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

[Reformed Covenanter]

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This method of interpreting a historical document reminds me more of postmodern relativism than something that you would expect from those committed to objective truth.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.

 

[timfost]

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]

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.

 

[psycheives]

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?

 

[TylerRay]

"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!

 

[B.L.]

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!

 

[psycheives]

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.]

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.

​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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?

 

[psycheives]

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.

 

[B.L.]

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!

 

[Nate]

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.

 

[Steward]

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.

 

[Steward]

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]

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 ...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

---<Moderating>---

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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 ...

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.

 

[B.L.]

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!

 

[Pilgrim]

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]

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.

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]

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).

 

[yeutter]

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.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

@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.)

 

[Nate]

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.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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]

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

 

[psycheives]

@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.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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.