and the covenant of grace.)

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Nate (Dec 23, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hoeksema’s, _Reformed Dogmatics_, and Herman Hanko’s, _God’s Everlasting Covenant of Grace_



These are two of the best resources with which to start for PRC books on the covenant.

Believers and Their Seed provides Hoeksema's most extensive work on the covenant (and very much interacts with baptism).

Engelsma's work on the covenant include:
Battle for Sovereign Grace in the Covenant
Covenant and Election in the Reformed Tradition
The Covenant of God and Children of Believers.

For PRC theologian's more scholarly works on the topic, you can browse the The Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary Theological Journal index. All PRTJ issues are free on their website.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 24, 2019)

Thank you, Nate! I do have _Believers and Their Seed_ - been a while since I read it (so I'll refresh my memory). I was looking on the Standard Bearer website to see if anyone interacted with or reviewed some of the more recent 1689 Federalism publications on the Covenant and baptism (couldn't find anything as yet). I've been in "Doctrines of Grace" Baptist churches for the last 5 years or so as the Presbyterians in my neck of the woods have gotten seriously off track.

[The 3FU are my confessional subscription]


----------



## Gesetveemet (Dec 25, 2019)

“When I Survey” is one of Hoeksema’s best books.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## psycheives (Dec 25, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> @psycheives
> Hey psycheives, Thanks for your boldness to speak up in a controversial area! I also am a lover of the PRC, and of Hoeksema and Engelsma. I’m currently reading, _The Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology_, by Pascal Denault, and the conflict between the Baptists and the Presbyterians he displays . . . I wonder if the PRC view of the covenant isn’t a better answer. So I took Hoeksema’s, _Reformed Dogmatics_, and Herman Hanko’s, _God’s Everlasting Covenant of Grace_ off my shelves to see what they say. Have you any suggestions as to which of the PRC books on the covenant is the best to get a clear picture of it? Thanks!
> (I'm involved with a friend in a discussion of infant baptism and the covenant of grace.)



Good day, Steve! Rejoicing over your message and interest in the Covenants. Yes, the above books Nate mentioned (especially Believers and Their Seed) are very helpful and especially the one you mentioned "Hoeksema’s, _Reformed Dogmatics." _I just re-read the section on Adam to answer R. Martin's question above (sorry, slow to reply but I haven't forgotten you!). If the goal is to stop Arminianism from creeping in through the Covenants as it keeps doing, we should be willing to reconsider the great historic Reformed covenant views, in my opinion. It does no good to go back to old definitions of the "covenant concept" and the CovofRedemption, Cov of Works, Cov of Grace and Republication of the COW if there is a more Biblical formulation. As I understand them, PRCA claims to have solved (or at least are the closest to solving) the Arminian problem, so it seems worth a deeper look to me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 16, 2020)

Hello B.L. McDonald @BLM,

In your OP you inquired re Herman Hoeksema and David Engelsma of the PRCA, and if any of their writings were worthy of shelf space in your library. 

I would say that these two men are among the finest theologians I've read, particularly with regard to the nature of the biblical covenants and to infant baptism. Hoeksema's _Believers and their Seed: Children in the Covenant_ is a classic (I've just finished rereading it). They both have written on the "well-meant offer" and common grace, and I find their views compelling (though many disagree). Engelsma's book on the Trinity I only just learned of, and and am saving up to get it. Engelsma is also one of the few aggressive defenders of the Reformed Amillennial position—see his book, _Christ's Spiritual Kingdom_, and his essay, The Messianic Kingdom and Civil government, among other writings. Many who hold to the Amil view don't defend it, which is strange seeing its relevance to both our lives and to practical theology.

That said, I do not agree with some of their teachings (marriage indissoluble; union membership forbidden, to name two).

I would think, given their views on children in the covenant, and the church's teaching and encouragement in this, being born into one of their families, and raised and nurtured therein would be a blessed thing. It seems to me that one is well-fed in their churches, though I've never attended a service of theirs.

Even so, I wouldn't trade my own life experience—pretty horrendous in some aspects, especially the depths into which I plunged while in the 1960s-70s-80s counterculture—because the LORD gave me to write a book on this, perhaps my main testimony and witness to this generation (paperback of book here: http://amzn.com/0983519498, and free digital copies on Google Drive: https://goo.gl/EQ9L9d). If I'd been raised in a godly PRCA family I wouldn't have the heart and the testimony I do, but I can imagine what being cared for in such godliness would be like.

Engelsma and Hoeksema are true gems in the treasures of Christ's church.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## B.L. (Jan 18, 2020)

Mr. Rafalsky,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my OP! I appreciate what you've written and will look into the books you referenced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 18, 2020)

@BLM

Some remarks on PRC doctrines. It is fairly well known that John Gerstner openly defended the PRC on the “well-meant offer”. Here is the data:

*John Gerstner Against the Well-Meant Offer [and defending the PRC’s view]*

-----

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:

http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_Criticisms_of_Cov_of_Works.htm

“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
https://cprc.co.uk/pamphlets/covenantofgodandchildrenofbelievers/

-----

If anyone wants me to reference some of Hoeksema’s thoughts on his view of the covenant beginning in Eden as friendship and not works, let me know.

-----

Although I have learned much from David Engelsma’s writings with respect to Amillennialism, there is an aspect I do not see as correct, at least in Hoeksema’s and other PRCA men’s view. In a nutshell: at the very end of the age Rev. Barry Gritters pamphlet, The Antichrist, says that Armageddon will consist of this (note the highlighted sentence) :

“The religious Antichristian empire will be destroyed by the political Antichristian empire. For a time he uses the whore; in the end he turns on her (Rev 17:16). *The political empire breaks up into the battle of Armageddon: the kingdom of the beast (the Western, ‘Christianized’ nations) against the kingdom of the east (the pagan, non-Christian nations).* In the middle of that battle, Jesus Christ will return to destroy the Antichristian kingdom…” (p 23).​
I saw this also in Hoeksema’s book on Revelation, _Behold He cometh_ (Gritters acknowledges his dependence on Hoeksema). I haven’t seen such in Engelsma (though I haven’t read all of him on the topic).

In contemporary amil understanding Armageddon consists of the unregenerate the world ‘round attacking, plundering, and killing the saints in all the churches – _globally_ – in the midst of which the Lord returns to wreak His vengeance :

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” (Rev 20:7,8,9)​
I think Hoeksema (and Gritters) muddle this up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 21, 2020)

The discussion on Hoeksema and Engelsma is continuing elsewhere on PB. @BLM, @psycheives, @Nate


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> -----
> 
> Although I have learned much from David Engelsma’s writings with respect to Amillennialism, there is an aspect I do not see as correct, at least in Hoeksema’s and other PRCA men’s view. In a nutshell: at the very end of the age Rev. Barry Gritters pamphlet, The Antichrist, says that Armageddon will consist of this (note the highlighted sentence) :
> 
> ...



That was very informative.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aco (Jan 21, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> What is so bad about supralapsarianism? Is it heretical? Has it been denied by all Reformed Theologians or Confessions? You may not like the view or think it is Scriptual, but you stand pretty much alone in a blanket denunciation the works by supra. adherents.
> 
> *List of Supralapsarians*
> Alphabetical by last name –
> ...


Could you give me the reference where Zwingli in his works taught supralapsarianism or something in accordance with it? 
Thanks!


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 21, 2020)

Aco said:


> Could you give me the reference where Zwingli in his works taught supralapsarianism or something in accordance with it?



I just copied the link from monergism.
https://www.monergism.com/infralapsarianism-and-supralapsarianism


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 30, 2020)

Hello @BLM , here's another offering by David J. Engelsma I think is excellent, a pamphlet (though he writes on it elsewhere as well), _The Gift of Assurance <http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Pamphlet_109.pdf>_, rebutting what a number of the Puritans taught (including Dr M Lloyd-Jones), that assurance of salvation was generally exceeding difficult to attain, and was a "second blessing" of sorts for the more spiritually adept and fervent. DJE, to the contrary, says it is for all, a very part of justification by faith – and shows where Calvin maintained this also.


----------



## kodos (Jan 30, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> a very part of justification by faith



The link doesn't work, so apologies for requesting more information! I know language can be imprecise on a forum like this, so I'd like to understand what he means when you say he teaches assurance is "a very part of justification by faith". For instance, WCF 18.3 states:

III. This infallible assurance *doth not so belong to the essence of faith*, but that a *true believer may wait long*, and *conflict with many difficulties*, *before he be partaker of it*: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain there unto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure;m that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.​
If "_by very part of_", he simply means that our justification gives us the grounds for what the Confession calls an "infallible assurance" (WCF 18.2), then that is good. But if it means that _all _who are justified receive this assurance and have it at all points, then that would be contrary to the Confession.

Just in case anyone is interested, the Confession's Scripture proofs for the clause up to the colon are:
1 John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. Isa. 1:10. Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. Mark 9:24. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. [See Psal. 88 throughout. Psal. 77 to the 12th Verse.]​


----------



## B.L. (Jan 30, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello @BLM , here's another offering by David J. Engelsma I think is excellent, a pamphlet (though he writes on it elsewhere as well), _The Gift of Assurance <http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Pamphlet_109.pdf>_, rebutting what a number of the Puritans taught (including Dr M Lloyd-Jones), that assurance of salvation was generally exceeding difficult to attain, and was a "second blessing" of sorts for the more spiritually adept and fervent. DJE, to the contrary, says it is for all, a very part of justification by faith – and shows where Calvin maintained this also.



Hmm. Interesting. I appreciate you sharing this and will give it a read!

For what its worth the link worked for me.


----------



## Nate (Jan 30, 2020)

kodos said:


> The link doesn't work, so apologies for requesting more information! I know language can be imprecise on a forum like this, so I'd like to understand what he means when you say he teaches assurance is "a very part of justification by faith". For instance, WCF 18.3 states:
> 
> III. This infallible assurance *doth not so belong to the essence of faith*, but that a *true believer may wait long*, and *conflict with many difficulties*, *before he be partaker of it*: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain there unto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure;m that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.​
> If "_by very part of_", he simply means that our justification gives us the grounds for what the Confession calls an "infallible assurance" (WCF 18.2), then that is good. But if it means that _all _who are justified receive this assurance and have it at all points, then that would be contrary to the Confession.
> ...



Louis Berkhof addresses this in his book, "Assurance of Faith". Berkhof described the distinction between Dort's teaching that faith certainly does bring assurance and Westminster's apparent teaching that personal assurance does not necessarily accompany faith. Here he is on the topic:


> On the other hand the Canons of Dort maintain that believers can, in their present life, obtain the assurance of their future salvation, and that they actually enjoy this assurance according to the measure of their faith. This would seem to imply that Christian certitude is of the essence of saving faith. They further assert that this assurance does not result from any special revelation, but is based on the promises of God in his Word, on the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and on the exercise of a good conscience and the production of good works as the fruits of faith. It is admitted that believers are not always conscious of this full assurance of faith and this certainty of persevering to the end, since this may be obscured by doubts and uncertainties; but it is also maintained that out of these spiritual struggles faith will again rise triumphantly to the height of assurance. Moreover, this assurance is regarded as highly desirable, since it does not minister to pride and carnal security, but is rather a source of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in tribulation, constancy in suffering and confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God. The Westminster Confession apparently sounds a different note, when it says: “This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be a partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things that are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.” Presbyterian divines generally interpret this to mean that, though faith carries with it a certainty respecting the truth of the promises of salvation in Christ, it does not include what is usually called “the assurance of salvation,” or “the assurance of hope,” i.e. the personal assurance of being in a state of grace, of having a saving interest in Jesus Christ, and of being an heir of everlasting life. But it is possible to put a different interpretation on the words of the Confession, as was done by the Marrow-men, who were accused in 1720 of teaching contrary to the doctrine of the Confession that assurance is of the essence of faith. It should be noted that the Confession speaks of a complex assurance, resting in part on the promises of God, and in part on the evidence of the inward graces wrought in the life of believers and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It calls this the “infallible (full) assurance of faith,” and asserts that this is not necessarily enjoyed by believers from the very moment that they accept Christ by faith. So understood the teaching of the Confession does not materially differ from that of the Reformers and of the other great Protestant Confessions, though there is undoubtedly a difference of emphasis. It may also be regarded as significant that the Confession, speaking of faith, says: “This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.” How can faith grow into this full assurance, if assurance is not, in any sense, of the essence of faith? Moreover, the Confession also takes the position that, though believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted, “yet they are never utterly destitute of that seed of Cod … out of which, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.” We fully agree with Shaw, when he says in his Commentary on the Confession: “But although the assurance described in this chapter (the full assurance referred to above) is not essential to faith, yet there is an assurance which belongs to the essence of faith, and this our Confession recognizes in the Chapter which treats of saving faith.”


----------



## B.L. (Feb 24, 2020)

RFPA just sent me an email highlighting David Engelsma's upcoming volume "Unfolding Covenant History: From Samuel to Solomon - Volume 6". 

Has anyone read any of the volumes from this series? Are they worthwhile reads? Any minefields to avoid?

Thanks.

_(I skimmed through the posts in this thread to see if the series was referenced already and didn't see it discussed; forgive me if I've missed it.)_


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 24, 2020)

BLM said:


> RFPA just sent me an email highlighting David Engelsma's upcoming volume "Unfolding Covenant History: From Samuel to Solomon - Volume 6".
> 
> Has anyone read any of the volumes from this series? Are they worthwhile reads? Any minefields to avoid?
> 
> ...


I have the earlier volumes (thank you, HK, for the gift). The earlier volumes (1-4) are Homer Hoeksema's, and are sermonic in style. They cover the raw biblical material fairly well, and take the reader through the conquest of Canaan. As I recall, they do not fail to draw attention to a good many prophetic expectations of the text oriented to NT fulfillment.

D.Engelsma picked up the thread, using a similar style and approach. The books are not written at more than a high-schoolers comprehension. I think they are probably ideal for a family devotional study.

In preaching through the book of Genesis, I would time to time glance at these volumes to see if there was a point or an insight I missed, which might be a helpful addition. I can't say I was ever dependent on them; but I don't want that to leave the impression I don't believe the volumes could be of benefit even to a pastor, particularly one who lacks a good foundation in OT interpretation with a Christological orientation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------

