Apology

The purpose of this letter is to apologize. From November 15, 2020 through January 15, 2021, I wrote a series of five articles on the seventeenth-century Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Witsius, reflecting on his book entitled Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, under the Unhappy Names of Antinomianism and Neonomians. On account of objections raised against these articles, working with my consistory, and discussions with a number of my colleagues, I am persuaded that I owe the readers of the SB an apology.

As I informed my consistory and the readers in my articles on Witsius, I was persuaded that the statements I commented on could be explained in such a way as to harmonize with our Synod’s decisions, that is, when considered in the light of the error Witsius was opposing and then his fuller explanation. My consistory pointed out that a number of Witsius’ statements, as they are worded, no matter how I read them and was convinced what Witsius meant by them, stand in contradiction to decisions of our recent synods (in particular those of 2018) and to our confessions, and thus constitute false doctrine. As a result, the articles, instead of helping clarify issues in our present controversy over the place and function of good works in the life of the child of God, sowed confusion and, in light of Synod 2018’s decisions, promoted statements and theology that Synod judged to be erroneous.

In particular I was pointed to Witsius stating, in the context of the utility (usefulness) of holiness and good works, that “Scripture teaches that something must be done that we may be saved”; also to the statement, “We must accurately distinguish between a right to life and the possession of life.… But certainly, our works, or rather those, which the Spirit of Christ worketh in us and by us, contribute something to the latter [that is, to the possession of life and salvation]”; and also to Witsius’ statement, “Hence, I conclude, that sanctification and its effects, are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the souls [sic] as to its justification.”

My attempt to explain what Witsius meant by these phrases in an orthodox fashion did not help clear up confusion, but contributed to it, as if such wording and phrases could be [sic] still be considered orthodox and language that I would approve of today. Let me state categorically, I do not. And I certainly do not maintain that good works are to serve along with faith as a secondary instrument to assure one of justification, of one being counted righteous before God. Faith, based on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, is the one only instrument.

I do not propose we use Witsius’ language in the preaching, nor would I suggest we approve of it if it were used. No more than I would approve in our day of using the word “conditions” in connection with life in covenant. Such words and phrases have come to be loaded with erroneous connotations and ought not have our approval today. I should have made that clear in my articles, but did not, leading to unnecessary questions and confusion. For this I am sorry and apologize.

Whatever Witsius may have meant or intended by them, they are not phrases or words we should use from Protestant Reformed pulpits. Nor should they have our approval if used. As they stand, they would teach that man’s good works function as an instrument through which the believer receives or gains some aspect of salvation. This is error to which I do not subscribe.

I am sorry for the confusion and resulting unrest these articles have caused. I assure you, as I did my consistory, that I wholeheartedly agree with and subscribe to the decisions of our recent synods, repudiating all that is contrary to them.

Rev. Kenneth Koole¹

Reverend Koole Taught the Same

Herman Witsius said, “Scripture teaches that something must be done that we may be saved.”

Reverend Koole asked, “Is it altogether improper for preachers so much as to suggest that there is that which one can do (is able to do)? And then, in the end, to go so far as to declare that if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do?”² However, that was not a question for him. The question was deception. He meant this question as a statement, as his later Standard Bearer articles proved.

He also wrote,

What the Canons wanted no part of was the notion that these spiritual actions [“Good actions! Namely, faith (actively believing) and godliness (the life of good works)”] are automatically present and produced where grace has worked, provided by God in such a way that the child of God has nothing to do with actually believing or walking in godliness. The Spirit of Christ who has begun this work in him is really the One who now does this work through him, simply providing for one what he cannot do himself. (8)

Reverend Koole shamelessly denied what Canons 3–4.14 teaches in almost exactly opposite words from what he confesses: God “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also” (Confessions and Church Order, 169). He denied this because he teaches that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” Man does it by grace, but man must do it. To use an analogy for Koole’s theology: God gives to man an arm, and God gives to man strength in his arm, and all man has to do is exercise that strength. There is that which man must do to be saved.

Seeking to find his doctrine in scripture, he wrote,

This must be maintained if one will do justice to the record of the apostolic Scriptures.

On Pentecost, following Peter’s sermon concerning Jesus crucified and risen as the scripturally prophesied Messiah, a multitude besought the apostles, asking “Men and brethren, what must we do?” To which Peter responded, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…” (Acts 2:37,38)

The Philippian jailor cried out “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” To which Paul responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” (Acts 16:30, 31).

There was something they were called to do. And they did it. (8)

Koole’s understanding of the apostles’ answer to the questions posed to them is that the apostles were assuring the people that there was indeed something they had to do to be saved. They had to do faith, and they had to do repentance. Faith and repentance were their obedience to the gospel by which they were saved. They did it!

He taught that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” He taught the same thing as Herman Witsius taught, in almost the exact same words.

You must remember that in his apology Reverend Koole disapproves of Witsius. Koole says,

I do not propose we use Witsius’ language in the preaching, nor would I suggest we approve of it if it were used…

Whatever Witsius may have meant or intended by them [the quotes that Reverend Koole used], they are not phrases or words we should use from Protestant Reformed pulpits. Nor should they have our approval if used.

Koole analyzes Witsius’ statements in the following way: “As they stand, they would teach that man’s good works function as an instrument through which the believer receives or gains some aspect of salvation.” According to Koole, Witsius’ statements teach the heresy of salvation by works.

In his apology Reverend Koole also says,

Such words and phrases have come to be loaded with erroneous connotations and ought not have our approval today. I should have made that clear in my articles, but did not, leading to unnecessary questions and confusion. For this I am sorry and apologize.

He writes as though he understood that those phrases of Witsius were full of erroneous connotations, but his only error was that he did not make that clear in his articles. However, Reverend Koole used Witsius’ quotations to prop up his (Koole’s) own false theology and to instruct the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) that she should preach and teach the same theology.

Now he condemns Witsius as teaching the heresy of salvation by works. But in that Koole also condemns his own theology as the heresy of salvation by works. He apologizes for Witsius, but Koole never has retracted and never has militated against his own false doctrine that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.”

Reverend Koole also says in his apology that his use of Witsius led to “unnecessary questions and confusion.” But what of the theology that, prior to quoting from Witsius, Koole himself taught in almost the exact same words as he now condemns in Witsius? That did not lead to mere “confusion,” but it led to schism. It did not lead to “unnecessary questions,” but it rent apart the churches of Jesus Christ. Because of his theology and stubborn defense of it, he more than any other is responsible for the split in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

Immediately after Synod 2018, when Reverend Koole taught that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,” we realized that the Protestant Reformed hierarchy was committed to conditional theology in the covenant. There is no discernible difference between Koole’s theology and the theology of the conditional covenant theologians of the past, such as Witsius, and the conditional covenant theology of Rev. H. De Wolf that split the Protestant Reformed Churches in 1953.

When Reverend Koole taught his conditional theology that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,” we realized that the Protestant Reformed hierarchy was not going to trumpet whatever good there was in the decision of Synod 2018, but it was going to teach the theology that obedience is the way to the Father. That obedience was the way to the Father was the theology of Rev. D. Overway and Hope church’s consistory. That is what the Protestant Reformed hierarchy believed. One of the delegates said on the floor of Synod 2018 immediately after the decision condemning the doctrinal statement, which taught the same error as the sermons of Rev. D. Overway, that he believed the condemned theology, and he intended to continue teaching it.

Reverend Koole showed that this was true of the hierarchy of the PRC generally. The PRC was going to teach that works are the way to the Father and now in this form: “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” They were going to cover that theology by appeals to man’s regeneration and man’s spiritual activities and man’s responsibilities. All of those things were only camouflages for their doctrine that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.”

There is no difference between the theology of Reverend Overway and the theology of Reverend Koole. Overway taught that Christ is the way to the Father through the obedience that he works in you. Koole taught that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,” by grace of course. These two statements are the same theology. They are a theology of salvation, of covenant fellowship with God, and of assurance by man’s works done by grace.

That is what I, Rev. A. Lanning, Rev. M. VanderWal, and other men who started Reformed Believers Publishing contended against Koole’s article about what man must do to be saved. I cannot help but quote from the letter of a group of men concerned with Reverend Koole’s articles. These men wrote to the board of the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) before the formation of Sword and Shield in an effort to get the men on the board to see the necessity of a forum for the free discussion of these doctrinal issues. The editors of the Standard Bearer were busy bullying the RFPA board to take down articles that had been written on the blog and stonewalling or refusing to publish letters written to the Standard Bearer editors. There was an orchestrated effort by them to shut down debate of the doctrinal issues. I include the quotation here so that everyone can read what we said already in 2019.

Concerned Men’s Brief Analysis

We disagree with Rev. Koole’s analysis of the Acts 16 passage about the Philippian jailor that he first printed in the Oct. 1, 2018 SB and with his later criticism of the explanation of that passage by Rev. Herman Hoeksema as that is contained in a well-known sermon on that passage preached during the heights of the 1953 controversy in our churches. We understand that to obey the gospel is to believe, but we understand that activity of the sinner as wholly unique—indeed a resting on Christ crucified alone for salvation. We disagree that faith is a doing by the sinner—even if he does it by grace—for salvation. We do not believe that the purpose of the passage or the Holy Ghost’s inspiring the record of the Philippian jailor’s question about what he must do to be saved was to teach about faith as an activity and certainly not in the sense in which Rev. Koole explains it. The Philippian jailor was an elect sinner whom God brought to the brink of hell and despair and not an antinomian who had to be disabused of his antinomian tendencies.

Rather the passage reveals the wonderful sovereignty of God in the salvation of a heathen sinner. The text is about the calling, the calling as a wonder of God’s grace by which God saved the jailor without any of his works. That is what Rev. Hoeksema was preaching in that sermon over against the theology of that day that used passages like this to teach conditions in salvation by an emphasis on faith as an activity and on man’s responsibility. Not all the ministers were as bold as Rev. De Wolf, and Rev. Hoeksema notes that in the sermon and elsewhere in the literature of the day. There was a trend and an emphasis. Activity and responsibility were the watchwords of the day in the preaching and writing of the ministers. That trend and emphasis led to the explicit preaching and defense of conditions and the gospel was lost to many. When Rev. Hoeksema preached that sermon he did so as that controversy had come to a head. When he preached that sermon, he preached the gospel, the full gospel, the glorious gospel of grace, a kind of distillation of his preaching his entire ministry long and the kind of preaching for which he was contending in the PRC and for which he would occasion a split in the PRC.

About that preaching Rev. Koole says,

When it comes to H. Hoeksema’s sermon on the Philippian jailer, I understand quite well what HH was doing. He was magnifying God’s sovereign grace over against the incipient Arminianism in conditional covenant theology. I esteem him for that. But in this instance, he went about it in an unnecessary manner, one that can easily lead to improper doctrinal conclusions and charges. HH’s explanation of the salvation of the Philippian jailor in this one sermon is not the full Hoeksema. In order to condemn conditional covenant theology, one does not have to say that the apostles were calling regenerated men to do nothing.

That is not in fact what Rev. Hoeksema was doing. He was not merely magnifying the grace of God against Arminianism. He explicitly rejected Arminianism. He was not merely against “incipient Arminianism,” which is Arminianism in seed form, but he was rejecting the actual, developed Arminianism of the conditional covenant theology of the Liberated churches. He was not merely rejecting that abstractly, but as it had infected the Protestant Reformed Churches in the form of conditional covenant theology. He did not reject that by preaching against a caricature of that false position, but as it really was preached and as that false theology defended itself by appeals to faith’s activity and man’s responsibility. Rev. Hoeksema exposed the subtlety of that theology, which claimed to express Scriptural and Reformed ideas, but in fact rejected them and did so under the guise of emphasizing faith’s activity and man’s responsibility.

About what Rev. Hoeksema was doing Rev. Koole says that “he went about it in an unnecessary manner, one that can easily lead to improper doctrinal conclusions and charges.” This is an astounding statement. We find nothing wrong with Rev. Hoeksema’s manner, but love him exactly for that preaching and receive it as the gospel. We do not find that that gospel “can easily lead to improper doctrinal conclusions and charges,” as Rev. Koole contends. We find Rev. Koole’s statements particularly troubling in light of the fact that it was exactly HH’s preaching and teaching of this kind that was set down in the declaration of principles and that led to the rejection of conditions—any and all conditions in the covenant—and that finally led to the charges of false doctrine against a PR minister. These were not improper doctrinal conclusions or charges, but right and necessary.

He also makes mention of “the heart of the issue in our present controversy, namely, when it comes to the wonder of irresistible grace, what historically has Christ’s church meant to establish by this confession?” We agree with Rev. Koole that there is a present controversy and are thankful that he will finally admit what was so consistently denied throughout this issue that has plagued our churches, namely, that we have a controversy.

We disagree with his assessment of it. By this statement Rev. Koole is continuing to do what he has done from the beginning with his original article in the October 1, 2018 issue of the SB and what was done at the assemblies and that distracted from the real issue: he is attempting to reframe the controversy as between those who deny that man is active and those that teach that man is active. Consequently he is framing this controversy as an issue between those who will not or cannot preach the warnings, callings, and admonitions of Scripture and those that will and can. Thus the matter is framed as an issue between those that are antinomian and those that are not. This is to confuse the matter, mislead, and sound a false alarm.

Most troubling is that we see such a position is used to accuse brethren who maintain a position that represents the historic Reformed faith and Protestant Reformed position, a theology [that] at one time was found on the pages of the SB, of antinomianism. Rev. Koole writes about the letter writer and by implication of the theology of Rev. Herman Hoeksema that the man is espousing,

I am convinced that while you want nothing to do with hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, or labeling regenerated men stocks and blocks, you are heading in that direction by your failure to give full glory to what irresistible grace makes of a man, what it enables us as new creatures to do in response to the Word of God in law and gospel. That’s what becomes consistent with your view. Not staying out of the hyper-Calvinist ditch, but sliding into it.

He writes later,

It is the view you are espousing…that in the end seriously underestimates and diminishes the true power and work of the indwelling and sanctifying Holy Spirit. And that, in turn, will have an adverse effect on what the preaching can and must expect of regenerated, confessing men and women in Christ’s church.

The theology of Rev. Herman Hoeksema as it was preached in that sermon is now viewed as a threat and danger to the PRC, and those that espouse it are considered hyper-Calvinistic and antinomian.

The issue is not as Rev. Koole explains. The issue is whether man’s activity worked in him by the grace of God is that upon which his salvation depends. The question is whether God saves a man wholly by his grace, from beginning to end, or whether God saves a man by the activity of man that God works in him. Is man’s activity the gift of his salvation, or is man’s activity the means of his salvation? To put it bluntly the new sound coming from the SB is that man does—by God’s grace of course—for his salvation! If a man will be saved, there is something that he must do!

We conclude our analysis with a warning to you as the Board of the RFPA:

In this connection I cannot refrain from issuing to all of you a word of warning. I’ll do it. You know, we talk about so much in our day, and in our churches,—we talk about responsibility. We talk about the activity of faith. And similar things. I’ll warn you that on that basis and in that line we’re going to lose the gospel. We’re going to lose the gospel. We’re going to lose election. We’re going to lose reprobation. We’re going to lose the gospel, the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. O yes, we must preach the activity of faith. But by the activity of faith I mean not something that you and I must do, except that first of all, by the activity of faith we cling to Christ, and embrace Him and all His benefits. That is the activity of faith. Responsibility? Don’t you ever forget that the accusation that Reformed people cannot maintain responsibility has always been brought against,—Reformed people have always been accused of denying responsibility by those that are Arminians and moderns. We do not deny responsibility. We do not deny the activity of faith. Of course not. But I warn you that with the emphasis that is laid upon these things, upon conditions, upon activity of faith, and upon responsibility, you’re going to lose the gospel. That’s my warning (Herman Hoeksema, Transcript of Address and Question Hour, SB 1958, issue 21).

That warning has been ignored and now we are in danger of losing the gospel. The main burden of this letter is that there must be a forum for the free discussion of these issues. Those that will speak on one side of the issue are being silenced. As a board you may not countenance that, acquiesce in that, turn a blind eye to that, or allow that to continue.

The Cause of Schism

Reverend Koole wrote, “If a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” That was not a mere slip of the tongue or a mistake of the pen. It was the expression of his theology and an expression of his theology as he had developed it, having consciously and deliberately rejected the theology of Herman Hoeksema as that theology found expression in Hoeksema’s explanation of the Philippian jailor passage in Acts 16:30–31.

Reverend Hoeksema said that when the apostle responded to the jailor’s question, “What must I do?,” the apostle was saying, “Do nothing, nothing but believe,” in which statement Hoeksema explained faith as a doing nothing for salvation and as God’s work in the sinner.

Reverend Koole told his readers that he regarded that explanation as “Nonsense!” He claimed, “I was well aware of the sermon prior to writing the October 1 editorial. I have had that sermon (typed out by C. Hanko) for some time.”³ Reverend Koole never preached the sermon or the theology of the sermon. He let the sermon sit; and finally, when he thought the time was right, he pitched Herman Hoeksema’s explanation overboard as nonsense.

Reverend Koole’s defense of his false doctrine that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do”; the stubborn protection of him by the other Standard Bearer editors; and the shameful failure of the Reformed Free Publishing Association to let the doctrinal debate happen in the Standard Bearer and, in fact, their aiding and abetting of Koole’s false doctrine, showed that this was the theology of the Protestant Reformed hierarchy. It was this theology that led to the formation of Reformed Believers Publishing and the publication of Sword and Shield in June 2020.

As soon as the first issue of Sword and Shield was published, there began an orchestrated attack on the names, reputations, and offices of the men involved. That led to the suspension of Rev. M. VanderWal, the suspension and deposition of Rev. A. Lanning, and the suspension of Rev. N. Langerak. That led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches. It was Reverend Koole’s theology more than any other that led to these things.

His apology for Witsius shows that when he taught that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,” he knew what he was doing and what that theology taught. His apology for Witsius also shows that when Reverend Koole was called out on that heretical theology, and he denied that he was teaching salvation by works and that he was militating against synod, he was lying. We had condemned his theology, and he had defended it.

Then suddenly he fell silent.

Shortly thereafter, Reverend Koole reappeared on the pages of the Standard Bearer with a series of articles on Herman Witsius to teach from the mouth of the dead Witsius that if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.

Now he apologizes for Witsius. Having exhumed him and having found that the body stinks of Arminianism and Pelagianism, Koole quickly buries Witsius again. But Koole’s own stinky theology, he does not address.

This theology has been vigorously and publicly contended against and just as vigorously and publicly defended by Reverend Koole and privately defended by his colleagues.

I know it to be true that when troubled members of the Protestant Reformed Churches went to their ministers to ask them whether it is true that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,” those Protestant Reformed ministers defended Reverend Koole and explained that he was right and that this statement is Reformed orthodoxy.

I ask, where are their apologies? Professor Dykstra and Professor Gritters were both involved in protecting Koole and defending him. They played as though each editor had acted independently, but they were Cerberus, hell’s three-headed hound, and together they stymied debate by refusals to publish letters or by endless meetings or sought to wear out any opposition by false charges of sin. Where are their apologies?

Reverend Koole’s theology is the theology of the Standard Bearer; it is the theology of the RFPA; and it is the theology of the Protestant Reformed hierarchy.

Now Koole appears on the pages of the Standard Bearer to apologize for the dead Witsius and to tell us that Witsius’ statement that there is that which a man must do to be saved is false theology. But Koole taught the same exact thing. And his theology is to blame for schism. He gives no apology for that, and neither do any of his defenders.

Still Preaching It

And Reverend Koole is still preaching his heretical theology that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” He recently preached a preparatory sermon to the congregation of Randolph Protestant Reformed Church on the text that the righteous are scarcely saved (1 Pet. 4:18), in which he said,

Now it speaks here of the “righteous.” When it speaks of the “righteous,” it is not speaking primarily of the justified. There are some who have that view, and you can have that view of the text. But that is not, I’m convinced, the real view of the text. It is not speaking simply of the justified. It is speaking of those who, having been justified, walk in an upright way, and as such they are the righteous, you see, as Matthew 5 speaks of the righteous. “Blessed are you when men persecute you for righteousness’ sake.” Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and that does not have to do with justification. It has to do with uprightness, you are living in the upright way, and their righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees because the scribes and Pharisees just put on an outward show. They kept the law from a certain outward point of view, but it was only what they didn’t do. “I didn’t do this; I didn’t do that; I didn’t do the other.”

Christ says, “You didn’t do this, didn’t do…but what did you do? Did you love your neighbor as you ought in your so-called love of God? Did you do good to the neighbor? Or did you despise the widow and those who have no status? Were you like the good Samaritan, or were you not like the good Samaritan?”…

Did you have love? Were you interested in ministering to the needy in the church? Did you treat your spouse with consideration, loving your neighbor as yourself?

If not, refrain from the table until you are walking in the way of love, and your righteousness, your uprightness, exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, who despised others and would get rid of their wives left and right. That is why you had so many divorces and so many prostitutes—women cast off by the scribes and Pharisees in their outward righteousness, and they had no wherewithal but to sell their bodies. And Christ ministered to them, not to approve of their adultery but to call them from their adultery and fornication and to restore them to godliness.⁴

Those who came to the Lord’s table the following Sunday revealed much about themselves. Reverend Koole had defiled the table of Randolph Protestant Reformed Church with the error of works-righteousness. He had robbed the people of the comfort of the gospel and thus the assurance that is theirs through Christ’s righteousness. Those who came to the table after that preparatory sermon testified thereby that they were worthy partakers because of their righteousness—their obedience to the law of God—which exceeded the obedience of the scribes and Pharisees. Apart now from the monstrous pride in the statement, there is the total displacement of Christ’s righteousness—Christ himself—as the only ground of our coming to God, our sitting in fellowship with God, and our eating and drinking of the Lord’s supper.

This sermon also shows that Reverend Koole is still teaching that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” Now men have to do the whole law and do the law better than the Pharisees, of all people.

But no one did the law better than the Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee; and if someone could have entered heaven by law-keeping, it would have been Paul. Touching the righteousness that is in the law, he was blameless! In his blameless righteousness he was without God and without hope in the world, an unbelieving persecutor of the church and ignorant of the righteousness of God, which is Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Reverend Koole teaches that we must be better than the Pharisees, or we had better stay away from the Lord’s table. The way to the Father is what we do by grace. There is, after all, that which man must do to be saved.

Some will say to me, “But he mentions Christ in the sermon.” He does. He even mentions Christ’s righteousness. He does. I want everyone who listens to Protestant Reformed preaching to understand this: the righteousness of Christ in the Protestant Reformed Churches only serves the purpose that God can deal with you again on the basis of your works. Christ serves the law. The new work, the new obedience, is faith and that you at least obey the law better than the Pharisees. If you fail, which the ministers tell you that you will, then the righteousness of Christ makes up your lack and bails you out of hell. But what you do is the important thing. “If a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.” Your works in Christ are the way to the Father.

Protestant Reformed ministers will tell you and anyone who will listen that they do not believe and never have believed that good works merit or earn salvation or any benefit of salvation. But that is not the issue. They do believe and they do teach that good works are the way to covenant fellowship with God. This means that good works are the way to the Father. And this means that good works earn some blessing of God. They believe yet to this day, and they teach yet to this day, what Reverend Overway preached at Hope church and what Classis East defended throughout the controversy. Reverend Koole taught that, and he still is teaching it.

Now he apologizes for Witsius and condemns him, having first lauded him and having appealed to his theology as the way forward for the Protestant Reformed Churches. By Koole’s apology he at the very least tramples on the grave of Witsius and violates the dictum de mortuis nil nisi bonum. He lets the dead Witsius take the blame. But Reverend Koole taught the same thing. And he has never, not once, anywhere apologized for his theology, which he taught and still teaches to this very day. He knows no other gospel than the gospel that is no gospel: “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.”

An Apology

So his apology is an apology. Apology is an English word that comes from the Greek word apologia. It means to offer a defense or an excuse. The Oxford English Dictionary gives four possible definitions of apology.

The first definition is “the pleading off from a charge or imputation, whether expressed, implied, or only conceived as possible; defence of a person, or vindication of an institution, etc., from accusation or aspersion.”

Surely this is what Reverend Koole does. There is a serious charge against him. Having quoted Witsius and pleaded that Witsius was going to help extricate the Protestant Reformed denomination from her doctrinal woes, he instead approved of false doctrine, taught false doctrine, and recommended false doctrine to the churches. It is the very same false doctrine that was condemned by his synod in June 2018; that he taught in his October 1, 2018, Standard Bearer article; and that he defended over against objections from several ministers and members of the PRC. The charge against Reverend Koole is that he is an impenitent teacher of false doctrine who has corrupted the gospel of grace and who is bringing a damnable error out of hell into the churches and by doing so caused schism in the churches and made himself worthy of suspension and deposition and excommunication from the church of Christ.

And he pleaded off the charge: I never meant what I clearly meant; I never taught what I clearly taught and taught repeatedly and over against many objections and which teaching caused schism in the church of Christ.

The second definition of apology is “less formally: Justification, explanation, or excuse, of an incident or course of action.”

An excuse. That is all he gives. A stupid, transparent, insincere excuse. A silly explanation that is not believable and does not even pass muster on the most cursory reading of his many articles defending his theology that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.”

The third definition of apology is “an explanation offered to a person affected by one’s action that no offence was intended, coupled with the expression of regret for any that may have been given; or, a frank acknowledgement of the offence with expression of regret for it, by way of reparation.”

He gave an expression of regret? Surely, he would not do it again. He is very sorry for the confusion. But he wrote nothing but confusion for years. He is the confuser-in-chief. To this day he is confusing. His sermons are mostly unfollowable and unintelligible. One wonders whether this stems from incompetence or laziness, or whether it comes from deviousness so that in the smoke created by the run-on sentences, the unfinished remarks, the parenthetical references, and the anecdotes, he can slip in his false doctrine. His expression of regret is false because he is still teaching the false doctrine.

The fourth definition of apology is “something which, as it were, merely appears to apologize for the absence of what ought to have been there; a poor substitute.”

That is it! He gave a poor substitute. He merely appears to apologize. There was something absent in his apology. What was absent was repentance. There is no repentance in the whole piece, and there has not been a stitch of repentance in him for the role that he has played in the destruction of the unity of the Protestant Reformed Churches by teaching and defending his false theology of works, his displacement of Christ, his denigration of God, and his glorification of man. He is one of the chief reasons the Protestant Reformed denomination has experienced another split. 

In the great day it may be revealed that he was the chief reason. He apologized for—in the sense of defended—false doctrine for years. He was the man of the hour to defend false doctrine. He was on the classical committee that approved of Professor Cammenga’s shameful denial of Christ. He was the chairman of Grandville’s consistory that deposed a faithful officebearer for defending the gospel. He led the way among those who hurled the slanderous charge of antinomianism against the gospel of grace. He was a leading speaker at the classis meetings that likewise approved false doctrine and damned the true doctrine as the wicked error of antinomianism. He militated against Synod 2018 publicly and repeatedly and then lied and said he did not. He taught and defended false doctrine in the Standard Bearer. He preaches the same false doctrine from Protestant Reformed pulpits yet today. Then he has the shameless temerity to apologize for quoting Witsius? He is a schismatic, just like Reverend De Wolf was. Koole’s doctrine is the same. His apologies are also the same.

Not Repentance

The Protestant Reformed Churches are making a good case for a fifth possible definition of apology: “a carnal substitute for repentance that makes one appear sorry in order to allow him to continue his offensive behavior in another form.” The Protestant Reformed denomination is up to her neck in apologies. What she does not and will not show is repentance. Reverend Koole shows no repentance. Thus his apology is meaningless; and worse, it is deceptive. It gives the appearance of repentance, and for the simple it passes for repentance, but it is only an excuse that allows him to continue his offensive behavior in another form.

Reverend Koole’s letter in the Standard Bearer is an apology. That is all it is. In the church of Jesus Christ, from a minister of the gospel who taught false doctrine and then sought support for that false doctrine from a dead theologian, an apology is not what is required but repentance. Since his theology was the occasion for the split in my churches that I loved, as part of his repentance he should recommend his own suspension and deposition as one of the most damaging teachers in the history of the PRC.

His apology is a lie. It is a public, demonstrable lie. One of the statements of Witsius, which Reverend Koole disapproves of in his letter, is the statement that led to the formation of Reformed Believers Publishing, the printing of Sword and Shield, and the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches. I want the record to reflect that these things are all related. When Reformed Believers Publishing and Sword and Shield appeared on the ecclesiastical scene, an orchestrated campaign of slander, sin-charging, and destruction began. The Protestant Reformed Churches hated our preaching, the churches hated the one-sidedness, the churches hated our doctrine of total depravity as applied to regenerated man, they hated that man was nothing and that God was everything, and they hated the condemnation of their theology as a corruption of the Reformed faith. They did not dare attack the content of our preaching because they would have exposed their own theology as corrupt. They lied and said that we all believed the same thing and that they were concerned only about our behavior. They slandered us behind our backs. They met, they lurked, and they watched. And they latched onto the convenient handle with which to attack us: Sword and Shield. The result of all their machinations was schism. They would not repent. And today two denominations exist. And let the record show that Reverend Koole led the way.

What the PRC needs is not another apology. The churches need discipline. It will never happen, but what the Protestant Reformed denomination needs is that Reverend Koole be put out of the ministry now also for lying. He taught false doctrine, and he has publicly now perjured himself by apologizing for theology for which he is not sorry, which he continues to preach, by which he corrupted the truth, and by which he continues to corrupt an entire generation and to destroy a denomination.

It is a source of mystery to me, as I have studied church history, that the false church, let us say Rome, lectured Luther on the necessity of good works and warned how Luther’s doctrine was antinomian and would make people careless and profane. Through it all Rome was—and is to this day—an Augean stable of corruption. Every sin known to man—from homosexuality to brutal ecclesiastical politics to the denial of the gospel—flourished in the Roman Catholic Church and does to this day. Yet she had such a whore’s forehead that she would instruct anyone who would listen about the need for good works and how only Rome’s doctrine of man’s doing to be saved would make the church holy. She was drunk on the wine of man, and, as a reeling drunkard who insists that he can drive, she insisted that she knew about holiness, and her insistence was as laughable as the drunkard’s.

Rome’s doctrine never makes anyone holy, and neither will Reverend Koole’s doctrine. They are of a piece. And their fruits are the same too. The Protestant Reformed denomination, as Rome, is a cesspool of corruption. The leadership will not deal with sins in its own ranks. The hierarchy covers up the sins of influential or well-heeled members until a scandal breaks and it is impossible to cover it any longer, at which point the ministers flee like rats from a sinking ship. They tolerate false doctrine among their colleagues and excuse it as that which they really do not believe or as that which is crooked but can be made straight. They harbor knowingly every sin from homosexuality to abuse of children and spouses. They exalt vain and worldly men to office and honor among themselves those who are the most ignorant of the truth. Yet they lecture the world on the need to defend against antinomianism.

Now add to the list of tolerated sins their false apologies in the most serious matter with which the church of Jesus Christ can deal—doctrine. In these too they are unholy and hypocritical. The PRC lecture all on the necessity of repentance and that fellowship with God is in the way of repentance. By the measure of the denomination’s own theology and in light of many patently insincere apologies, the people do not have any fellowship with God.

Reverend Koole, those who let him publish his apology, and those who have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker know nothing of true repentance. Nothing of what he wrote bears the slightest resemblance to true repentance, which is a sincere sorrow of heart that one has offended God; an actual acknowledgment of the gravity of the offense; and a clearing of oneself by militancy against one’s own false doctrine. 

His theology is a monstrous offense against God, against Christ, and against the gospel. But in the whole apology, he is concerned only about people. Nowhere is God mentioned, and nowhere does Koole acknowledge the fact that he ran the name of God and the name of Jesus Christ through the mud by displacing Christ as the only savior. Nowhere does he mention that he taught and that he still teaches the theology that he damns in the mouth of Witsius. Nowhere does he mention the reality that his theology as much as anyone else’s led to schism in the church. He should at the very least say that his stubborn teaching and defense of the theology that there is that which a man must do to be saved split the churches. Even if the breach can no longer be healed, one would think that he would acknowledge the central role that he played in the breach.

Reading Koole’s apology, one could be excused for thinking that he did nothing more serious than burp at a polite social gathering.

What rot! I am glad I am gone. This turns my stomach. And to think that people buy this garbage. No wonder we could not get anywhere for years in this controversy. There was no sorrow anywhere, among anyone who was involved. There were only these kinds of apologies. Hope’s elders gave them; Reverend Overway gave them; now Reverend Koole gives another one.

Be warned. God is not mocked by this mockery of true repentance. A man like Reverend Koole, being in his position in the denomination, is already a judgment. His apology is a judgment, a snare by which many will be entrapped. That his apology could be printed, that it could be received, and that it even could be lauded are sure signs that many have been smitten with the spirit of blindness. 

I say again to anyone who yet has ears to hear, “Get out quickly, lest you be ensnared to your own sorrow in this ungodliness.”