I have been advancing a defense of Sword and Shield. I have answered the opponents of the magazine regarding their fallacious condemnation, based on article 31 of the Church Order, of the mildest statement in the magazine relating to synodical decisions. On the basis of their arguments, the Christian Reformed Church was right for casting out the fathers of the Protestant Reformed Churches, who when the truth was at stake did exactly what the opponents of Sword and Shield condemn. Those fathers would not sacrifice the truth and their convictions for ecclesiastical procedure, especially not corrupt procedure. These opponents of Sword and Shield should write letters to the Christian Reformed Church, in which they apologize for their fathers’ schismatic behavior.

I will not sign my name to any such letter. I think our fathers were courageous for the stance they took, even if now some are apparently embarrassed about how those fathers defended their actions.

The understanding of the Formula of Subscription by many of these critics is, to put it mildly, atrocious—one that is simply an invented and self-serving interpretation of the venerable Formula to bolster their attempts to denigrate the Sword and Shield magazine as schismatic.

All the hubbub about article 31 and the novel interpretation of the Formula of Subscription are manufactured distractions. Everyone knows where this magazine stands on the important synodical decision of the Protestant Reformed Synod of 2018. The magazine was started in part to explain that decision, not to criticize it: to explain it, not to criticize it! The manufactured controversy about the magazine and criticism of the magazine are wholly unjust, and the critics know this. The critics know that the editors of Sword and Shield, by their protest and blog writing, were involved in the controversy that led to the decision of Synod 2018. The critics also know that the editors, by letters to the Standard Bearer, were also involved in the aftermath of the 2018 synod. Nothing we wrote then is any different than what we write now. The critics know that the editors of Sword and Shield rejoiced when the 2018 synodical decision was taken and have labored hard to see to it that it was upheld. Yet the critics stubbornly persist in denigrating the magazine, caricaturing it, smearing it with false criticisms, and whipping up unfounded fears about criticism of ecclesiastical decisions.

By continuing to do this, the critics bring suspicion on themselves that their criticism and opposition to the magazine are not principled at all, as they would make them out to be, but rather, that their criticism and opposition arise out of malice, use fearmongering as a weapon, and amount to little more than unrighteous agitation against a holy endeavor. No one who is honest can possibly doubt that the magazine has nailed its flag to the mast of the Reformed truth and intends to teach it vigorously and polemically. Opposition to the magazine is opposition to the propagation of the truth.

The opposition is also hypocritical because, while the opponents vociferously state that the editors should protest if we see the things we see and authoritatively insist that protesting is the only way to deal with disagreement in the churches, they freely fling the mud of accusations of schism, slander, agitation, radicalism, and antinomianism—all via public letters and articles, oftentimes without the candor to name those against whom they are writing. Charges of sin fly freely. Sometimes they are merely threatened and other times they are made, and then the men who make them, encountering a little resistance, retreat and do not even have the principle to retract their charges but let them lay.

I am not surprised by any of these reactions and accusations. I do not regret them either, and they will not turn us from our purpose. I expected them and worse when I signed up for this work.

My questions to our critics are these: Why all the fear about a magazine that is committed to explaining a settled and binding synodical decision that the editors believe is in harmony with the Reformed confessions and Church Order? Do the opponents of the magazine not want this decision brought up any more? Do they not want the decision explained and its implications pointed out? Do they want people to remain ignorant about the decision?

This was part of the problem leading up to the formation of Sword and Shield. Those who had the responsibility and the forum to explain the doctrinal controversy utterly failed to do so. Indeed, they could not have explained, for many of them were responsible for the decisions that had to be overturned.

Ignorance of what Synod 2018 decided and its seriousness cannot continue.

And regarding the broader purpose of the magazine to comment on attitudes and practices, also in the Protestant Reformed Churches, and to explain Reformed doctrine and life, what could possibly be objectionable in a magazine with these goals? What could possibly be harmful in having a forum that freely expresses the truth and its application to every area of life? Only someone committed to censorship and ecclesiastical elitism and hierarchy, in which only a select few are accorded freedom to express themselves, could object to such a magazine. Only those gripped by an unreasonable and unfounded fear could be troubled by such a magazine.

All this unjust, unfounded, hypocritical, and unprincipled opposition to Sword and Shield has merely served to convince me more and more that the magazine is necessary. I did not know how much ignorance there was of principles that I had understood were taken for granted in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I did not understand how much opposition there was to explaining a synodical decision of these churches and calling the doctrine that was condemned exactly what it is: a lie; a compromise of the doctrine of justification, which men cannot compromise without endangering their souls and the souls of those who hear the lie; a threat to the unconditional covenant, which is supposed to be Protestant Reformed peanut butter and jelly; and a false doctrine that displaced the perfect work of Christ (!) as the only foundation of the believer’s approach to God. I did not understand how readily men gave in to the temptation to be political in the church and to use disreputable tactics to attack something they fear without reason and to shut up believers from exercising their liberty to confess Christ. Now I do. And it makes me more committed than ever to continue to exert myself against that evil spirit that would silence the truth of God and the condemnation of the lie.

Sword and Shield is necessary as well in connection with the defense of the doctrines of justification by faith alone, the unconditional covenant, and the sufficiency of Christ’s work over against a false doctrine that threatened them. Sword and Shield is necessary over against attempts, first, to minimize that threat and, second, to change the enemy and battlefield in that controversy from a works principle of salvation to antinomianism—attempts that are ongoing.

The minimization of the false doctrine and thus of the doctrinal threat to justification and the unconditional covenant began before Synod 2018 and continued at Synod 2018 itself. 

Prior to Synod 2018 the popular line was that the disputed statements did not constitute a denial of the faith, an attack on the doctrines of grace, and serious false doctrine, but that the critics of those statements were antinomian. Or, in a milder form, the popular line was that the statements were not wrong—no new doctrine was being taught—but it was just a confusion about words, an unnecessary controversy whipped up by radicals. The word was that everyone involved basically was teaching the same doctrine, but perhaps only with a different emphasis. The word very loudly was that we definitely were dealing with a very serious threat of antinomianism in this controversy. The very introduction of the charge served to minimize the real issue and the serious false doctrine at the heart of this controversy.

At Synod 2018 a speech was given on the floor of synod in which the delegates and all those in attendance were instructed that there were not two sides in the issue before synod and that we all believed the same thing. Shortly after Synod 2018, the substance of that speech was printed in a Standard Bearer editorial, part of which I quote here:

The other point of this history [of the conditional covenant controversy in 1953] is that the Protestant Reformed Churches are well grounded on the doctrines of sovereign grace and the unconditional covenant. Coming to synod were not two groups of elder and minister delegates with opposing theologies. No one may imagine that in the PRC one group wants to have works contribute to salvation, and another group does not. It is not that one group has leanings toward Federal Vision theology, and another group opposes it. It is not that one group teaches justification by faith alone and another justification by faith and works. It is not that some want an unconditional covenant, while others want to make room for conditions in the covenant. All the delegates of synod, representing the churches well from a theological point of view, were and are committed to the theology of justification by faith alone and an unconditional covenant, rejecting Federal Vision and all such like heresies. (Russell Dykstra, “Synod 2018: Obedience and Covenant Fellowship,” Standard Bearer 94, no. 18 [July 2018]: 414)

I, for one, did not agree. I was not one with, and never would be one with, the doctrine that had to be judged at synod and that had been approved by so many. The fact is that the protested doctrine represented a side—a side that had to be condemned. Some believed it. Some thought that to oppose it was antinomian. Some could not condemn it and were not offended by it but bent every effort to explain it as orthodox and good Protestant Reformed theology: a consistory, a classis, and many highly-placed men, for example.

It was a strange speech because it prejudiced the judgment of the delegates at synod before they had a chance to deliberate on a committee’s advice that would shortly come before them. If we all believed the same thing and there were not two sides to the issue, why was the matter before synod, and why was there so much controversy? If it was true that no controversy existed, then the doctrine that synod was called upon to judge could be explained away as fitting into accepted Reformed theology and the creeds, as a consistory and many classes had already decided.

The speech also struck me as proud. If we were so well grounded in the truth of the unconditional covenant and so well understood the truth of justification by faith alone, why did the churches have this problem? Why could many not understand that the statements of the protested sermons were false doctrine that compromised justification by faith alone? And still more, the speech seemed to proceed from the very dangerous and proud attitude that Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” It seemed to me that we thought that we were so well grounded and so well instructed that we could not possibly err in these doctrinal matters. But we had, and we did, and many came to that synod thinking that the protested doctrine was perfectly fine. The vote for the decision was not at all unanimous.

That attitude continued in a speech after the synodical decision to condemn the doctrinal statement of Classis East because it “contains…the similar doctrinal error of giving to our good works a place and function out of harmony with the Reformed confessions” (Acts of Synod 2018, 80). In this speech a delegate informed all the delegates and many witnesses that he believed the doctrinal statement, had taught the theology of it all his ministry long, and intended to keep doing so. For all I know, he has made good on his threat of rebellion against synod.

Minimization of synod’s decision to condemn the doctrinal error continued when a July 2018 Standard Bearer editorial instructed: “Synod did not declare this error to be heresy. Synod did not state that this teaching denies the unconditional covenant or justification by faith alone.”

And, ratcheting up the rhetoric, an ugly threat was added:

Let this be clear. Anyone who, from this date on, concerning the minister, consistory, committee to assist the consistory, or Classis East, anyone, I say, who alleges that those individuals or ecclesiastical bodies taught heresy, or justification by faith and works, or Federal Vision, or a conditional covenant, is guilty of slander. Such a one must be rebuked. Slander against officebearers, such serious slander, is the devil’s tool to divide the church of Jesus Christ. This is the sin of schism, a sin so serious that officebearers are deposed for it. And members excommunicated for it. (“Synod 2018: Obedience and Covenant Fellowship,” 415)

So the problem now is not the false doctrine—displacing the perfect work of Christ, giving to the believer’s good works a place and function out of harmony with the Reformed confessions, and compromising the doctrine of justification by faith alone—but the problem is anyone who actually takes that false doctrine as seriously as it should be taken. These now are the dividers-in-chief. Not the false doctrine but those who would call it that. If someone compromises justification by faith alone, what other option is there except to teach justification by faith and works? But again, that is not the problem. But if you call the teaching of justification by faith and works heresy, then you are the problem.

The editor continued this same line in answer to a letter questioning his analysis:

In that light [“that heresy is a deliberate deviation from or contradiction of fundamental teachings of Scripture as expressed in the confessions”], then, synod spoke not of heresy—teaching that directly contradicted the confessions, or teaching that clearly deviated from the confessions. Rather, synod spoke of certain doctrines being “compromised.” The word “compromise” can have various shades of meaning. The sense that best captures it here, I believe, is “injure.” Perhaps an illustration is in order. One can speak of a human body’s immune system being compromised by a virus. One can speak of a virus compromising the security of a computer. Something is present that ought not be. Something needs to be stopped. If it is not, it will do serious damage to the entire system—take over the body’s immune system, or, permanently shut down the computer. This is a serious matter. (Russell Dykstra, “Response,” Standard Bearer 95, no. 1 [October 1, 2018]: 12)

So we are told that synod did not speak of heresy, which is defined as a teaching that directly contradicts the confessions or clearly deviates from the confessions. But the statements condemned by synod so clearly deviated from the confessions as to be shocking and glaring in their deviation. If one rereads the statements or hears them read, they make the believer’s heart quiver in fear for the offended honor of God and glory of Jesus Christ and in terror at the thought of approaching God by our works. But we are told that the condemned statements are not a clear deviation from the confessions.

Then again we are instructed:

So likewise, the teaching which Synod 2018 rejected compromised other doctrines and had to be stopped. If the teaching went farther and the logical conclusions were completely drawn out, it would eventually contradict these doctrines as set forth in the confessions. As such, the statements were injuring these important truths—creating confusion or contradictions regarding the place and function of works in justification and the covenant. Nevertheless, the statements did not explicitly contradict the confessions. Partly this is due to the fact that these were statements on matters that the confessions had not spelled out. So, to use synod’s language, while the statements did not contradict the confessions, they were not “in harmony” with the confessions’ teaching on the place and function of good works. (“Response,” emphasis added)

This analysis would be laughable if it was not so dead serious. The doctrine condemned by synod “did not explicitly contradict the confessions”? There were “statements on matters that the confessions had not spelled out”? Are we to believe that the confessions do not spell out the doctrine of the perfect sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the truth of the unconditional covenant? How could this even be written and taken seriously as a legitimate analysis of what happened for four years in the Protestant Reformed Churches? Besides, some of the condemned statements were in sermons on specific Lord’s Days of the Heidelberg Catechism, in which the clear teaching of the Catechism was corrupted by the false doctrine of works. Still more, synod used the confessions, and nothing but the confessions, to condemn the doctrine. If the doctrine did not contradict the confessions, how could it even be condemned?

All of this served to weaken and undermine the seriousness of the false doctrine condemned by synod and the seriousness of synod’s condemnation of the erroneous statements. This has been the line ever since. There was no serious false doctrine but only the beginnings of a deviation that had to be stopped before there was a real problem. Thankfully, we stopped it and can now move on. This has been the attitude because where, if not in Sword and Shield, has that decision ever been explained?

Whether or not synod called the erroneous statements heresy is beside the point. Whether or not a man intended to compromise the truth in statements he made is immaterial to the analysis of the statements themselves. Whether or not a man deliberately teaches heresy—and so is a heretic—is unrelated to whether what he teaches is heresy. The only authority for the definition of heresy is scripture, specifically as summarized by the Reformed creeds. Synod’s condemnation of the erroneous statements as displacing the perfect work of Christ and compromising justification by faith alone and the unconditional covenant is what matters.

The apostle Paul and the Holy Ghost name the compromise of the doctrine of justification by faith alone by anyone—though he be an angel from heaven or the apostle Paul himself—and for whatever reason as heresy and pronounce a fearsome anathema on those who impenitently do that (Gal. 1:8–9). By good and necessary consequence, since justification is the heart of the gospel of the covenant of grace, the apostle Paul and the Holy Ghost pronounce the compromise of the unconditional covenant to be heresy. The apostle and the Holy Ghost also teach that such a heresy makes Christ of no effect; and if you are justified by law—which was what was being taught—you are fallen from grace (5:4). It is not ours to decide whether a particular form of the denial of these doctrines is heresy or not. When a teaching is condemned as compromising the doctrine of justification, we are called to submit ourselves to the Spirit’s analysis and likewise condemn it as heresy, regardless of the what, why, or who of the compromise.

Regarding contradicting the creeds, synod’s statement that the erroneous doctrine was out of harmony with the creeds is what matters. To be out of harmony with the creeds is the same as contradicting the creeds. It is unbecoming word games to teach an essential difference between the two. Both describe deviation from the teaching of the creeds. The deviation in this case was from the creedal, Reformed doctrines of justification, the atonement, and the unconditional covenant, so that the disharmony was of the greatest importance. To use a musical allusion for the language of synod, the disharmony was a jarring dissonance from the central melody of the gospel, totally out of place and a corruption of the melody of the gospel.

There is nothing more serious and nothing with greater consequences—eternal consequences for the minister and his hearers—than compromising the doctrines of justification and the unconditional covenant. There is nothing more serious for the office of a Reformed minister than being out of harmony with the creeds. The Formula of Subscription does not allow officebearers to be out of harmony with the creeds. For being out of harmony with the creeds, officebearers are put out of their offices. There is nothing of greater consequence for the true church of Christ in the world than the compromise of justification by faith alone because that article marks the standing or falling church.

Worse, in my mind, for grappling with the seriousness of the false doctrine involved was the introduction of the charge of antinomianism into the controversy. The whole charge of antinomianism was a stinky red herring, its introduction even more inexcusable in light of the original sermon on John 14:6 and protest of that sermon, which started the whole controversy. If there was a text in which a minister could be excused for never bringing up the works of the believer at all, or better, for condemning those works as having nothing at all to do with access to the Father, it is a sermon on John 14:6. Christ in the text points at himself and declares, “I am the way,” and says by implication, “You are not!”

But that is not what happened. To that we turn next time.