A Failure of Leadership

The title of this article is taken from Hosea 5:1–2:

1. Hear ye this, O priests; and hearken, ye house of Israel; and give ye ear, O house of the king; for judgment is toward you, because ye have been a snare on Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor.

2. And the revolters are profound to make slaughter, though I have been a rebuker of them all.

The occasion for this editorial is recent decisions of Synod 2024 of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). The truth of these verses applies to these decisions, the men of that synod, and the denomination that the synod represented.

Through the prophet Hosea, God prosecutes his case against apostate Israel. At first God dealt mainly with the infection that had plagued the whole nation. If we are to characterize the infection that plagues the whole Protestant Reformed denomination, then we must say that she is inebriated on the doctrine of man. She cannot get enough of man and man’s works and man’s abilities. If we are to characterize the recent synodical decisions that are the occasion for this article, we must characterize them in the same way: man! Do not slight man! Do not slight man’s works!

Earlier during the prophet’s exposure of the people, God had addressed the false prophets and the alien priests only in passing in order to blame them for the failure of the people and to let the false prophets and the alien priests know that they had not escaped the Lord’s notice and that he would hold them accountable. They were the proverbial wicked judges in the earth. Now, however, in Hosea 5:1–2 God through the prophet turns on the leaders in full fury and notices the people only in passing in order to show what the leadership of these men had begotten.

The state of the church is the result of her leadership. In this text God through Hosea addresses the people—the house of Israel—to show them who their leaders are and that those leaders have not escaped God’s notice. But his main address is focused on the leadership of the nation of Israel, upon whom he lays the blame for Israel’s apostasy from him and the people’s stubborn pursuit of their own evil doctrine and way of life.

The apostasy of the church of Christ from Jehovah God is to be blamed on the leadership. God put the leaders in positions of authority and gave to them the calling to lead. God lifted the leaders up and gave to them from the height of their offices a viewpoint or vantage point from which they are to warn, exhort, and rebuke with all longsuffering, so that by these means God saves his elect people.

And in that calling to lead, God gave specific instructions to the leaders about how they are to lead and what they are called to do in that leadership. It is not up to them to decide what good leadership is. God defines and has defined what good leadership looks like, what good leadership is, what failure in the leadership is, and when there is failure in the leadership. When there is failure and apostasy in the leadership, then that has its inevitable fruit of the apostasy of the church. The church cannot go in a different direction than the men in positions of leadership. Thus also in the text God directly and pointedly puts the blame for the church’s departure on the leadership.

God through Hosea begins his accusation of the leaders of Israel by a characterization of all their work. Ungodly men in positions of leadership when the church is apostatizing preen themselves on their abilities as leaders and on their great wisdom to know what is and what is not good for the church. It is very natural to man to suppose that he is what he is not. So the priests and princes of Israel prided themselves on their abilities as leaders. They were wise; they were looking out for the best interests of the church; they were concerned for the church’s holiness; and especially they were concerned for the peace and unity of the church. Thus they had presented themselves and demanded that the church follow them.

Those men would have become very angry if someone had told them that they were unwise and wicked. And God does exactly that in Hosea 5:1–2. He says, as it were, to the priests and princes, “All your leadership—indeed your whole existence in and involvement with the work in the church—is a snare and a net by which many people are captured by all manner of evil and are led down to hell.” This is the main thought of these verses: the leaders, the very best of them and the most highly praised of them, are snares and nets by which men are destroyed. Instead of being the instruments to save men, they are the instruments for men’s destruction.

Understand that Jehovah addresses by means of the prophet all Israel as Israel is represented in her heads. Jehovah’s main rebuke here is not addressed to the people as such. We would say that his main rebuke is not addressed to the man in the pew. The man in the pew the Lord calls to have a seat in the Lord’s judgment, to listen in and pay attention to the Lord’s accusation against the leaders.

Into that judgment Jehovah arraigns the priests and the household of the king, or the princes and all the king’s counselors. Jehovah addresses them as they have led Israel astray, so that the current state of Israel is the result of their leadership and decisions. God deals with the church corporately. The judgment of God falls on the whole church when there is sin and iniquity. And yet the leadership is particularly to blame. If a household is full of iniquity, the judgment of God does not spare the children; nevertheless, God particularly blames the father and the mother. So here God says to all the people that they must listen to him, yet his focus is on the leadership of the nation.

When God says “priests,” he means the false priests of the calves. They were not priests. They were rebellious and revolters from God. But he calls them priests according to their own confessions and according to the honor that the people gave to them. The people called those intruders into the office—the false, deceptive, and lying men— ministers, and so God deals with them according to the office that they held in the nation. And God addresses them as priests, as those who were charged by God to instruct. According to the law the priests’ lips should drop knowledge. And the priests were charged particularly with warning everyone about transgressions of the law. When someone had transgressed the law, the priest was to make a sacrifice for him, to make intercession for him, and to assure him of the forgiveness of his sins for the sake of the Lamb that was slain. The priests were to be concerned with the law of God. The task of the priests was to condemn and convict of sin by means of the law, and they were preciously and gloriously tasked with justifying believers from that condemnation of the law. Further, the priests were to point believers to the fruits of thankfulness that they were to render for all God’s benefits unto them. The priests were to seek the glory of God and the salvation of God’s people in all things. In a word, the priests were to consecrate God’s people to God in the fellowship of the covenant. The priests were charged with bringing God’s people to God that they might be his peculiar and special heritage, his dwelling place, and his family. And the priests were to do that especially by justifying the people through the sacrifices of Christ from all those things that they could not be justified from in the law.

When Jehovah through the prophet speaks of the priests, then he means the ministers of the word. Hear, O ministers of the word, who were charged by God with both the government of the church and especially with preaching the word of the gospel that reveals the righteousness of Christ, so that he who is just by faith shall live! Listen up, O people, as God shows you who your ministers are.

And right along with the priests went the princes. God calls them “the house of the king.” This refers to the whole entourage of the king and includes all the mechanisms, meetings, and functions of government. The princes too were false, and the whole kingship was an instrument of rebellion against God and Christ, God’s Son. The princes had rejected Christ and made themselves lords over God’s heritage. And the people accorded those displacers of Christ all sorts of honors. Thus God addresses them as princes, calling them the king’s household. They were the overseers in the church. They too had been charged with seeing to it that the word of God was not despised and that God received all the glory in the church. In the language of the Old Testament, they were watchmen. In the language of the New Testament, they were to watch out for wolves, especially those who would come out of their own midst. In the language of the Reformed Form for Ordination of Elders and Deacons, the princes are to guard the purity of doctrine and to caution every one against his ruin. They represent, in short, the government of the church with its consistories, classes, synods, committees, and all the decisions that are taken and made in that capacity as rulers of the church.

A Terrible Charge

God’s charge is that the leadership of Israel, the church, was “a snare on Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor.” Tabor and Mizpah were place names. Tabor and Mizpah were mountains or mountainous places. Mizpah means to watch. It was the place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made their covenant that the Lord would watch while they were apart and that they would never pass that place with the intention to harm the other. But the key word is watch. Mizpah was a lookout, a high place, from which one had a commanding view of the whole country of Gilead. Gilead was the rich pastureland on the east side of the Jordan River, a place well worth defending. Tabor was the strategic hill in the Jezreel plain. Tabor was a high and distinct conical mountain that arose strikingly from the surrounding plain. Barak had holed up in Tabor before he defeated Sisera. If one controlled Tabor, he controlled the Jezreel plain; and if one controlled the Jezreel plain, he basically controlled the west side of the Jordan River and any travel to the north and south. Tabor was strategic for the defense of the whole promised land.

In mentioning Tabor and Mizpah, the Lord says, as it were, to the priests and the king’s household, “I set you in a high and strategic place for the purpose that you watch over all Israel and keep Israel safe, so that you be the instruments for the salvation of my people and the glory of my name. You are to watch, and you are to warn of any danger. You have a controlling view of all the people, and the whole nation is before you. You are to be vigilant watchmen.”

But the priests and princes were not diligent watchmen, so Jehovah accuses them of being “a snare upon Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor.” A snare is a trap for catching animals, and a net refers to netting or mesh in which little birds are captured. The priests and princes were not consecrated to the glory of God. They were not instruments to save men, but they were a snare and a net: instruments for the destruction of men. Instead of warning the people of danger, they ensnared them and trapped them. Understand that Jehovah is saying that the officebearers—the ministers, the elders, the deacons, and the professors of theology—were not watchmen. They did not instruct, correct, rebuke, and warn. They trapped and ensnared the people. The officebearers were not watchers for souls. They were hunters of souls. They hunted men; they made sport of the ministry and their offices to hunt and to capture souls.

And they did so to keep those souls.

And do not miss the point that Jehovah does not say merely that those men put snares in the people’s way and spread nets upon Tabor, but he says also that those men were together and in conspiracy with one another a snare and a net. In their very existences in the church; in the very ways in which they thought, talked, preached, worked, and wrote; in all that they were and in all that they did, they were collectively and in league together a snare and a net. One could not be around them without being ensnared, and one could not go near them without being entrapped. They were a snare and a net.

They were that in the very high and lofty places that God had given to them. It is one thing if a man has no position or influence. Very few will be ensnared and entrapped. But those men were a snare upon Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor. They used the very voices, the offices, the positions, and the influence that God had given to them to trap and to ensnare men.

And God says to Israel to listen up that the people might know with whom they were dealing. They had as their officebearers—their priests, their elders, and their ministers—men who were a trap and a snare for the destruction of the whole nation.

And there is something sinister in Jehovah’s description of the officebearers as a snare and a trap, and at the same time there is something pitiful in the people who were led by such men. It is the mercy of Jehovah to so point them out to the people. The sinister thing about the men is that they did this deliberately. They had an agenda. They were hunters who deliberately set out and set their traps. That description of them describes the subtilty of their work too. They were devious; they were subtle; they were crafty; they were intentional. The hunter goes to hunt and to capture; he is intent on his prey; his thoughts are how to catch the prey and how to make sure the prey does not escape. And the people are taken as wild birds or as wild beasts. The people hardly see what is coming. They are trapped, and before they know it, they are damned.

When the minister sees the doctrinal error that threatens the church and he hears in that the judgment of God knocking, but the minister does not expose the error or fight against it and instead writes about the exact opposite error, then he is a snare and a net. For example, if the error is about justification, then the minister writes that the error is antinomianism. Or, while men are denying the grace and sovereignty of God, the minister writes that the trouble is that men do not do enough good works. He is a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor. When a minister labors with might and mien to talk straight false doctrine, then he is a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor. When the elders will not take false doctrine and heresy into hand—they will not condemn those who teach false doctrine and remove them from the ministry for their wicked doctrine, but the elders excuse the false doctrine—they are a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor. When a minister teaches false doctrine and he does so to test the waters to see what he can get away with, then he is a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor. When the minister—who is charged to preach the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ for the justification of God’s people so that the one who is righteous by faith lives—displaces Christ and corrupts the truth of justification, then he is in his very existence in the church a snare and a net for the destruction of men’s souls.

And when God’s people finally flee the destruction to come, then the elders who come to talk straight the dreadful situation in the church and to dissuade the people from leaving by making excuses for the evil or giving false assurances that the elders are going to labor to make things right are a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor.

When apostasy takes root in the church, then that did not come out of nowhere. That is not the result of one unfortunate error or several unfortunate errors on the part of some ministers. That is the work of men who lived
and worked in the offices as hunters of men instead of as pastors of souls.

But even more, God is the hunter who set his snares and his traps. In God’s anger and as judgment, he gave that church men who would ensnare the people and destroy them rather than to warn them and save them. These are men by whom God is judging the church that did not please him and judging a people to whom he did not give the love of the truth so that they might be damned. These men cannot be anything else. They might say, “But I am going to work hard to save souls.” They are nets and snares and cannot be anything else. In all their efforts to save souls, they destroy souls. Men use their high and lofty positions to capture men and souls and to entangle them in an error from which they cannot be extracted apart from the grace of God.

Personal Wickedness

The men in office are nets and snares because they personally are wicked. Are they good and spiritual but misguided men? Are they right and honorable but mistaken men? No, they are wicked men. They demonstrate that by the very activity of entangling souls in their false doctrine. The hunter is intentional in what he sets about to do. He does his work with all the skill he can muster.

Those men in Israel were intentional in what they did. They deliberately corrupted their offices; they used all the power of their positions and persuasion in writing, speaking, and ruling to ensnare men and to trap them in a net from which they could not escape.

God does not identify the officebearers’ motivations for trapping and ensnaring the people. Undoubtedly, many motives were involved in their actions. The motives were idolatry, outward adherence to the nation of Israel, addiction to their self-chosen lifestyles, and love for their free and easy lives. They tried anything and everything to ensnare the people in the false doctrine and false worship of the calves. There even may have been something to the suggestion of one commentator who said that the priests and princes used fear and intimidation to keep men from going up to Jerusalem and to the worship of God in the temple. Those officebearers tried with all their might so that the people did not go to Jerusalem and thus that they would not go to Christ and to worship God in the temple.

Undoubtedly, there was a strong element of self-preservation. This was one of the reasons that Jeroboam made the golden calves at Dan and at Bethel. He understood that if the people went up to Jerusalem, then they would soon return to David. Jeroboam then would be revealed as the rebel and an imposter and a wicked man, and the people would kill him. And so too those ministers, elders, deacons, and professors of theology whom God calls priests and princes had a strong element of self-preservation in what they did. They had to trap the people because if all the people left and returned to David, all the officebearers’ means of support, all their honor, and all their positions would disappear, and that they would not tolerate. They had to snare the people not only because the princes and priests were snares and nets but also because that was the only way they could retain their honor, their livelihoods, and their positions. If the people left, the priests and princes would be exposed as frauds, imposters, and ungodly men.

When a doctrinal controversy comes into the church, the snares and the nets must be spread. The controversy must be downplayed. The good must be called evil and the evil called good. The lie must be promoted as the truth and the truth rejected as the lie. Cunning and crafty words must be used, whereby men lie in wait to deceive. Smooth and oily words must be employed to mollify concerned spirits. Good words and fair speeches must be used to deceive the hearts of the simple. In those activities the men are revealed to be exactly what God calls them: a snare and a net.

God not only accuses and exposes the priests and princes, but he also gives the deep and underlying cause of their behavior in the church when he says, “Though I have been a rebuker of them all.” God was in his church. God worked in his church by his word. God was to preach through the priests. God was to rule by the princes. God was to rebuke and to instruct and to correct by those means. God was. God rebuked. God rebuked in his word. God rebuked by the prophets. God rebuked by applying that word to his people’s hearts. The priests and princes worked for God, and as such they were supposed to be God’s visible representatives and to defend his glory and honor. But they served themselves. They would not suffer God to rule in his own church. They would manage the church. They would tell everyone what was wise, what was best, and the way forward. They would not do this from the word of God but by their own means and by being wise in their own conceits.

Understand that God says not only that he was supposed to be the rebuker of them all, but also that he was the rebuker of them all. God was the rebuker of them all. He did not leave himself without a witness. He rose up early, and he instructed them. The charge against the priests and princes becomes even more grotesque and their own wickedness becomes more vile when we understand that though those men were not bringing the word, God did bring the word. He brought the word by the mouths of his servants, the prophets. Hearing that word and understanding that word—perhaps better than any others, for God had given the priests and princes their high places—they fought against that word and labored to steal it from the people. The prophets came preaching, and at their Sunday coffees, ministers’ lunches, and officebearers’ conferences; in their studies; in their emails, letters, sermons, and speeches; in their decisions in consistory meetings, classes, and synods; and in all that they did and said, the priests and princes labored deceptively to steal the word away from the people. The entire message of the priests and princes over against the rebuke of God was that it was not the rebuke of God. Their word to the people over against the word of God that had come to them was that it was not the word of God. And they hardened the people not only in the people’s sins but also against the word of God. The priests and princes ruled by their whims and commandments, and they justified them all with a Bible text, a neat turn of phrase, or a captivating or an intimidating demeanor. But they would rule. God would not rule.

A Sure Judgment

That is why the church can only be ruled by the word. It is the word of Christ alone, or it is rule by hunters of men. You have the word of Christ alone, and you have a faithful church. And that word of God keeps and saves the church. Or you have rule by these kinds of fowlers and hunters of souls, and you have apostasy as the result, and many are destroyed by these instruments of destruction.

For with their deceitful existences and cunningly crafty words, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, the hunters and fowlers turn the church of God into a slaughterhouse of souls. So God says, “The revolters are profound to make slaughter.” God calls the whole lot of them “revolters.” They are rebels from God and his word. They are a pack of rebels against the word of God, and in their rebellion they make a slaughter of souls, generations, whole churches, and denominations.

The word “slaughter” can mean sacrifices. And more pointedly what God does in his accusations of these men and their deceitful behaviors in the church is to take aim at their doctrine. That is the test of whether you are dealing in the church with a pack of fowlers and hunters who are a snare and net in their offices, or whether you have God come to you through a minister of his word. Doctrine is the test. God is aiming at their doctrine. If one had called those men wicked, then the whole nation of Israel would have risen in defense of them to say how holy they were and what great pastors and teachers and ministers they were and what good elders they showed themselves to be. But God says that all their sacrifices are a great slaughter when men who are ensnared by them are destroyed. God points out that all their religion; all their sermons, speeches, and articles; and all their professions of love for the church—let us just say all their piety, all that one heard coming from them that sounded religious—was a net to capture men. And they did not make sacrifices in which men were justified through the justifying blood of Jesus Christ, but denying that they turned the church into a butcher house in which souls were slaughtered.

And this slaughter the priests and princes made large—“profound.” Far and away the majority of Israel was carried away with those men’s deceptive presence, their false piety, and their fake religion. Many were deceived. Many simply followed the crowd like a flock of birds driven into the net. And such was the power of those men, that if it were possible all Israel would have been ensnared and destroyed by them.

But such is not the will of God.

For the corruption of their offices, for their ensnaring of men, and for their destruction of souls, they will have their judgment. God does not suffer them to continue in wickedness until they have swallowed up all his people. He says, “There is judgment to you, O priests, and to you, O princes, because you have been a snare on Mizpah and a net spread upon Tabor. You used your high and lofty positions to ensnare men in your own errors.” The priests and princes were supposed to judge righteously according to the law; they were supposed to uphold the law and instruct in it; they were by sacrifices to justify men from the law through the blood of Christ. They were to point men away from their works to the mercy of God, who promised a sacrifice for sin. The priests and princes were supposed to be the instruments of men’s salvation, but they were instruments for men’s damnation. And they will destroy. Many will follow the pernicious ways of the priests and princes, by whom the way of truth will be evil spoken of. And they will be judged. They and the people whom they snared will be destroyed.

For his people God will cut a hole in the net, so that they will be like little birds that escape free. God will. Such was the power, such was the danger, of these men, and such was their cunning craftiness that if it were possible the very elect would be deceived. Unless God cut a hole in the net, all Israel would have perished under the leadership of those men. God does not will that his people are forever enslaved and so held captive by these snares and nets. And so we stand here today.

Thoroughly Apostate

The truth of Hosea 5:1–2 applies to the recent Synod 2024 of the now thoroughly apostate denomination of the Protestant Reformed Churches. The thorough apostasy of the denomination is evident in the recent decision that she took in the doctrinal case involving the false teacher, Rev. Kenneth Koole. Kenneth Koole had been weakly and ineffectually charged with the sin of false doctrine by the consistory of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church for teaching that there is that which a man must do to be saved, that good works contribute to the possession of one’s salvation, and that good works likewise contribute to the assuring of souls of their justification. The case finally came to the Protestant Reformed synod. The recent synodical decision is the naked denial of the doctrinal truth of justification by faith alone, and as such the decision is the evidence yet again, if more evidence were needed, that the ministers of the PRC along with the other officebearers, the lot of them, in cahoots together, are a snare and a net. The men who wrote the advice, put their names to it, and brought the advice to the floor of synod and the men who voted for it are enemies of the gospel of grace and deniers of the truth of justification by faith alone. The church that adopted the committee’s advice is false, and the people who stay in that church will be destroyed by the lie, having been ensnared by these men.

Committee three of pre-advice took nine pages to say in effect that there is not that which man must do to be saved, but in fact there is that which man must do to be saved; good works do not contribute to the possession of salvation, but good works do contribute to the possession of salvation. One can hardly believe that seemingly intelligent men adopted and presented to synod such a piece of wicked nonsense. One would be inclined to write off the advice as a farce. But the men at synod were serious.

The first piece of advice was to reject the appeals of three appellants against the February decision of the Protestant Reformed Classis East, which had ruled that the consistory of Grandville church had “erred when they made a judgment that Rev. Ken Koole was guilty of the public sin of teaching false doctrine without proving this from Scripture or the Confessions.”¹ The point was not that Grandville’s consistory did not appeal to scripture and the confessions absolutely, as though the consistory had high-handedly sucked its judgment of Rev. Ken Koole out of its thumb. But the point was that the decisions of Synod 2018, to which Grandville did refer, are not equivalent to proof from scripture and the confessions. The advice read,

Although Grandville does use the decisions of Synod 2018 in its judgment, which decisions made reference to Scripture and the confessions, the decisions of Synod 2018 are not the equivalent of biblical and confessional proof. (1)

No one is arguing that the decisions of a synod are equivalent to scripture and the confessions. What Grandville did was to show how the decisions of Synod 2018 applied in the Koole case and thus that the biblical and confessional foundation of the decisions applied in that case. This is all very simple and clear to men who are not hell-bent on saving the retirement and the reputation of a false teacher. Because, remember, there cannot be false teachers in the PRC. No. No.

Then the advice continued and gave this rich piece of nonsense:

A minister is certainly called to “live up to” the decisions of Synod; his failure to do so would make him liable to the charge of schism or a charge of false teaching, but that charge of false teaching would have to be grounded in Scripture and the confessions. (1–2)

What this piece of hocus-pocus did was to make the supposedly settled and binding decisions of the PRC worthless. Every case must be tried and argued anew from scripture or the confessions. The synod created the condition in which false teachers and their teachings flourish. Then the committee also lied when it said that if a minister does not live up to a decision of synod, he makes himself liable to the charge of false doctrine. If a synodical decision cannot be the ground of a minister’s condemnation, then he will never be charged based on that decision. For all her shouting about settled and binding, the PRC’s official decisions are dead letters, including the decisions of Synod 2024.

But the reality of committee three’s advice according to Hosea 5:1–2 is far worse. The advice was the work of those who, as judgments from God, in their entire existences and in all that they do in the church, are a snare and a net to hunt, capture, and destroy the souls of men by entrenching them in believing the lie, so that they who receive not the love of the truth might be damned. The advice—the whole thing—was doublespeak and deception. Under the appearance of right, the officebearers at synod did the wrong. Under the appearance of truth, they promoted the lie. The ministers who were involved in bringing the recommendation to the floor—Rev. Joshua Engelsma, Rev. Daniel Holstege, Prof. Cory Griess, and Prof. Brian Huizinga—have shown themselves by this piece of advice to be adept at ensnaring and entrapping men. They made the show that they want the gospel of salvation by grace alone. But their show was empty, and in the end their show was deceiving, ensnaring, and damning. Cunningly and with crafty words, they insinuated the lie into the minds of men and presented it as the truth. Appearing to defend the truth, they promoted the lie. Appearing to desire the salvation of the church, they will be for the damnation of many. Employing smooth words and fair speeches, they deceived the simple.

Tricky Words

Their lie could not be more serious. Their sacrifice—their doctrine—is a charnel house of souls. For that doctrine is the wicked doctrine of justification by faith and works.

The second piece of advice was the following:

That synod sustain the appeal of Grandville PRC consistory regarding Statement #1 (“Scripture teaches that something must be done that we may be saved”) and make the judgment that: a) Statement #1 by itself is erroneous, and b) Rev. Koole’s explanation and use of Statement #1 was erroneous. (2)²

The men at synod do not believe this advice.

The fact is that every minister in the PRC subscribes to Koole’s explanation of Acts 16:30–31 regarding the Philippian jailor, who asked the apostles in prison, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Koole applied the phrase “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do” first to faith.³ He wrote that in October 2018 with the approval of all the ministers who defended the idea that there is a sense in which one can say that faith is what man must do to be saved. They supported Koole all the while he savaged Herman Hoeksema’s exegesis of the same passage, in which he taught that when the apostles said to the jailor, “Believe,” that meant do nothing because that is what faith is in its very nature. Faith is passive in the reception of salvation. The theology of Koole that faith is what man must do to be saved lurked behind the committee’s piece of advice too. In response to Koole’s contention that “when the Word is preached, there must be a response…in a positive, submissive, obedient way…a ‘responding’ to the word in a willing, active manner,” the committee wrote that this does not refer to works but “is the call to faith” (3–4). Faith is man’s willing, obedient, active response to the call of the gospel. Grandville’s consistory itself, for all its categorical denials that there is something that man must do to be saved, allowed for Koole’s teaching that faith is that which man must do to be saved—by grace, of course. It was categorically an uncategorical denial. The advice did not even address this crucial issue that was staring the men in the face. If the statement “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do” is erroneous in itself, then what of the regnant teaching in the PRC that faith—by grace, of course—is what man must do to be saved?

What Koole did later was to develop that theology with perfect logic and apply it to works. The call of the gospel is repent and believe. If there must be a response to the gospel, and if in that response to the gospel a man may teach that faith is what man must do to be saved, then it follows, indeed, is demanded, that repentance—works—are what man must likewise do to be saved.

And the men on the committee, too, showed that they do not believe what they said, for they added a bunch of useless twaddle:

While Reformed theologians hundreds of years ago used language similar to this and carefully clarified and explained it in an orthodox manner…the statement as such without explanation and qualification should be rejected and not used. (3)

Here the men on the committee, who a few sentences ago had proposed that the statement by itself is erroneous, showed that they did not mean that the statement as such is erroneous. They meant that there can be a proper explanation and qualification. What could possibly be the explanation and qualification that would allow the phrase to be used? Is it erroneous as such or not? It is erroneous as such. Scripture does not teach that there is that which man must do to be saved. Faith is not what man does to be saved. Repentance is not what man does to be saved. Good works are not what man does to be saved. Scripture, in fact, in its answer to the question, what must a man do to be saved? categorically denies that there is anything that a man must do. Scripture does this when its answer to the question is to believe! That believing is the work and doing of God, who works in his elect both to will and to do of his good pleasure and all things in all.

Further, when the men on the committee were dealing with Koole’s explanation of the phrase that there is that which man must do to be saved in its relationship to works, they made a distinction without a difference. Koole wrote that good works are necessary to have “the personal experience of one’s own salvation and one’s enjoyment of it” (3). This is what he meant by the “‘possession’ of salvation.” The committee condemned Reverend Koole for writing that and then distinguished Koole’s position from the committee’s: “Our personal enjoyment of salvation is received by faith and enjoyed in the way of the good works which are the fruit of true faith” (4).

What? Koole wrote that good works are necessary to have “the personal experience of one’s own salvation.” The committee said nothing different. The men just sugarcoated their poison pill with the phrase “in the way of good works.” Koole wrote nothing different, as the committee admitted when it said, “Rev. Koole appealed…to the language of ‘in the way of.’” There is no difference between these two positions at all. What Protestant Reformed lay person, let alone a Protestant Reformed clergyman, can possibly distinguish the two positions? The clergy and people cannot distinguish the two positions because there is no difference. The committee said that the personal enjoyment of salvation comes in the way of good works. Reverend Koole wrote that good works are necessary for the personal experience of salvation. The point of both is that without good works of obedience to the law there is no enjoyment or experience of salvation. Faith is not enough. Christ is not enough. God’s election is not enough. But one must also obey!

But the committee, seeming to slam the door shut on the idea that there is that which man must do to be saved, in fact, left the door open a crack. The trickers, they must have had something up their sleeves.

Subterfuge

The third piece of advice was the following:

That synod sustain the appeal of Grandville PRC consistory regarding Statement #2 (“We must accurately distinguish between a right to life and the possession of life. The former must be assigned to the obedience of Christ, that all the values of our holiness may be entirely excluded. But certainly, our works, or rather these, which the Spirit of Christ worketh in us, and by us, contribute something to the latter”)… (4)

The synod judged statement two to be erroneous.

It is important to note for future reference that the committee in its rejection of the statement latched onto the word “contribute.” The committee defined the word as to “give…in order to help achieve or provide something” and to “help to cause or bring about” (4). The main point was that is it very bad in the PRC to say that good works contribute to the possession of life. Note well that the advice did not say that good works do not contribute at all. In fact, the committee found that good works do contribute if that contribution is, of course, carefully defined:

Rev. Koole’s explanation of the language “contributes to” as referring to the “various ways God is pleased to bring manifold blessings…to self and others,” was not erroneous doctrinally. (5)

So good works do not contribute to the possession of salvation, but good works do contribute something—by grace, of course. Many blessings come by the contribution of good works. According to the committee’s definition of “contribute,” good works help to cause those blessings, to bring about those blessings, and to help achieve and provide for those blessings. Good works do not have a “place of contribution to some element of our salvation,” but it is orthodox to explain that good works contribute something (5).

The jokers, they must have had a trick to play yet.

In the fourth piece of advice, we catch the tricksters in their legerdemain when they advised this:

That synod not sustain the appeal of Grandville PRC consistory regarding Statement #3 (“Hence, I conclude, that sanctification and its effects, are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to is justification”). (6)

There is not that which man must do for salvation, but there is that which he must do.

Good works do not contribute to the possession of salvation, but they do. There is one vital aspect of salvation, the possession and enjoyment of salvation, to which good works do contribute. Indeed, good works are not to be slighted in considering that contribution. That one vital aspect of the possession and enjoyment of salvation to which good works do contribute is the assurance of justification. And make no mistake: the assurance of justification is justification. They are one and the same. Good works contribute to justification. Indeed, good works are not to be slighted in this regard.

All the other statements were only so much subterfuge. Here is the prize: good works contribute—help—assure souls of justification!

There is no room for justification by faith alone in the committee’s advice. The committee quoted some Bible passages and cited a couple of articles from the creeds, but the committee never harmonized its advice with the clear teaching of the creeds that one is justified by faith alone without works.

Acting like so many unscrupulous defense attorneys throwing up dirt to cast doubt on the obvious guilt of their client, the committee kicked up some possible meanings for the offensive doctrine of statement three. The committee wrote,

Statement #3 could be read as saying that works may serve as a confirmatory evidence to one who already has the assurance of his justification that he is in the faith, and thus that he is justified by faith. (7)

The fact is that this is just a deceptive restatement of what Witsius and Koole wrote clearly. Good works are not to be slighted when assuring souls of justification. Do not worry about slighting the perfect work of Christ. Do not worry about slighting the grace and the glory of God. Do not worry about slighting the work of the Holy Spirit. But do not slight the works of man in assuring souls of justification.

The committee gave all its caveats and warnings about this doctrine, but its doctrine begs the question: If good works are not to be slighted in assuring souls of justification, then how much do the good works contribute to that assurance? And if one has the assurance of his justification, why would he need to find additional assurance in his works? And still more, the men on the committee should know as good church historians that this doctrine of Witsius that Koole resurrected has a history of use. The doctrine was used to point troubled souls—not assured souls—to their justification, which use only troubled those souls more, except they were unbelievers.

Giving evidence that the men on the committee know all this are their cautions regarding the use of statement three. The committee advised synod, “While this statement is not necessarily in error, we ought to be cautious about how we use it” (7). All their cautions are a joke. Caution regarding the usage of a doctrine is the refuge of heretics everywhere. If you must caution about the use of your doctrine, your doctrine is wicked and a lie. You do not have to caution about the use of the truth. The truth is beautiful and lovely beyond description. The truth is beautiful and as gracious as God himself and as Christ himself. The truth is as lovely and pleasant as the Holy Spirit who teaches truth and comforts men with it. The doctrine of the men on the committee is wicked because they cautioned men about it. Their “truth” is a lie because they warned men about it.

Knowing their doctrine to be a lie, they believe their own lies. Such is God’s judgment of the men of the PRC. Such is the way of God with those who hold the truth down in unrighteousness. Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools, and God darkens their foolish minds. With the heathen they make an idol; and knowing that the idol is not God, they worship the idol as God, and they believe their own lies. In the church they know that their idol god who saves in the way of good works is not God, and they worship that idol god as God.

And these men, who are themselves a snare and a net, have been set by the Hunter, and they have captured souls. I am sure that there might be some handwringing regarding synod’s decisions. There might be a futile bleat here and there. But the handwringers and bleaters will stay in the PRC. When the committee cast its net to ensnare souls, the men made sure to give everyone a little something.