Thoughts on the PRC

[Deleted member 6112]

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

I'm not so sure:

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

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

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

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

 

[yeutter]

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

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

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

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

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

 

[yeutter]

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

 

[yeutter]

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

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

John Gerstner Against the Well-Meant Offer:

John Gerstner Against the Well-Meant Offer – CPRC

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

Venema on John Murray also denying the Covenant of Works:

Recent Criticisms of the Covenant of Works

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

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

-----

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

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

The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers – CPRC

-----

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

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

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

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

 

[yeutter]

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

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

 

[Nate]

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

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

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

Herman Hoeksema, on Conditions 1

As to Conditions (1)

www.prca.org

‘And when it is said that God establishes His covenant with us, or that we are saved, “on condition of faith and obedience”, the impression this expression makes upon the minds of the people (and not without reason) is that the will of man is one of the determining factors in the matter of salvation. And thus, on the wings of a term, one instills nolens volens [unwilling (or) willing : like it or not] the Arminian heresy into the minds and hearts of the people.’​

​

‘The question is, of course, whether faith may be presented as a condition of salvation, and whether the establishment and continuation of God’s covenant with us is in any sense of the word contingent upon our fulfilling the conditions of faith and obedience. This, unless we juggle words, is the plain and simple meaning of the question, and in this simple form it certainly will stand before the minds of the people.​

​

‘But I dare say that, in this sense, the term condition not only has no room in the Reformed system of doctrine, but is, as far as our Confessions are concerned, thoroughly unreformed.​

​

‘For our Confessions uniformly present faith not as a condition which we must fulfill, but as a God-given means or instrument empowering the soul to cling to Christ and to receive all His benefits, and that is a radically different conception from that of condition. And as far as obedience or walking in the way of the covenant is concerned, also this is never presented as a condition but rather as the fruit, in fact, as the inevitable fruit, of our being engrafted into Christ.​

​

‘Let us consult our Confessions on these points.​

​

‘In the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day VII, question and answer 20, we read: “Are all men, then, as they are perished in Adam, saved by Christ? No; only those who are engrafted into him, and receive all his benefits, by a true faith.”​

​

‘Notice that faith here is the spiritual means or, as it is often called, the instrument, whereby we are engrafted, incorporated (ingeljfd, einverleibt) into Christ. This is an entirely passive notion. Man has nothing to do with it. Besides the Word of God plainly teaches us that this instrument is given us of God. Man does not have the power to believe in Christ of himself. This, too, is taught by the Heidelberg Catechism in the next question and answer, which reads as follows: “What is true faith? True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His word, but also an assured confidence which the Holy Ghost works, by the gospel, in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given me by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merit.”​

​

‘The point is, of course, that if faith is an instrument which God uses and works in the heart of man, it certainly cannot be, at the same time, a condition which man must fulfill in order to obtain salvation, or to enter into the covenant of God. How different the sense of question and answer 20 of the Catechism would become if we would read: “Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ? No; but only those that comply with the condition of faith, and receive all his benefits.” I am well aware, of course, that those Reformed theologians that favor the term “conditions”, usually add that God Himself fulfills all conditions. But this is plainly camouflaging the truth that there are no conditions which man can or must fulfill to obtain salvation.’​

​

‘Also here, let me point out, there is no room for anything man can or must do. We are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by a true faith and of that faith the Holy Ghost alone is the author. Where would there be any room for the notion that faith is a condition unto salvation? There is no room for it whatever.’​

Charles, I don't think this is unbiblical, or against the Reformed Confession (3FU). When the Philippian jailor said to Paul, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas said to him, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house" (Acts 16:30,31,32), and he believed. This is consistent with the remarks of HH above.

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

-----

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

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

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

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

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

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

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

 

[JFSolis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not that complicated.

 

[yeutter]

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

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