With this editorial I return to an explanation of some of the articles of the Canons of Dordt that have been used by the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) in their attack on the doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) and in their defense of the doctrine of the PRC. The Protestant Reformed use of these articles shows how far these churches have departed from the actual doctrine of the Canons. My prayer is that God will use the explanations of these articles to establish the RPC upon the old paths of the Reformed faith.

In two past articles I considered Canons 3–4.17.¹ This time I turn to an explanation of Canons 5.7.

Translation

Here is the English translation of Canons 5.7 that the Reformed Protestant Churches use:

For, in the first place, in these falls He preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing, or being totally lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. (Confessions and Church Order, 174)

The English translation of Canons 5.7 that the Reformed Protestant Churches use is not accurate. Our inaccurate translation introduces at least one gross error, teaching that God is reconciled to us: “the favor of a reconciled God.” The truth is that God did not need to be reconciled to his people. He was never alienated from his elect but has loved us from eternity to eternity the same with a love that can never break. He was not alienated from us, but we were alienated from him. He did not have to be reconciled to us, but we had to be reconciled to him. He is not a reconciled God, but we are a reconciled people.

Our inaccurate translation also presents what is at best an ambiguous relationship among repentance, sorrow for sin, faith, forgiveness, and remission of sins.

Here is the accurate translation of the article, as given by Homer Hoeksema in The Voice of Our Fathers:

For in the first place, in these falls he preserves in them this his own immortal seed, out of which they are regenerated, lest it should perish or be cast out. And again, through his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, in order that they should sincerely sorrow after God over the sins committed, that they should through faith, with a contrite heart, desire and obtain forgiveness in the blood of the mediator, that they should again feel God’s favor, having been reconciled, that they should through faith adore his mercies, and that henceforth they should more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.²

This article, more than any other, convinces me that the Reformed Protestant Churches need a more accurate English translation of the Canons of Dordt and perhaps of all our Reformed confessions. The erroneous translation of Canons 5.7 has been used by the Protestant Reformed Churches to support their contention that repentance is a vital activity of man that precedes God’s contingent activity of forgiving man’s sins. An accurate translation of the article would expose the Protestant Reformed error as being contrary to the confessions. An accurate translation of the confessions would not only preserve sound doctrine in our midst, but it also would be a simple matter of honesty in our confessions. The members of the RPC all confess their agreement with the doctrine of the creeds, and the officebearers of the RPC all take a vow before the Lord that they “heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in [the three forms of unity] do fully agree with the Word of God” (Formula of Subscription, in Confessions and Church Order, 326). An accurate translation of the confessions is vital in order for members and officebearers alike to know what they are vowing and to be honest in their confessions.

The Misrepresentation

The popular misrepresentation of Canons 5.7 is that man’s repentance is a prerequisite and condition for God’s forgiveness of man’s sin. The article is hijacked and made to teach that God gives men repentance (“effectually renews them to repentance”) in order that they may then seek and find forgiveness of their sins (“that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator”).

This view of Canons 5.7 is taught by Professor Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed Churches. Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is that man’s activity of repenting precedes God’s activity of forgiving man’s sin, and God’s activity of forgiving man’s sin follows man’s activity of repenting, so that God’s forgiving waits upon man’s repenting. Although Professor Engelsma has studiously avoided calling repentance a prerequisite or a condition, his doctrine is exactly that of prerequisite repentance for conditional forgiveness. Here is his doctrine of repentance in his own words from his public “family letters” over the past year:

The believer must hear God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” Without forgiveness, daily, he cannot live. To know this saving word and act of God experientially, the believer must repent, and God calls for, and works, this necessary repentance.³

And in the same letter, referring to Psalm 51: “For the psalmist puts confession of sin and repentance ‘before’ forgiveness.”

And: “The necessity of repentance in order to receive from God the forgiveness of sins.” And: “The necessity of repentance for the reception of pardon.” And: “The truth of the necessity of repentance for forgiveness.” And: “The order of this saving work of God is repentance/remission.” And: “The sinner’s confession precedes God’s forgiveness.” And: “Repentance in this important respect precedes forgiveness.” And: “God requires repentance of the sinner for forgiveness.” And: “The necessity of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” And: “Faith neither knows Jesus as one’s Savior nor trusts in Him for salvation unless one is burdened by the guilt of sin, which burden is that of repentance.”⁴

Although Professor Engelsma has studiously avoided calling man’s repentance a prerequisite or a condition, he has openly called man’s repentance the means by which man is forgiven. This is a significant term because the only means of forgiveness that the Reformed faith knows is faith: justification by faith alone. Professor Engelsma’s doctrine of forgiveness is not justification by faith alone but justification by repentance.

The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance.⁵

Professor Engelsma has tried to distance his conditional theology from the appearance of conditional theology by asserting that God works the sinner’s repentance. This does not rescue the professor’s theology, for every conditional theologian in history has paid lip service to God’s work, as Professor Engelsma knows full well. The theologians of Rome, Arminianism, and the federal vision all wear out their pens and their keyboards writing, “Grace, grace, grace.” The issue is not whether God gives repentance to his people. The issue is whether God’s gift of forgiveness must wait upon his people’s repentance, regardless of where that repentance comes from. On that issue Professor Engelsma is very clear:

The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance.

Here is the professor’s doctrine: justification by means of repentance, not justification by means of faith alone.

Professor Engelsma wrongly appeals to Canons 5.7 to establish his position. I quote here a lengthy section from one of Professor Engelsma’s public “family letters” that has not previously been published in Sword and Shield, although the July 2022 editorial did refer to portions of this letter.⁶ His letter is entitled “Letter to My Family in re the RPC: the Heresy on the ‘Right’” and is dated May 23, 2022. In the section quoted here, Professor Engelsma tries to ground his doctrine in Canons 5.7.

Forgiveness is what we ask for daily in the model prayer, “Forgive us our debts,” etc.

By forgiveness is not meant eternal election, or the redemption of the cross. By forgiveness, I refer to the verdict of God, brought home to the penitent believer by means of faith, in His declaration of pardon in the consciousness of the believer, as is the reference of the model prayer and as is the reference of Canons, 5.7.

Canons, 5.7 clearly identifies forgiveness, its reality and its necessity: “by His Word and Spirit, [God]…renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore his mercies,” etc. Repentance is the way in which God remits sins. It precedes forgiveness. To use the deliberately misleading language of Andy Lanning, Canons, 5.7 teaches an activity of the believing sinner (repenting) that precedes a saving work of God (remitting sin). Without a sincere and godly sorrow for sins, there can be no experience of reconciliation with an offended God.

For confessing this truth of Canons, 5.7, the PRC are condemned by Andy Lanning and the “Wheat RPC” as the whore of Babylon, and as chaff for the burning. At the very least, the PRC are in good company: the Canons themselves and the host of Reformed Christians who have confessed Canons, 5.7 down the ages.

The semi-official doctrine of the RPC is now that our repenting does not precede our being forgiven, regardless of Luke 18 and regardless of Canons, 5.7. This is to deny repentance and its necessity altogether. This leads to the appalling admonition from the pulpit, “do not repent.”

What!

Are we now to believe, as the soundest and most full development of the Reformed faith, that God forgives us before we repent, that is, whether we repent or refuse to repent? Do the RPC really oppose, not only the PRC, but also the Christian religion, that teaches that God’s way of forgiving is His bringing His elect child to repentance? If so, why does a consistory work to bring an excommunicated sinner to repentance before it forgives him in the name of Christ and restores him to the fellowship of the congregation? If so, how do the RPC in good conscience subscribe to Article 7 of the 5th head of doctrine of the Canons of Dordt? And if this is the case, namely, that repentance is not necessary for forgiveness, parents in the RPC may no longer require repentance of an erring child before they forgive him and restore him to their fellowship.

The members of the RPC must wake up spiritually! God requires repentance before He forgives. And, therefore, He works it in us before He forgives. To oppose this truth is to reject all the creeds and much of the Bible, as I have demonstrated. There is no excuse for denying this. Every member has access to a good concordance. Under “forgiveness” and under “repentance” he or she can discover that God calls for repentance, which is then followed by forgiveness.

The false doctrine of the RPC concerning repentance/remission is evidence that these churches are already departing from the gospel and are on the way of denying, not only the Reformed faith of Canons, 5.7, but also the gospel of the Christian religion: repent, in order to be forgiven. They make themselves guilty of the “heresy on the right.”

Professor Engelsma again wrote about Canons 5.7 in a public “family letter” on September 2, 2022. In the section quoted here, Professor Engelsma states the Reformed Protestant charge against him, then states his own doctrinal view, then attempts to ground his view in Canons 5.7.

Dear Family,

A charge by the men of the RPC against the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) is that we put an activity of man before the saving act of God. This charge is supposed to be the basis of their charge that the PRC, and I in particular, now make God dependent upon humans.

The charge is not only erroneous. It is utterly foolish, as I have pointed out before with the convincing example of the rooster and its crowing…

But because the men of the RPC continue to charge that the PRC put an activity of the sinner before the saving act of God (see the September 2022 issue of the “Sword & Shield”), I want to clarify this issue for you.

The charge against the PRC concerns our doctrine that the regenerated child of God repents of his sin, so that he may be forgiven. The activity of repenting precedes God’s act of forgiving. This doctrine, the RPC charge, puts men before God and thus makes God’s forgiveness conditional—it depends upon man’s repentance. This charge is probably the main doctrinal charge of the RPC against the PRC and, therefore, the main justification for their separate existence as a denomination. Therefore, I consider myself justified in wearying you—and myself!—once again with this defense of the PRC’s confession of true repentance and its relation to divine forgiveness.

My response to this false, ignorant, and evil charge is as follows.

First, it is the confession of the Reformed creeds that forgiveness (which is the word of the gospel in the soul of the penitent sinner) follows repentance. Canons 5.7 plainly teaches as the Reformed and Christian faith that “[God] renews them [the elect sinners] to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God,” etc. The article teaches that “a sincere and godly sorrow for…sins” [repentance] precedes remission. An activity of the sinner precedes a saving act of God. No clever doctrinal and textual wizardry can obfuscate this perfectly clear teaching of the creed. To charge that the teaching that repentance precedes forgiveness is heresy is to condemn the Canons as heretical. This is the charge of the theologians of the RPC. If they were honest men and women, they would frankly say, “our theology condemns Canons 5.7.” I (een brood gegetende profeet) prophesy that, if the RPC last that long, the day is coming that they will revise Canons 5.7 to reflect their aberrant theology, that forgiveness of sins precedes repentance over these sins. They must!⁷

The True Interpretation of Canons 5.7

Canons 5.7 does not need to be revised. It is a perfectly sound article. I personally believe and confess Canons 5.7, and I have made a vow before God and his people to that effect. But Canons 5.7 does need to be translated accurately. And before Professor Engelsma or anyone else objects that an appeal to translation is nothing but a sly revision after all, I remind Professor Engelsma that he too would insist on a proper translation of Canons 5.7. Professor Engelsma does not believe in a “reconciled God,” as his translation of Canons 5.7 currently reads, or at least he did not confess such a God when he taught me dogmatics in seminary. Professor Engelsma believes (or used to believe) in a reconciling God. Therefore, Professor Engelsma also would insist, I presume, on an accurate translation of Canons 5.7 that would not perpetuate the error of a “reconciled God.” For me to insist on an accurate translation of Canons 5.7 is not to revise the article but to be faithful to the article.

Again, an accurate translation of the article, according to Homer Hoeksema, is as follows:

For in the first place, in these falls he preserves in them this his own immortal seed, out of which they are regenerated, lest it should perish or be cast out. And again, through his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, in order that they should sincerely sorrow after God over the sins committed, that they should through faith, with a contrite heart, desire and obtain forgiveness in the blood of the mediator, that they should again feel God’s favor, having been reconciled, that they should through faith adore his mercies, and that henceforth they should more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.⁸

With this proper translation the meaning of Canons 5.7 can be understood.

First, the purpose of Canons 5.7 is to explain how God preserves his people in their salvation even when they fall grievously into sin. God’s people sin (5.1–3), even falling into “great and heinous sins” (5.4) and “enormous sins” (5.5, in Confessions and Church Order, 173–74). But even in the very midst of the worst, most lamentable falls of his people into sin, God preserves them as his people. Canons 5.1–5 show what man is capable of: sin. Canons 5.6 shows what God does: preserves. Man sins. But God preserves!

But God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their melancholy falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin unto death; nor does He permit them to be totally deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction. (Canons 5.6, in Confessions and Church Order, 174)

Article 6 states the what: preservation. Article 7, connected to article 6 by the word “for,” explains the how of this preservation. God preserves his people in their salvation, even when they fall into sin, by two mighty works: he preserves the seed of regeneration in them, and he renews them to repentance.

Second, Canons 5.7 begins by explaining God’s first mighty work in preserving his people. “For in the first place, in these falls he preserves in them this his own immortal seed, out of which they are regenerated, lest it should perish or be cast out.” In the very midst of their falls into sin—indeed, as God’s people are actually committing their sin and walking in their sin and corrupting themselves in their sin—God preserves in his people the immortal, imperishable, indestructible, incorruptible seed of their regeneration. That seed of regeneration, which is the living Word of God implanted in God’s people, cannot perish or be cast out. God’s people cannot cast out that seed by their sin, their folly, their unbelief, or their rebellion. The seed, being the living Word of God, is indestructible. And God, by his almighty power, preserves that seed in his people.

This mighty work of God is a great comfort for the poor sinner. The sinner cannot preserve himself. He would undoubtedly perish in his backsliding! But God does what the sinner cannot do. God preserves his seed in the believer. The assurance of this preservation excites the believer to humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in every tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suffering and in confessing the truth, and solid rejoicing in God (see Canons 5.12, in Confessions and Church Order, 175).

Third, Canons 5.7 explains God’s second mighty work in preserving his people.

And again, through his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, in order that they should sincerely sorrow after God over the sins committed, that they should through faith, with a contrite heart, desire and obtain forgiveness in the blood of the mediator, that they should again feel God’s favor, having been reconciled, that they should through faith adore his mercies, and that henceforth they should more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

The key to understanding this second mighty work of God is the meaning of the word “repentance” in the article. The translation that the Reformed Protestant Churches currently use makes it seem as though the article defines “repentance” as a sincere and godly sorrow for sin. “And again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins” (Confessions and Church Order, 174). This translation also makes it sound like this repentance—this godly sorrow for sin—is the means by which God’s people obtain the forgiveness of their sins. That is, they do not obtain forgiveness by faith alone. In fact, it appears that they do not obtain forgiveness by faith at all, for faith is not even mentioned with the remission of sins in this translation. Rather, this translation states that God’s people obtain God’s forgiveness by their repenting. “And again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator.”

This explanation of the article—repentance as sorrow and repentance as the means of forgiveness—is how Professor Engelsma explains the article.

Repentance is the way in which God remits sins. It precedes forgiveness. To use the deliberately misleading language of Andy Lanning, Canons, 5.7 teaches an activity of the believing sinner (repenting) that precedes a saving work of God (remitting sin). Without a sincere and godly sorrow for sins, there can be no experience of reconciliation with an offended God.⁹

And again: “The article teaches that ‘a sincere and godly sorrow for…sins’ [repentance] precedes remission. An activity of the sinner precedes a saving act of God.”¹⁰

The proper translation of Canons 5.7 makes it clear that Professor Engelsma’s doctrine cannot be the explanation of the article.

First, Canons 5.7 does not use the word “repentance” in the narrow sense of a sincere and godly sorrow for sin. Even though that is a good and biblical way to use the word and even though we often use the word in that narrow sense, article 7 is not speaking of repentance in that narrow sense. Rather, Canons 5.7 uses the word “repentance” in the broader sense of the entire sanctified life and walk of the child of God. When God renews his people, the result is a spiritual life and walk in the midst of this world. In this sense the word “repentance” is a synonym for the believer’s life. It refers to the activity of the believer, whom God has delivered from the power of sin and who has been renewed by God’s Word and Spirit according to the image of Christ. This broader use of the word repentance was common in the Reformation. For example, it was the first of Martin Luther’s well-known Ninety-five Theses: “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Matthew 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

One only has to look at Canons 5.7 to see that the article is using the word “repentance” in this broader sense. The article confesses that God “certainly and effectually renews them to repentance.” The language of renewal is the language of sanctification. It is language that encompasses the entire inner spiritual life of the child of God. It is the very same language used in Canons 3–4.12: “Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active” (Confessions and Church Order, 169).

Furthermore, Canons 5.7 teaches this renewal as the source of all of the living, spiritual activity of the child of God. The article calls attention to five aspects of the renewed sinner’s spiritual activity by the words “in order that” and “that” and traces all of this spiritual activity back to the sinner’s renewal.

And again, through his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, in order that they should sincerely sorrow after God over the sins committed, that they should through faith, with a contrite heart, desire and obtain forgiveness in the blood of the mediator, that they should again feel God’s favor, having been reconciled, that they should through faith adore his mercies, and that henceforth they should more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. (emphasis added)

The article could never say this about repentance in the narrow sense. Only in the broader sense of repentance as the entire sanctified life of the child of God could it speak of all the spiritual activity listed in the article.

What is more, Canons 5.7 draws a distinction between repentance, on the one hand, and a sincere and godly sorrow for sin, on the other hand. A sincere and godly sorrow for sin is one of the spiritual activities that results from the elect sinner’s renewal by God’s Word and Spirit. The sinner is renewed unto repentance “in order that” he should sincerely sorrow after God over the sins committed.

All of this makes it clear that Canons 5.7 is not using the word “repentance” in the narrow sense of the word but in the broader sense of the sanctified life of a believer.

Second, the correct translation of the article teaches faith alone as the instrument by which the believer desires and obtains the remission of his sins. “That they should through faith, with a contrite heart, desire and obtain forgiveness in the blood of the mediator.” In the translation the RPC currently use, faith is not even mentioned as that which obtains the remission of sins. One who reads the current translation of the article is in danger of finding repentance, not faith, as the instrument by which he is forgiven. He can only find faith in the article at that point if he infers it, but even then he feels that he is introducing something foreign. “By His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator.”

The danger of this present translation is illustrated by the fact that no less a mind and a theologian than Professor Engelsma has found justification by repentance in this article. Justification by repentance is not in the article, but the translation that we currently use certainly obscures justification by faith alone. Let us take warning that the corrupted translation of Canons 5.7 could produce false prophets among us, just as the formidable false prophets of the PRC have found a refuge in their bad translation of the article.

The correct translation of the article carries the true thought of the article. Faith in Christ—and faith alone—obtains the forgiveness of sins in the blood of the mediator. The “contrite heart” of the believer mentioned in the article is not an instrument alongside faith but is simply the mark of faith.

All of this demonstrates that the meaning of Canons 5.7 cannot be that the believer’s sincere sorrow of repentance is a prerequisite for the forgiveness of his sins. Rather, the meaning of Canons 5.7 is that God preserves his people in the midst of their sins by preserving the seed of regeneration and by renewing them unto all the spiritual life and activity of his children. The article has nothing to do with forgiveness by prerequisite repenting but teaches the Reformed gospel of preservation by the mighty operation of God.

The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of Repentance

As for Professor Engelsma’s constant slanders against the Reformed Protestant doctrine of repentance, those have been answered again and again and again. I refer the interested reader to the editorials of June, July, and August 2022, just to name a few.¹¹ And I will conclude by asking the reader to indulge me as I quote from a previous editorial that summarizes our doctrine and answers Professor Engelsma.

The doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches, as it is the doctrine of the gospel and the doctrine of the Reformed faith, is that God’s forgiveness of the sinner is absolutely, sovereignly, and graciously free. There are no conditions that the sinner must fulfill in order to be forgiven. There are no prerequisites that the sinner must meet in order to be forgiven. There are no payments that the sinner must make in order to be forgiven. There is simply nothing that the sinner must do, nothing that the sinner must bring, and nothing that the sinner must be in order to be forgiven of his sins. God forgives the transgressions of his elect people without any regard to any activity that they have performed. God forgives the transgressions of his elect people strictly because it is God’s will to do so, strictly because it pleases him to do so. God forgives the transgressions of his elect people solely with an eye to what Christ has accomplished by his obedience and atonement and without any eye whatsoever on what they have done. God forgives, and that utterly freely.

Especially with regard to the elect sinner’s repenting, God’s forgiveness is absolutely free. God does not check to see if the sinner has repented before God forgives the sinner. God does not withhold his mercy until the sinner has acknowledged his sin and shown sufficient sorrow for his sin. God does not wait upon the sinner to repent before God forgives. God does not even wait upon God’s own work of bringing the sinner to repentance before God forgives. God forgives the sinner freely, without regard for the sinner’s repenting but only with regard for God’s own will and the righteousness of his Son.

There are many ways to describe this free forgiveness: justification by faith alone, salvation by grace, unconditional salvation, sovereign salvation, the Reformed faith, the gospel, and so on. At their heart all of these describe this reality: free forgiveness of sins.

We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied; as David and Paul teach us, declaring this to be the happiness of man, that God imputes righteousness to him without works. And the same apostle saith that we are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. (Belgic Confession 23, in Confessions and Church Order, 51).

The truth of the gospel that forgiveness is truly free for the child of God without condition of repenting or any other work or activity of the sinner is truly liberating for the child of God. Without that gospel the child of God is not free but is in terrible bondage. He is in bondage to the law with all of its requirements. He is in bondage to all of the accusations of his conscience and all of the accusations of the devil that he has not obeyed perfectly. He is in bondage to fear and to self-love, which are the only motives that he can find to try to obey God’s law. In the doctrine that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness, the sinner will never know forgiveness. He will forever be bound by his own imperfect repenting.

But when he is set free by the gospel of free forgiveness, the child of God is free from every demand of the law for righteousness (Gal. 3:13). He is free from every accusation of his conscience that he has disobeyed the entire law of God (LD 23). He is free from every charge of the devil and the false church that he is condemned (Rom. 8:33–34). He is free to live his life before God’s face in faith and without terror (Ps. 130:3–4). He is free to obey God in gratitude, free from self-love and the fear of damnation (Belgic Confession 24). He is free to approach God in prayer without any terror or dread (Belgic Confession 23). He is free to decide boldly and to do boldly those things that God requires, even knowing that he will sin in doing them because of his old man, and knowing also that God does not impute to him those sins (Ps. 103:12). And he is free to sin boldly in doing those things (let the reader understand) without it ever becoming license for him to sin. This is some freedom!

The gospel of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ also frees the sinner to repent. Without the gospel of free forgiveness, the sinner would never repent. Without the gospel of free forgiveness, the sinner would only do what Adam did: flee from God and hide from God. If the sinner must repent before he hears that he is forgiven, then the sinner would never, never come to God. He would never come to God in prayer. He would never come to God with the petition “Forgive us our debts.” He would never come to God in sorrow for his sins. He would never come to God with a broken heart and with a contrite spirit. He would never come to God with his tears and his groanings over his sin. He would only run from God as fast as he could! Why? Because there is no mercy with God! Not as far as the sinner knows. The sinner has no knowledge that the righteousness of Christ is his. The sinner has no knowledge that God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. The sinner only knows his sin. Professor Engelsma will not permit the sinner to know anything other than the sinner’s sin until the sinner first repents. Professor Engelsma will not permit the sinner to hear the blessed declaration of God in Christ, “I pardon your iniquity,” until the sinner completes his necessary, prerequisite repentance.

The believer must hear God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” Without forgiveness, daily, he cannot live. To know this saving word and act of God experientially, the believer must repent, and God calls for, and works, this necessary repentance.

According to Professor Engelsma, until the sinner repents he has no knowledge of the pardon of his iniquity. Until he repents he never hears God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” In Professor Engelsma’s doctrine the sinner is not free! 

But knowing his forgiveness in the blood of Christ according to the eternal and unchangeable good pleasure of God, the sinner is free to repent. Knowing his forgiveness in the blood of Christ, the sinner will certainly and inevitably repent. He will be sorry for his sins and abhor his iniquities. The forgiven sinner is a repentant sinner. Not because he must repent in order to be forgiven but because his whole life before God arises out of and stands upon God’s mercy in Christ. Knowing God’s mercy in Christ that justifies him independently of all of the sinner’s repenting and working and obeying and loving, the sinner will hate and mourn his sin as contrary to the God who has so mercifully received him. He will cry out to God and flee to God, who receives sinners for Jesus’ sake. God’s mercy in Christ has made the sinner free to do so. By God’s mercy in Christ, the sinner is free to approach unto God. He is free to beseech God, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant” (Ps. 143:2). Only knowing the mercy of God in Christ that forgives his sins—only after knowing the mercy of God in Christ that forgives his sins—is the sinner free to repent.

This [obedience of Christ crucified alone] is sufficient to cover all our iniquities, and to give us confidence in approaching to God; freeing the conscience of fear, terror, and dread, without following the example of our first father, Adam, who, trembling, attempted to cover himself with fig leaves. And, verily, if we should appear before God, relying on ourselves or on any other creature, though ever so little, we should, alas! be consumed. And therefore every one must pray with David: O Lord, enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. (Belgic Confession 23, in Confessions and Church Order, 51–52)

Freedom from the guilt, shame, and curse of sin—in Christ! Freedom to repent—because of Christ! That is some freedom!¹²