A Tale of Two Protests

Introduction

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was an age of reformation; it was an age of a great falling away. It was a time of the truth; it was a time of the lie.

Hear now a sad tale of two protests.

In the year of our Lord 2025, set before Classis East and the Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) were two weighty protests: One in the form of an appeal to classis and the other a formal protest to synod. Both were concerned with the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone. In both the appeal and the protest, the main themes presented were that teachings in the PRC depart from scripture and the Reformed confessions, undermine the gospel of grace, lead to a teaching of justification by repentance, and compromise the heart of the gospel, which is the truth of justification by faith alone—the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.

For ten years, serious doctrinal issues have been laid before the PRC at her ecclesiastical assemblies. There has been continual doctrinal unrest. Even after the so-called schismatics—those who now make up the Reformed Protestant Churches—left, the PRC’s Acts of Synod has only grown in size.

Seven years ago, the now-infamous Synod 2018 convened. The judgment of the synod was that

the doctrinal error of the sermons then compromises the gospel of Jesus Christ, for when our good works are given a place and function they do not have, the perfect work of Christ is displaced. Necessarily then, the doctrines of the unconditional covenant (fellowship with God) and justification by faith alone are compromised by this error.¹

The doctrine of justification by faith alone had been compromised. The perfect work of Christ had been displaced. This was the PRC’s own judgment of herself back in 2018.

Since that supposedly monumental synod in 2018, the people of the PRC have been told many times that the synod judged rightly, that errors were condemned, and that the truth prevails in the PRC.

In the March 15, 2021, issue of The Standard Bearer, Prof. Barry Gritters wrote that

there have been errors—doctrinal errors—among us. The errors were serious. We sincerely wish it had not taken so long to correct the errors. We are grieved by how long it took. But in the end, Christ’s Spirit of Truth enabled the churches to identify and condemn them.²

Then followed another editorial by Professor Gritters, in which he wrote,

In 2018 the PRC identified this thief [the supposed thief on the left who takes credit for his works] in the teaching that a believer’s fellowship with God was dependent on his good works, and that more good works brought about better fellowship. The error was also found in the teaching that a believer’s assurance of justification was dependent partly on his good works.

Having put out the error, the churches now must guard tenaciously the truth that our enjoyment of fellowship with God is never because of our obedience, but always and only because of Christ’s.³

Fast forward several years, and especially in The Standard Bearer’s centennial issue, all the sentiments have been similar. Rev. Richard Smit wrote, “Regarding justification, the PRCA continue to maintain that justification is by faith alone.”⁴ Rev. Daniel Holstege attempted to cajole members of the PRC into celebrating the denomination’s centennial in light of God’s chastisement upon the denomination. He wrote,

In the last ten years, the PRC has passed through the greatest upheaval of my lifetime thus far. First, there was the doctrinal controversy that began around the year 2016, intensified in the years 2018-2020, and climaxed in the split of 2021. When a highly esteemed pastor resorted to unruly means and abrasive language to wage war against what he and others considered an invasion of the heresy of works-righteousness, he was deposed for public schism.⁵

For Reverend Holstege the real problem in the PRC was not an actual invasion of the heresy of works-righteousness but bad behavior by a minister and others.

What smooth words. Words as hollow as a drum.

And the delusion continued.

Prof. David Engelsma wrote concerning the PRC’s confession,

For one hundred years, yours has been a clear and splendid confession of the gospel as expressed in the Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons.⁶

And Prof. Barry Gritters concluded the centennial issue by writing,

How thankful we may be that the Lord has preserved us as true churches. Under His blessing we have served Him, even though with much weakness, for 100 years. Under His chastisement we have grown in the last decade—in virtue.⁷

But the two protests tell another tale. It is not a tale of virtuous growth and preservation “as true churches” and maintenance “that justification is by faith alone” but of doctrinal decay. It is not a tale of “a clear and splendid confession of the gospel” but of perennial corruption of the gospel of grace. The doctrinal controversy did not climax in 2021 as Reverend Holstege alleged. In fact false doctrine has continued unabated.

This opinion does not belong only to me. In the material of the appeal that I will consider, the appellant wrote, “Sadly, the teachings [of Professor Engelsma]…and other teachings like it are spreading through our churches.”⁸ The appellant included a section on resulting errors to clearly demonstrate that the false doctrine taught in Professor Engelsma’s missive is far-reaching and has led to many other errors in the PRC. What is very interesting is that this section was declared to be not legal by the consistory of Faith Protestant Reformed Church and was elided from the material sent to Classis East. But if one reads through the appeal material carefully, one can find these resulting errors. The errors are as follows:

1. Repentance is made a condition and prerequisite unto forgiveness.

2. Repentance is made an element of faith.

3. Preaching “repentance AND forgiveness” morphs into “repentance UNTO forgiveness”.

4. Unconditionally forgiving others is called sinful because God’s forgiveness is conditional.

5. Unforgiven people enter heaven and repent of their sins to be forgiven (and now infants are forgiven in a different way than adults).

6. The beautiful “SOMETIMES” of Canons 5:5 is elided.

7. Unforfeitable justification as taught in Canons 5:6 is minimized.

8. Man is made to precede God.

9. The reality of eternal forgiveness is denied or minimized.

10. The reality of forgiveness at the cross is denied or minimized. (50)

I include the errors here so that the reader may see what is inevitable with this false doctrine, and I point out that all these errors have been taught in various ways in sermons, speeches, and writings in the PRC by the likes of Professor Huizinga, Professor Gritters, Professor Cammenga, Reverend McGeown, and Reverend Koole, to name a few.

The leaven that is false doctrine did just what leaven does.

This tale of two protests is worth considering, for it is substantive that after years and years of doctrinal controversy in the PRC, protests such as these have been laid before the Protestant Reformed ecclesiastical assemblies. These protests reveal that after much conflict men have arrived at different beliefs on vital doctrines and demonstrate that there is no comfort for a believer in the false doctrines taught in the Protestant Reformed denomination, for “if our imperfect and incomplete repentance is the means unto our forgiveness then all happiness, peace and comfort is ruined” (41). That one wrote in his protest that “he seek[s] the…comfort of the sheep, in the way of clear and sound doctrine over against error especially in the realm of justification” implies that he recognizes that the sheep’s comfort has been snatched away.⁹

Protest One: Appeal of Mr. Kent Deemter to Classis East

Four years ago, Rev. Clayton Spronk, pastor of Faith Protestant Reformed Church, “positively endorsed and distributed via email” (9) to his congregation a missive written by Prof. David Engelsma titled “‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?’ Non!, or, ‘Kill the Rooster!’”¹⁰ In his missive Professor Engelsma taught, among other things, that “coming to Christ by faith and repentance is the (preceding) means to the (following) end that consists of life and peace” (13). Professor Engelsma also wrote that

such is the necessary relation in these two-fold works of God that without preceding repentance there is no remission, and without preceding faith there is no justification. Remission is by means of (preceding) repentance; justification is by means of (preceding) faith. (14)

Justification by faith and works.

Over two years later, Mr. Kent Deemter submitted a formal protest to his consistory at Faith Protestant Reformed Church against two teachings in the missive: First, that repentance is the means unto forgiveness, and second, that without preceding repentance, there is no forgiveness. He submitted the protest to his own consistory because the missive had been read, endorsed, and then shared via a church email with the congregation for valuable instruction. Mr. Deemter argued that the teachings in the missive “undermine justification by grace through faith, promote conditional forgiveness, and lead to additional doctrinal errors” (9).

Thus began a time-consuming and very lengthy process of protest and appeal for Mr. Deemter. Even those in the PRC would have to admit that Mr. Deemter went the church orderly way.

But as far as Faith church’s consistory was concerned, the consistory “acknowledged the missive could have used more consistent language (e.g., ‘in the way of’ vs. ‘means unto’) but concluded that it did not teach false doctrine” (9).

Mr. Deemter was at pains to elucidate the many passages of scripture that “clearly reveal that repentance is NOT a prerequisite unto forgiveness, knowing forgiveness, or covenant fellowship with God” (28). He demonstrated that the scriptural and confessional proofs that Faith church’s consistory provided do not teach that repentance necessarily precedes remission but that those texts are teaching that repentance is necessary. Mr. Deemter also proved that the Reformed confessions teach that faith in Jesus Christ is the only means unto forgiveness.

The amount of material that Mr. Deemter wrote in defense of God’s full and free forgiveness is substantial. His protest is a thorough and complete defense of the truth. It is obvious that Mr. Deemter has layers of doctrinal understanding, and I have benefited from reading and studying his appeal. What is apparent is that Mr. Deemter defended and promoted Reformed Protestant doctrine to the Protestant Reformed Churches. I share some points that were especially striking.

Mr. Deemter stood in agreement with Rev. Herman Hoeksema, who has written that

the promise of God certainly includes all the blessings of salvation, objective and subjective, all that we objectively have in Christ: reconciliation, the forgiveness of sins, the adoption unto children, eternal life; but also: the Holy Spirit, regeneration, calling, faith, justification in the subjective sense, sanctification, and preservation or perseverance. (24; Deemter’s emphasis)

Mr. Deemter admonished the consistory:

If we maintain statement #3 [that repentance precedes assured confidence of forgiveness]…we must necessarily compromise statement #1 [that faith is assured confidence of forgiveness] or #2 [that repentance is born of faith] to our own peril. (25, emphasis added)

Mr. Deemter also recognized that there is no practical difference between Rev. Hubert De Wolf’s heretical statement that “our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of God” and Professor Engelsma’s teaching that repentance precedes forgiveness. Mr. Deemter wrote,

In 1953, our churches rejected the teaching that ‘our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of God’. Are we now to accept the teaching that ‘repentance precedes forgiveness’? In 2018, our churches rejected the teaching ‘the way unto the Father includes our obedience’. Are we now to accept the teaching that ‘repentance is the way unto forgiveness’? These teachings must be rejected because they displace the perfect work of Christ and compromise the doctrine of justification by faith alone. (31)

Mr. Deemter demonstrated and defended that faith is the only way to forgiveness because “it is by faith that we are united to Christ and His righteousness. Repentance does not unite us to Christ and is therefore not the way unto forgiveness” (42).

When Faith’s consistory went to work in its attempt to show how God uses means in the salvation of his people, the consistory’s fifth example was that “God uses the means of prayer so that ‘God will give his grace…’” (34).

Mr. Deemter succinctly responded,

You say that God uses the means of prayer “so that God will give his grace”. LD45 doesn’t say that we pray “so that God will give his grace”. LD45 teaches that prayer is a necessary part of thankfulness and that asking for grace and giving thanks for the Holy Spirit are necessary marks and characteristics of Christians. God certainly uses means. God bestows his blessing of forgiveness by faith in Christ alone. The means He uses to work faith is the preaching of the gospel. He uses the means of the sacraments to strengthen our faith. This is God’s ordained way. These are God’s ordained means unto consciously knowing our forgiveness. (43)

Mr. Deemter also wrote that his consistory

added “in the way of repentance and confession” to the credal definition of forgiveness. Lord’s Day 21 gives a clear explanation of what is meant by the forgiveness of sins. This Lord’s Day makes no mention of forgiveness in the way of repentance and confession. (44)

Interestingly, when the consistory described justification, Mr. Deemter responded,

Your description fails to set forth the beautiful truth that we are objectively justified at the cross. You state “the cross is the ground of our justification and occurs in time as we are justified by faith”. You entirely miss our objective justification at the cross. Gospel preaching is the declaration of our objective justification at the cross. If we lose this we lose the gospel. (44)

Mr. Deemter went further and wrote, “I believe we are turning the gospel on its head and must repent. If our consistory sustains my protest, I ask that our consistory exert itself to help eradicate these false teachings from our churches to the glory of God” (31).

He also pointed out that “failing to include objective justification at the cross in our explanation of justification in this context is an omission that leads to conditional teachings and compromises the gospel of gracious free salvation” (45).

Mr. Deemter stated, “I reject the teaching that repentance is an element of faith and therefore the means unto forgiveness. As I demonstrated in my protest, this is the teaching of Federal Visionists” (47).

Mr. Deemter even circled back to Synod 2018 to show that by its defense of Professor Engelsma’s missive, his consistory has contradicted Synod 2018. Faith’s consistory in its response taught that repentance (which is a fruit of faith) is the means unto forgiveness, which teaching cannot be reconciled with the principles of Synod 2018. According to Mr. Deemter the principles of Synod 2018 prohibit the PRC from teaching repentance as the means unto forgiveness, and demand that the PRC teach that the means unto or way unto blessings is faith alone.

One can feel Mr. Deemter’s frustration when he wrote,

Another important part of Synod 2018 involved refuting the false teaching that a sanctifying or obedient faith is necessary in order to experience fellowship with the Father. Fruits of faith were wrongly smuggled into the essence of faith itself…Synod declared that we have fellowship with God only through faith in Christ. The missive essentially taught that a repentant faith is the way unto forgiveness. This once again makes a fruit of faith (repentance) into the way unto a covenant blessing (forgiveness). How long halt we between two opinions? Are fruits of faith the means unto covenant blessings or are they lovely benefits in the covenant? (47)

Mr. Deemter noted that “eternal forgiveness is being declared antinomian and forgiveness at the cross is being minimized. Objective realities are being given a back seat to subjective feelings” (49).

Faith’s consistory asked Mr. Deemter, “How do you understand the Holy Spirit’s connection of repentance and the remission of sins in the following passages [Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43]?”

In response Mr. Deemter quoted from a document that he had written and given to Reverend Spronk and Elder Pete VanDer Schaaf on March 21, 2023. Mr. Deemter had written,

This text [Luke 24:47] calls us to preach “repentance AND remission” not “repentance UNTO remission” as was taught in the missive. I do not believe that repentance is the way UNTO divine forgiveness. I believe that God freely confers both repentance AND forgiveness. The ‘UNTO’ view that is being promoted in our churches has no biblical or creedal basis. The ‘AND’ view is in keeping with the ‘double grace’ referred to by Calvin. (58)

Mr. Deemter then proceeded to quote from Calvin:

Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins—that is, newness of life and free reconciliation—are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith…There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument. (58)

For Mr. Deemter, “Through faith we have both repentance (renewal) AND forgiveness of sins (free reconciliation).” Further, he stated that Canons 5.7 “speaks of God renewing us to repentance (newness of life) AND faith (assurance of forgiveness)” (58). He also showed that repentance unto forgiveness is the teaching of Rome and the Judaizers.

Faith’s consistory then asked Mr. Deemter if he believed that Professor Engelsma was teaching something different than Ursinus and Calvin.

Mr. Deemter unequivocally wrote that yes, Professor Engelsma was teaching something different. Mr. Deemter stated that Professor Engelsma “is teaching that we are justified by repentance…that repentance is an aspect of faith against Calvin’s clear warning to the contrary. Calvin: ‘although they [faith and repentance] cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished’ (Institutes 3.3.5)” (63).

Obstinately, Faith’s consistory responded, “We do not see Prof. Engelsma teaching false doctrine, nor anything that can be equated with the doctrine of Rome (your assessment voiced at our meeting on August 21)” (65).

Although Mr. Deemter’s protest was thorough, detailed, and comprehensive, Faith’s consistory stubbornly refused to agree with what he had laid before them. The consistory contended that “these phrases are not false doctrine, but, rather, expressions of the way in which God is pleased to bestow his blessing of forgiveness” (33).

Then, in a letter dated March 11, 2025, Faith’s consistory wrote to Mr. Deemter that they had made it clear to him on two occasions that they were at an impasse with his protest. They reiterated that they did not agree with his interpretation of Professor Engelsma’s missive and were not sustaining his protest.

So, after years of working with his consistory, Mr. Deemter appealed to Classis East.

And what did Classis East do?

After reading the damning material that proved that justification by faith and works was being taught and supported within the Protestant Reformed denomination, did Classis East sustain Mr. Deemter’s appeal? Did the delegates humble themselves and repent for their toleration of the heresy of Rome? Did they commit themselves to eradicating the false doctrine that was being taught in the PRC? Did Classis East impose a Formula of Subscription examination on Professor Engelsma, Reverend Spronk, and the elders of Faith Protestant Reformed Church?

No.

Classis East declared the appeal to be not legally before it.

Classis East said that Mr. Deemter needed to work with Professor Engelsma and the consistory that holds the professor’s credentials, which is Crete Protestant Reformed Church.¹¹ 

Classis East judged that Faith church should never have entered into the matter.

As if Faith church had not endorsed wholesale Professor Engelsma’s missive by sending it to the congregation for positive instruction and subsequently defending the missive.

As if Professor Engelsma had not been sought out already by Faith’s consistory.¹²

As if more conversations with Professor Engelsma were going to produce anything different four years after he had written his missive.¹³

By its judgment—or lack thereof—Classis East upheld the doctrine of justification by faith and works. Classis East showed the PRC’s continued tolerance for false doctrine and the denomination’s refusal to condemn false doctrine and those who teach it. The PRC is not offended by false doctrine. In fact she loves to have it so.

Protest Two: Protest of Rev. Jonathan Mahtani to Synod 2025

Five years ago, Rev. Ken Koole wrote a series of editorials in The Standard Bearer that would become known colloquially as the “Witsius articles.” In those articles Reverend Koole either favorably quoted or left the reader to discern the orthodoxy of the following statements of Herman Witsius: “Scripture teaches that something must be done that we may be saved.”¹⁴ “We must accurately distinguish between a right to life and the possession of life[!]. The former must so be assigned to the obedience of Christ, that all the value 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.”¹⁵ “Hence, I conclude, that sanctification and its effects, are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.”¹⁶

Protests regarding these statements have been flying around the PRC for years, culminating in the judgment of Synod 2024 that the first two statements were indeed erroneous. Masters of compromise that the Protestant Reformed assemblies are, the synod wickedly judged that the third statement, although not a clear statement of orthodoxy, was not erroneous and that Reverend Koole’s explanation and use of the statement were not in conflict with scripture, the Reformed confessions, and Synod 2018. Everyone got a little something.

Sword and Shield has done battle with all three of these statements and the false doctrine contained therein.¹⁷ But my focus in this article is on the third statement, for that was where the eyes of Reverend Mahtani were trained with his protest.

Reverend Mahtani protested the decision of Synod 2024 regarding the third statement, expressing that

by this judgment of Synod, I am aggrieved…for I believe that this decision compromises the heart of the gospel, namely the truth of justification by faith alone—a doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.¹⁸

Reverend Mahtani wrote,

The statement is not merely unclear and misleading; it is false. In fact, it is dangerously false. The most dangerous errors are the ones that include some element of truth. The subtle insertion of falsehood along with what sounds like it could be true is what makes this statement dangerous. It is exactly because Synod has fixated on the true elements in this statement, that it has failed to recognize that this statement as a whole is false doctrine. (302)

Reverend Mahtani understood that by teaching that good works “are by no means to be slighted,” one could similarly say that good works “are by no means to be treated as unimportant or with disdain.” He added,

If there was a period after the word slighted so that the statement ends, I would agree…Good works wrought by the Spirit of God are necessary, important, and part of the thankful life of the Christian. They ought not be slighted.

The problem, however, is that the statement continues, and it narrows the application of its claim to justification. Good works “are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.” The focus of this statement on the doctrine of justification is its fatal flaw. The effect is that this statement forbids the slighting of good works, not just generally, but in the realm of justification!…In so doing, this statement opposes God’s Word, the confessions, and sound doctrine. (303)

Reverend Mahtani then demonstrated his charge from scripture and the Reformed confessions. In this section of his protest, he wrote,

One may argue that this statement is not talking about justification but the assurance of justification. That distinction is part of the deception of this statement…When Scripture and the confessions speak of justification by faith, they mean by it the same thing as “assurance of justification.” In other words “assuring the soul as to its justification” is justification. (304)

Only in the paradox that is the PRC can one use a publication of Professor Engelsma to show that the distinction between justification and the assurance of justification is false doctrine. Professor Engelsma wrote that

the truth is that justification is, essentially is, the assurance of justification by faith alone.

It is false doctrine, a denial of justification by faith alone, to teach that, whereas justification is by faith alone, assurance of justification, really justification’s assurance, is by faith and by good works or by faith and by a mystical experience.¹⁹

Reverend Mahtani expressed this:

My concern is the true humility and comfort of God’s people for God’s glory. If works are not slighted, but rather become part of the assurance of one’s soul as to its justification, then man may proudly look to his good works for assurance of forgiveness after he sins. He may look to his work for the calming of his conscience before he goes to sleep at night. This leads not only to pride but also despair, as the Belgic Confession says: “we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed” (Article 24). (305–6)

As I near the end of this tale of two protests, it is clear that the recurring theme in the protests is the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith alone. And for the second time in the same year, a Protestant Reformed ecclesiastical assembly was asked to judge.

And what did the synod do?

After reading the damning material that proved that justification by faith and works was being taught and supported within the denomination, did the synod sustain Reverend Mahtani’s protest? Did the professors, ministers, and elders humble themselves and repent for their toleration of the heresy of Rome? Did they commit themselves to eradicating the false doctrine? Did they impose a Formula of Subscription examination on Reverend Koole? Did they impose a Formula of Subscription examination on elders Pete VanDer Schaaf and Ed Hoekstra, who also protested to the synod but in defense of Koole’s first two statements—which previously had been declared erroneous—and who believe that Koole’s use, explanation, and promotion of those two heretical statements were right and good?

No.

Synod 2025 did not sustain any of the protests regarding Revered Koole’s “Witsius articles” and thus continued in the judgments meted out at Synod 2024, which were disgusting compromises.

I ask, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). No, of course not. Absolutely not. But the putrefaction of the PRC is manifested in the fact that ministers, elders, lay people, and consistories have “different beliefs on vital doctrines.”²⁰

A Warning

Do you recall the previously quoted words of Professor Gritters?

In 2018 the PRC identified this thief [the supposed thief on the left who takes credit for his works] in the teaching that a believer’s fellowship with God was dependent on his good works, and that more good works brought about better fellowship. The error was also found in the teaching that a believer’s assurance of justification was dependent partly on his good works. Having put out this error, the churches must guard tenaciously the truth that our enjoyment of fellowship with God is never because of our obedience, but always and only because of Christ’s.

Ironically, Professor Gritters continued and wrote that

the thief on the left must be kept out. He may not be allowed any entrance into our pulpits or catechism room, Bible Studies or singspirations, magazines or radio broadcasts, homes or Christian schools. And if he does appear, he and any who allow him access must be dealt with by discipline, for this thief’s words will “eat like a canker” (that is, ‘spread like gangrene’, as the Greek has it). They will “overthrow the faith” of our children (II Tim 2:16, 17).²¹

False doctrine will “eat like a canker.” False doctrine will “overthrow the faith” of children. With that analysis I completely agree. And because there has not been discipline of those who have propagated the false doctrine, it is grievously apparent that false doctrine has not been put out of the PRC. It is also grievously apparent that those churches did not “guard tenaciously the truth.” The denomination does not discipline those who teach false doctrine. In fact the assemblies scarcely can muster any interest in the protestants’ materials, which is demonstrated by their decisions that the two protests were “not legally before classis” and “not sustained.”

For so many years, the PRC has repeatedly displaced the perfect work of Christ. And by her response to these protests through her assemblies, it is once again apparent that Christ very truly has left the Protestant Reformed Churches.

That same Jesus Christ who reached up to heaven and pulled hell down upon himself for the sins of his people. Jesus Christ who held the Father’s hand along with the Spirit and plunged the knife into his own heart at Calvary. Neither you nor I ever could have suffered hell. So how could we add to what the Son of God did? How could we add to God’s glory?

How dare the PRC teach repentance as a condition and prerequisite unto forgiveness! How dare the PRC teach that good works play a part in assuring one’s soul as to one’s justification! How dare the PRC teach justification by faith and works! That is not faith speaking, for faith glories in the cross of Christ.²²

Out of love I warn those men whose work was chronicled in this article. I also warn those who agree with the doctrines defended in the two protests. I have heard of Protestant Reformed members who say that they “lean toward Reverend Mahtani.” I have heard of Protestant Reformed members who agree with Mr. Deemter’s appeal.

To such members, if the truth lives in your hearts, you must flee from the Protestant Reformed Churches. It gives no glory to God that you tarry in the PRC. You must admit that the PRC has rejected the truth. The PRC has trampled on Christ over and over again. The PRC smites God in the face at every turn. The truth is no longer at stake in the PRC.

Therefore, for your souls and the souls of your loved ones, flee from those churches. It will only cost you your lives. But what a privilege to lose your lives for Christ’s sake! A privilege indeed.

Conclusion

Now the tale of two protests comes to an end. Brought to mind is a speech given almost four years ago, at the second annual meeting of Reformed Believers Publishing. Defending the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches over against the false doctrine of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Rev. Nathan Langerak remarked,

Was the truth at stake? Was it?

No one can doubt that now. There was a life and death struggle of eternal consequence over the truth…And now the truth—truth—is at stake. It always has been. And when the truth is at stake, that’s reformation, not schism. And the truths that are at stake could not be of greater importance. We are now arguing [with the PRC] about justification. We have gone all the way back to the Reformation. The PRC is overthrowing 1517. Not 1924. Not 1953. Not 1834. Not 1618–19. 1517! That’s what we’re arguing about: Justification.

That’s not my analysis. That was the Protestant Reformed Churches’ own analysis about the venomous snake that it holds now in its own bosom! It said, “The doctrine of justification is at stake.” 1517 is being overthrown. And the doctrine—and I have proof for this—the doctrine in the pew of Joe Blue Collar in the Protestant Reformed Churches is this: We are justified in the way of obedience. It’s being taught by the theologian [Professor Engelsma], who could run circles around me, theologically speaking. It’s being taught that in a certain sense man is first and that justification is by faith and repentance. Unto. Unto. This is a complete overthrow of the truth of salvation by grace alone on which basis the Protestant Reformed Churches were formed.²³

The tale of two protests has demonstrated the same. No one can doubt that now.