Christ, Not Obedience

I have been advancing a defense of the Reformed periodical Sword and Shield and its publisher, Reformed Believers Publishing. This over against efforts to smear the magazine as divisive. Last time I began a defense of the necessity of the magazine in vindication of the truth over against writings that minimized the seriousness of the false doctrine that was condemned by two Protestant Reformed synods, first in 2017 and again in 2018.

Now I take up the matter of the false charge of antinomianism that has plagued this controversy.

It is essential to understand that the “false doctrine” faced at Synod 2017 (Acts of Synod 2017, 281) and Synod 2018 was the same. It is essential to understand that this “false doctrine” was first exposed in a sermon on John 14:6, which reads: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The following three statements from the sermon were the focus of the protests that came to Synod 2017: “The way unto the Father includes obedience…The way of a holy life matters. It is the way unto the Father…He [Jesus Christ] is the way, your way, unto me, through the truth which he works in your hearts, through a godly life” (Acts of Synod 2017, 315–16, 318).

Synod 2017 sustained protests against those statements.

One of the protests stated,

Adding our good works, that is, us ourselves, to Jesus Christ as the way of the text [John 14:6] to the Father, that is, the way of salvation from sin and death unto justification and eternal life, is both falsification of the text and gross perversion of the gospel of “Jesus Christ alone” and “grace alone,” which gospel of grace the text clearly and powerfully teaches. (Acts of Synod 2017, 281–82)

Another protest stated, “The sermon errs by giving the works of believers a place in salvation that is not in harmony with the teachings of Scripture and the Reformed creeds” (Acts of Synod 2017, 333–34).

Synod 2017 stated over against the false statements in the sermon on John 14:6,

Adding our works to Jesus Christ as the way to the Father contradicts the plain teaching of the text that Christ alone is the way, which is the gospel of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone…To introduce good works and obedience into the text as part of the way with Jesus is to make ourselves in part our own mediator and advocate. (Acts of Synod 2017, 82–83)

Synod 2017 clearly condemned the false doctrine preached in a sermon on John 14:6. The false doctrine was the perversion of the gospel of grace by adding our obedience to Jesus Christ as part of the way to the Father, so that Christ plus our obedience are the ground, or reason, for our coming unto God.

The appeal at Synod 2018 concerned false doctrine that had been preached in sermons on different texts, but the issue was not different.There was not a new false doctrine that synod had to face, but the same false doctrine showed itself in various sermons. This is clear because Synod 2018 identified the false doctrine: “The doctrinal error is that the believer’s good works are given a place and function that is out of harmony with the Reformed confessions” (Acts of Synod 2018, 61). What confessions in particular? Lord’s Days 23 and 45, both of which have to do with the believer’s access to God. These Lord’s Days are John 14:6 in creedal form. The corruption of the gospel of both Lord’s Days was the same, namely, making our good works part of the way unto the Father.

In the sermon on Lord’s Day 23, works were made part of the way to a subjective justification in the sense of knowing the pardon of sin. Works were made part of justification by means of a fallacious distinction in the sermon between God’s courtroom of objective justification, wherein works were excluded, and the subjective courtroom of our hearts, wherein works were included. So the sermon stated the false doctrine in bald form:

What is James [in chapter 2] speaking of? He’s certainly, beloved, not speaking of that objective, legal justification…in God’s courtroom…How can I be justified in God’s holy, pristine courtroom by my works?…

But there is, of course, that other courtroom…There’s that courtroom that exists within our hearts…within our mind. And that’s what James [v. 21] is speaking of. Abraham was justified, that is, in his heart. He became aware, he became more conscious of the justifying work, of God’s declaring him righteous…how?

By looking at his works and giving a proper evaluation of those works. (Acts of Synod 2018, 67–68)

So the sermon taught that James and Paul both spoke of justification in the same sense as pardon of sin, but the difference between James and Paul was justification in different courtrooms. The sermon taught that works were part of the way to the Father in subjective justification, in our hearts and minds.

This is shocking. For the justification of the sinner in his heart and mind is the main sense in which scripture speaks of justification. And the Reformed creeds and scripture teach that this justification is absolutely without works and is by faith alone and on the basis of Christ alone. Christ is the only way to the Father.

In the sermon on Lord’s Day 45, works were made part of the way of approach to God in prayer. So the sermon taught the following:

What do the creeds say about the relationship between obedience and fellowship? That there are requirements…

The Catechism says: Come to God that way, meeting those requirements, meeting those demands of God for a proper prayer, and you can be assured you will enjoy the fellowship of God. (Acts of Synod 2018, 65)

Works were again made part of the way to the Father. The sinner is in part his own mediator and advocate.

Now over against all of this, the word of the gospel is not by works! Works cannot be put away too harshly or thoroughly in this regard. The whole subject of the believer’s access and approach to God is a matter of faith in Christ alone because it concerns how the believer, who is a sinner, will be justified. The believer’s access to God concerns how he will be acquitted before the perfectly righteous God, how he will stand before God, and on what basis he will ask for things from God. That basis can only be Christ and his perfect righteousness received by faith alone. Central to the issue of coming to God, access to God, and the way to God is the issue of justification because only if God forgives sins can the sinner, also the believer, stand before God.

Proper distinctions must be made on what issue we are talking about. Martin Luther is instructive here in his commentary on Galatians 2:17. Galatians 2:17 reads, “If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” One can take the text to mean an objection by opponents against the doctrine of justification by faith alone that it makes men careless and profane and thus makes Christ the minister of sin. Or, my preferred interpretation, one can take the text to mean that those who teach justification by faith and works make Christ a new lawgiver. Those who teach justification by faith and works teach that our justification is by Christ and also by the works that Christ works 
in us.

But Paul says justification is either / or. It is either all Christ and no works, or it must be all works and no Christ. And so if we are justified by Christ and still are found sinners who have to be justified by the law, then Christ is a minister of sin and no savior at all. He does not take away sin but only reveals that we are still sinners who have to be justified by the law. And such a doctrine teaches that Christ and his incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection really accomplished nothing for us because, although we have Christ, all he did was leave us as sinners who still have to be justified by the law.

Regardless of how one takes the text, the point Luther made about it is true.

We do make a distinction here; and we say that we are not disputing now whether good works ought to be done. Nor are we inquiring whether the Law is good, holy, and righteous, or whether it ought to be observed; for that is another topic. But our argument and question concerns justification and whether the Law justifies. Our opponents do not listen to this. They do not answer this question, nor do they distinguish as we do. All they do is to scream that good works ought to be done and that Law ought to be observed. All right. We know that. But because these are distinct topics, we will not permit them to be confused. In due time we shall discuss the teaching that the Law and good works ought to be done. But since we are now dealing with the subject of justification, we reject works, on which our opponents insist so tenaciously that they ascribe justification to them, which is to take Christ’s glory away from him and assign it to works instead.

We must understand that the issue before the Protestant Reformed Churches was justification, and this is true because the central matter before the synods of 2017 and 2018 was access to God, the way to the Father. Thus the issue was grace versus grace and works regarding access to God. The way to the Father is Jesus Christ by faith in his name and without works. All the talk about good works, calling, and obedience was a near total failure to distinguish, as Luther insisted that we must, when the issue before the churches was access to God and thus was justification (and by extension the unconditional covenant of grace).

The Charge of Antinomianism

An inexcusable part of this controversy, then, has been the introduction of the charge of antinomianism against those who said that the way to the Father does not include works, preaching the law, and obedience, but is a way of pure grace on the basis of Christ’s perfect obedience alone.

Antinomianism was first charged at the consistory level. Elder Neil Meyer was charged with antinomianism and deposed from his office. The connection between his objection to preaching obedience as part of the way to the Father and the charge of antinomianism against him was most clearly and succinctly stated by Classis East in January 2016:

Mr. Meyer’s objection to the three statements of the sermon…preached in the context of the calling of one saved by grace, constitutes an objection to preaching the necessity of obedience and good works for the life of the child of God. (Decisions of Classis East, quoted in Acts of Synod 2016, 108)

Now it must be remembered that Mr. Meyer objected to statements in a sermon on John 14:6 that obedience is part of the way to the Father. So classis said that to deny that obedience is part of the way to the Father in John 14:6 was ipso facto antinomian. That judgment was grounded, according to the statement of classis, on the idea that the one addressed in the preaching is “saved by grace.”

So the idea becomes, if you are a regenerated, called, believing child of God—“saved by grace”—a preacher can and must call you to come to the Father by Christ and your obedience. A preacher can and must preach to you the necessity of your obedience and good works in order for you to come to the Father. To object to that and to say that the way to the Father is a way of pure grace that excludes—absolutely excludes—your obedience is antinomian.

That is a novel species of antinomianism. That is to charge the gospel with being antinomian. For the gospel of John 14:6 is that Christ is the only way to the Father. Christ is the way, and you are not, and you have Christ by faith alone through grace alone.

The charge of antinomianism was an entirely false charge.

This false charge led to other extraneous issues being introduced into the controversy: works in the life of the covenant believer, the callings and admonitions of scripture, and the place of the preaching of the law. The false charge of antinomianism was the only reason these issues came up, and they were distractions from the issue of Christ as the only way to the Father. The false charge of antinomianism was a red herring that flagrantly misled the churches when the battle was about Christ as the only way to the Father, at the heart of which stood the issue of justification by faith alone.

Reverend Koole repeatedly takes issue with this assessment and contradicts it. He wrote,

I take exception to the notion that the issue of antinominaism [sic] was extraneous to this controversy with its ensuring [sic] debate. Contrary to your assertion, it was not a “red herring.” It was plain from the outset that the orthodoxy of the phrase “in the way of” was part of what was being challenged, as in, “Is fellowship with God (its ongoing enjoyment), as well as reassuring one that he is a believer, to be found (experienced) in the way of obedience? And, is obedience unto godliness (that is, the ‘must’ of good works) to be preached and exhorted with that reality in mind? (Kenneth Koole, “Response” [to David J. Engelsma, “Faith as a Doing?”], Standard Bearer 96, no. 4 [November 15, 2019]: 85)

Recently, he instructed the following regarding Herman Witsius’ response to antinomianism: “What we in our denomination are presently dealing with has pedigree” (Kenneth Koole, “Herman Witsius: Still Relevant,” Standard Bearer 97, no. 4 [November 15, 2020]: 81).

His public analysis of the controversy began this way:

What we touch on in this editorial are issues that are not only relevant to a proper understanding of the Canons and of the historically defined Reformed faith, but to issues being discussed in the PRC of late, namely, grace and godliness—the life of good works—in the life of the child of God; in particular, how the life of godliness relates to grace, and to faith, and then to the preaching of the gospel itself with its call to faith and godliness. (Kenneth Koole, “What Must I Do…?” Standard Bearer 95, no. 1 [October 1, 2018]: 6–7; emphasis added)

So the issue being discussed in the Protestant Reformed Churches is supposed to be “the life of good works.”

Later he defended his analysis: “It [the article “What Must I Do…?”] was occasioned by the discussion on the various issues raised by the controversy. And one of the large issues was (and continues to be) ‘What is to be judged as antinomianism?’” (Kenneth Koole, “A Charge Answered,” Standard Bearer 95, no. 4 [November 15, 2018]: 81).

So he states again that “one of the large issues” facing the Protestant Reformed Churches is antinomianism and has been antinomianism.

A False and Dangerous Charge

He must understand that the problem with his analysis is not disagreement that the churches face antinomianism from time to time. The problem with his analysis is that the false charge of antinomianism arose in the churches’ controversy about statements in a sermon on John 14:6 and the subsequent revelation of the same false doctrine in other sermons dealing with justification and our approach unto God in prayer. The gospel in that context says that Christ is the only way, and you and your obedience are not the way. This was judged by some to be a species of antinomianism, a threat to preaching obedience and the callings and admonitions of scripture, and an attack on the language of “in the way of.” This has been the message since Synod 2016. It was not the message of Synod 2016 and subsequent synods. It has been the message in spite of the decisions of the synods.

This message must be rejected as a false analysis of what was at issue in the Protestant Reformed Churches and what they must consequently be warned against in the present controversy. The false analysis is not merely false, but also dangerous. It is dangerous because it threatens the gospel of grace as that was defended in the proper explanation of Christ as the only way to God. The calling to do good works, the value of good works, the use of the phrase “in the way of,” and the preaching of the law were only at issue insofar as those things were used to teach that Christ and our works of obedience are part of the way to the Father. When a minister declares as the gospel that good works are part of the way to the Father, and then when the believer calls him on that lie and the minister defends his false theology by an appeal to “in the way of,” the believer can be excused for thinking, “Well, if that is what ‘in the way of’ means, I want no part of it.” The fault, though, is the egregiously false doctrine.

What Reverend Koole fails to see, or will not see, is that the calling to do good works, the calls to obedience, and the use of “in the way of” were not threatened by those who objected to the false preaching, but these were threatened by those who used the calling to do good works, calls to obedience, and the phrase “in the way of” to defend heresy—specifically the heresy that our obedience is part of the way to the Father—thus compromising justification by faith alone and the unconditional covenant. The defenses of the John 14:6 sermon and other bad sermons were almost entirely made by quoting at length a goodly number of Protestant Reformed ministers who wrote using the phrase “in the way of,” as though the phrase had much to do with the proper explanation of John 14:6. It was as though the fact that this phrase had a long and venerable use in the Protestant Reformed Churches—beginning with Herman Hoeksema—
was justification for the explanation of John 14:6 as including the believer’s obedience as part of the way to the Father. It was as though because the phrase had been used in our churches it had to be part of the explanation of John 14:6.

But the exact opposite is true. The believer’s obedience must be excluded from the way to the Father, which way is Christ alone. It is not antinomian to deny—and with some vigor—that good works, preaching the law, and the rest have anything to do with the way to the Father. It is egregiously misleading to suggest that objections against the false doctrine that good works are part of the way to the Father are antinomian or open the door even a crack to antinomianism, because to say so is to say that the gospel opens the door to antinomianism and is suspect of antinomianism.

Beginning a defense of the necessity of good works, the preaching of callings and admonitions, and the rest from that standpoint of this false charge of antinomianism also makes that defense suspect. It is suspect because these necessities were all defended very vigorously in the service of defending a sermon that perverted the gospel and taught obedience and good works as part of the way to the Father in John 14:6 and similarly in sermons on other scriptural texts and Lord’s Days. The problem is not teaching the necessity of good works, the preaching of callings and admonitions, or using the words “in the way of,” but the problem is the use to which these things are put. If they are put to use in the service of a doctrine that teaches that good works and obedience are more than fruits, that they really do gain with God, that they are part of the way to God and his fellowship, and that the promise of God in the covenant is fulfilled in the way of obedience, they stand in the service of a false doctrine of works-righteousness, and that use is to be condemned as a perversion of the gospel.

In the controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches, that charge of antinomianism was determined by three Protestant Reformed synods—2016, 2017, and 2018—to be without basis. How can it not finally be agitation against synod to keep bringing up antinomianism as the major issue, or even part of the issue, in the churches’ controversy? How can that not be regarded finally as militancy against the synods’ analyses of the controversy? How can that not be finally regarded as an inexcusable misleading of the churches?

Yet the whole idea of antinomianism as part of the controversy continues to hang around. It has never been allowed to be laid to rest. The charge of antinomianism continued to come to Synod 2017 and Synod 2018, and three synods said the charge was not true, yet not without battles and severe disagreement.

The charge began to take on a life of its own. The statements that were charged with being antinomian became divorced from the John 14:6 sermon and the protest against which the charge of antinomianism was raised. Concerted effort was made in a protest and in connection with that protest to prove that some of Mr. Meyer’s statements were antinomian, and this by means of an appeal to the definitions of antinomianism by avowed enemies of the gospel of grace and the unconditional covenant, such as Mark Jones.

Some still wrongly claim that antinomianism is the issue in the Protestant Reformed Churches, an issue that Synod 2018 failed to deal with. Antinomianism is not the issue—not in the form in which it is being described, that is, being against good works and preaching the law and the callings and admonitions of scripture.

The introduction of the false charge, the continual drumbeat about the dangers of antinomianism in this controversy, and the wild flinging of accusations against ministers and members for tending to antinomianism or being antinomian have allowed the fiction to take root in the minds of many that the Protestant Reformed Churches were really facing two issues at the synods. They were facing, on the one hand, those who would make obedience part of the way to the Father. On the other hand, they were facing those who objected to that teaching. The idea took hold that the objectors were in principle antinomians, and the reasons they objected to obedience being made part of the way to the Father was their objections to any and all preaching of the law, preaching of commands, and preaching of the callings and admonitions of scripture; and they were against the language of “in the way of.”

That the idea took hold in the minds of many that the controversy faced by the churches was in part, even in large part, about antinomianism was inexcusable because Synod 2016 had addressed the matter decisively: the protestant is not an antinomian; he is not against preaching the law; he is not against preaching commands and admonitions. But he is against these things in the preaching regarding how believers come unto God. It is not antinomian in the least, does not betray even a whiff of antinomianism, when one vigorously contends that works have nothing to do with our coming unto God but that we come to him only by faith in Christ—Christ who is the only way to God.

I do not know how to get rid of this approach that has so hindered the easy condemnation of the lie and that has set up this false enemy, except to insist yet again: the controversy in our churches had nothing, nothing, nothing to do with antinomianism, and those who continue to say that it did are perpetuating a myth—and a dangerous one. The charges of antinomianism in this controversy were egregiously false and false in the most serious matter of the gospel and the believer’s coming to God. The gospel in its insistence that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and that the believer’s obedience is not part of that way was charged with antinomianism!

When someone preaches to me my calling, the law, and the necessity of good works and warns me of antinomianism, my first question to him will be, do you mean as the way to the Father? If so, I will say, “I am not an antinomian; you are a teacher of works-righteousness.”

Antinomianism had absolutely nothing to do with the issue that the Protestant Reformed Churches faced. If we continue to insist that it did, not only are we going to miss the seriousness of the false doctrine that cropped up in our churches, but we are also going to end up denying the gospel yet again. For if a man is suspected of antinomianism for insisting that the way to the Father is a way of pure grace that does not include our obedience at all, that we leave our obedience at the door when we go to God, and that in coming to God our standing before him has nothing at all to do with our obedience—or in the words of Luther, if we do not properly distinguish what the issue is and, therefore, what the answer of scripture is—we will make the very same mistakes again.

If the question is whether the law is good and we must obey it and do good works, then we say yes. If the question is, how does the believer come unto God, then we say no; in the matter of the believer’s access to God, we are not talking about the law or good works or obedience at all, but Christ and his perfect righteousness alone. That is not antinomian.