A Logical Order

I write this September 13, 2021. Professor Engelsma has put out another email letter to all and sundry. Out of character for him and curiously, the letter is undated. But he tells his readers, “I wrote this explanation in August 2021.” I am not sure why this information is relevant, when he emailed the letter on September 2. The Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) posted the email on its blog with some additions and subtractions that I assume were made by Professor Engelsma.¹ Among those additions is that he again cites James 4:8 against us. He is going to make this text his Hoc Est Corpus Meum.

Notable though is that he does not take back a word of what he has written previously, especially about justification and about experience, so that there still is a certain sense in which man is first.

The email is shabby. The editors of Sword and Shield devoted the entire August 15 issue of the magazine to replicating his letters faithfully so that everyone could read them and to explaining our position. Professor Engelsma is obviously responding to Sword and Shield, but he will not even pay us the courtesy of writing in the magazine. He writes about us, but he will not write to us. He condemns us before the world, and he will not even write a word to us. Perhaps, he thinks that writing to us would give us a standing that he thinks we do not deserve. Regardless, writing to us is beneath him!

His arguments against us are weak at best and consist of knocking down a straw man that he has set up. He writes,

They charge that because the PRC teach that forgiveness of sins follows repentance, as God’s way of forgiving sins, and because the PRC teach that justification follows believing, as God’s way of justifying the elect sinner, the ministers in the PRC are teaching conditional salvation.

This has never been our charge, and he knows this. Where in all of our writings have we made this our charge? We have charged conditional experience of salvation—conditional justification and a conditional covenant—but we have never based this charge on the fact that someone taught that forgiveness of sins follows repentance. We have charged that conditions are being deceptively taught in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) and that ministers who are teaching that are saying much more than that forgiveness of sins follows repentance. We have argued this point with many quotes and lengthy analysis.

He continues,

Justification, or forgiveness, follows faith, as the end follows the means. Faith precedes justification. Repentance precedes remission of sins. But because it pleases God to justify by means of faith (believing), and to forgive in the way of the sinner’s repenting, justification is not caused by faith. Neither is repentance the cause of forgiveness. Faith is the (God-worked) means. It is not the cause.

This is apparently all that the Protestant Reformed denomination is teaching. We in the Reformed Protestant Churches are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of confusing post hoc with propter hoc, the fallacy of thinking that because something follows something else, the one causes the other. The classic example is that the rooster’s crowing before dawn is said to cause the dawn. We have been confused all this time. There has been all this trouble about nothing. All the quoting and analysis that we have done is fallacious. No smoke or fire here. First repentance, then faith, then justification. The controversy is only a matter of the order of salvation. Go back to sleep.

My esteemed professor must mistake me for a high school logic student. Everyone knows that the controversy is not about whether this follows that in the order of salvation. I previously ridiculed the idea that the controversy is merely about whether this follows that in the order of salvation. I add now that if a temporal order is what members in the PRC want their ministers to preach as the gospel until Christ comes, let them preach that, and they will all perish with those stones for bread. Besides, the order of salvation is not a temporal order. It is a fundamental corruption of the idea of the order of salvation to teach that it is a temporal order. It is a logical order. A temporal order is not the point of scripture, for instance, when it says the following in the classic proof text on the order of salvation:

29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Rom. 8:29–30)

That is not a temporal order. It is a logical order that points both to the eternal source of every benefit of salvation and to the infallibility and inevitability of that salvation because of that eternal source. The election obtains salvation and every benefit of it. In connection with the covenant, election obtains the promise, the fellowship, and all the blessedness and eternal glory of the covenant of grace. In election the elect have every benefit of salvation really and legally in Christ. From that election salvation and all its benefits flow as a river from its source. Besides, there is a certain definite sense in which the elect possess every benefit of salvation in their regeneration. A baby in the womb is regenerated, justified, and sanctified. This is our confession about our children at the time of baptism, when parents confess that their children are sanctified in Christ; and according to the Canons, this is our comfort in the death of our infants. As to time, I know and everyone knows and no one is denying that faith precedes justification, that repentance precedes forgiveness, and all the rest. What the elect receive in time is the unfolding of what their God gave them in eternity and what Christ accomplished for them at the cross.

Deceptively Conditional

The point in our controversy is that under the guise of the order of salvation, Protestant Reformed ministers are teaching conditions. To use the language of the day, in the way of no longer means in the way of, but it means propter hoc, because of, in order that, or means unto. Our contention is that Schilderian covenant theology has won out in the PRC and that this language of before and after is the same as Klaas Schilder’s A before B. Remember how Schilder defined a condition? It was only A before B, but he meant A before B as a condition. A was unto B. The same thing is being done in the PRC today. Professor Engelsma himself does this. He writes as though the words in the way of and means unto are synonyms. He writes, “Because it pleases God to justify by means of faith (believing), and to forgive in the way of the sinner’s repenting…” He also writes, “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” (emphasis added).

This is shocking to me. In all of my life, I have never thought that was Protestant Reformed theology. He did not teach me that as Protestant Reformed theology. Is justification in the way of repentance, or is repentance means unto justification? If repentance is means unto justification, then it does not matter how many times one says that repentance is by grace and God-worked and God-given; that is conditional justification. Is repentance a means unto forgiveness? Is that the meaning of in the way of in the PRC? In the way of means now in the PRC means unto? And that in connection with justification!

Then I have a similar point with what Professor Engelsma says about faith. He writes, “Similarly, believing is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto justification; as end, justification follows faith” (emphasis added).

There are at least two problems with this, as I see it. The first is that all of the emphasis in his email is on active faith, that is, faith as man’s activity. The reader can notice that he adds to his blog the words an active to faith at a crucial point. Is faith, as man’s activity now, the means unto justification? Faith—as man’s doing—is the means unto justification. I have never believed enough to be justified, and neither has he, and he would be the first to admit it.

The second problem I have is with the word “similarly.” He writes that similarly as repentance is a means to an end, so faith is a means to an end. Worryingly, the end in both cases is justification. The full quote of what he maintains as Protestant Reformed theology is this:

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. Similarly, believing is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto justification; as end, justification follows faith.

And then this from his September 8 blog, and I underline what was not in his email:

Do the theologians of the RPC deny this? Do they deny that the end follows the means? Do they deny that the (God-worked) repentance of the sinner precedes forgiveness? Do they deny that an active faith precedes justification? Do they deny the teaching of James 4:8 that an important aspect of salvation has God’s causing us to draw nigh to Him precede His drawing nigh to us. Is this now the rock-bottom, doctrinal validation of their separate existence? Is this in the end their “here we stand”?

We see from this exactly what he meant when he exegeted James 4:8 and similar passages as man first, then God’s blessing—of course graciously. What he meant was that faith is the means unto justification, and repentance—drawing near to God—is the means unto justification.

I have some problems with this that he should clear up. He is my teacher. I have never in my life been taught that repentance is the means unto forgiveness and that faith is the means unto forgiveness. I have never been taught that the relationship of repentance to justification is similar to faith’s relationship to justification. Such language makes repentance and faith coordinate in the matter of justification. To put it in terms any layman can understand, this means that we are justified by faith and repentance. Or to put it another way, it means that faith—as man’s activity—and repentance—as man’s doing—are conditions of covenant fellowship. There is no covenant fellowship with God apart from justification, and justification is the basis of all of our covenant fellowship. Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” To use the language of the day and without any injustice at all to the words of Romans 5:1, we could interpret this verse to say, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have delightful covenant fellowship—consciously and experientially—with our God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Without justification there is no experience of God as our God, and there is no fellowship with God. The Protestant Reformed doctrine is that in justification faith—as man’s doing—and repentance—as man’s doing—both justify the sinner. It is justification by faith as man’s work and by repentance as man’s work—by grace, of course.

I deny that repentance is a means unto the end justification and that faith is the means unto the end justification. I deny this in two senses. First, I deny that repentance and faith are both means unto the end justification. Faith’s relationship to justification and repentance’s relationship to justification are fundamentally different. Second, I deny that faith as man’s activity, faith as what man does, is the means unto the end justification. That is a new Arminianism. The Arminian also spoke of justification by faith, but his wicked doctrine of justification, like that of Socinus, was that the Arminian made faith man’s work on account of which he was justified. I see the same thing going on today with the language of faith as man’s activity. Faith is what man does—by grace, of course—to be justified and to enjoy fellowship with God. Worse now is that repentance is being added to faith. How many more things must man do to be justified?

Active Faith?

And this leads to my problem with Professor Engelsma’s language of active faith. He adds the words an active to his blog post. Those words were not in his original email. To me this is significant in light of his question to us, “Do they [the theologians of the RPC] deny that an active faith precedes justification?” He wrote in his email letter, “Do they deny that faith precedes justification?” which is a stupid question. No one in the history of theology has denied that faith precedes justification. He knows that this is not what the controversy is about. It is about that word active. But that tactic will not work with us anymore. We are on to it. Just like the federal vision’s obedient faith, and sanctifying faith in the doctrinal statement of the PRC, now we have an active faith. These are all the same. They mingle and intertwine faith and faith’s repentance as co-instruments in justification, and they make faith man’s activity—his doing—because of which he is justified and blessed of God. As was said previously, faith is means unto justification, and repentance is means unto justification.

I also answer Professor Engelsma’s questions: “Do they deny that an active faith precedes justification?” That is a clever question. If he means faith as believing, then we do not deny that. I would add, though, that babies are justified before they believe, and we have as much to do with our justification as babies do. As Christ said in Luke 18:17, “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” If man insists that faith is his doing—by grace, of course—and repentance is his doing—by grace, of course—unto justification, he will not enter the kingdom because he has not received the kingdom as a little child, who does nothing to enter the kingdom, as the babies whom Christ held in his arms and blessed testified. So if Professor Engelsma means faith as man’s activity, man’s doing unto his justification, then, yes, we do deny that. If he means faith as repentance and believing unto justification, then, yes, we deny that too. We deny that emphatically! Repentance is not coordinate with faith in justification. Repentance is not another means with faith unto justification, and faith is not man’s doing unto justification either. The promise comes into our possession by faith alone. We are justified by faith alone, absolutely alone. That faith is God’s gift. We are justified in the way of repentance? I will grant that, although now I am going to ask Professor Engelsma to explain that, because I see how corrupted that language has become. The phrase in the way of, which Hoeksema offered as a solution, is now being used to bring in a freight train load of false doctrine. And it is becoming increasingly clear that those who are doing it cannot stay with the phrase in the way of. They said previously, “In the way of,” wink, wink, and now they want to make sure that their audiences do not misunderstand. They are being forced to come out with what they believe, and what they believe is “means unto” and “because of” and “conditioned on.” We are justified by means of repentance? I absolutely deny that. That cannot be. Justified by faith as man’s activity—man’s doing? I deny that too.

And to all those enamored of the term active faith I ask: what in the world is active faith? Why the word active? Is not faith itself an activity? That is what faith is: activity! It is rigorous, vigorous, and consuming activity. It is the utterly unique activity of clinging to Christ alone. It is the activity of casting off all confidence in the flesh, including in one’s believing or in one’s repenting; it is the activity of doing nothing, nothing but believing. Faith that looks at repentance is not faith. Faith that looks at faith is not faith. Faith that looks at works, activity, and doing is not faith. Faith refuses to look anywhere and to anyone but Christ. Faith refuses to trust anyone or anything but Christ. Faith clings to Christ alone.

What is being screamed at us is, “Faith is an activity! Faith is an activity!” I know that. I preach that. But Professor Engelsma’s—and others’—active faith now means faith and repentance. Repentance is a part of faith, and without repentance faith does not function. Repentance together with faith are the means unto the end justification. By that word active is meant faith as man’s doing and repentance as man’s doing unto his justification.

My response to this is that one cannot believe enough and repent enough to be justified! This active faith, sanctifying faith, and obedient faith are what I have been arguing is federal vision theology in the PRC. It is Schilderian conditional covenant theology in the PRC, and the denomination now through her theologian espouses it unashamedly.

And in answer to Professor Engelsma’s question, “Is this now the…doctrinal validation of their separate existence?” again, the answer is yes. I cannot be in the same church with those who teach that faith and repentance are the means unto the end justification. I do not believe that this is Protestant Reformed theology. Professor Engelsma did not teach me that this is Protestant Reformed theology. I believe that he has sold out Protestant Reformed theology at the crucial point of man’s experience. Why he has done that is a mystery to me. Is it perhaps now to validate the doctrinal decisions of the Protestant Reformed Synod 2021 that undo Synod 2018? Regardless, he has surrendered, and he is doing so by creating an excuse for himself and for everyone else to stay in the PRC by attempting to make his opponents look stupid.

Worse, by means of Professor Engelsma’s doctrinal explanations, the Protestant Reformed denomination now has a new doctrine of justification—defended by appeals to experience and to active faith—in which faith and repentance are means unto forgiveness. With this new doctrine of justification—experience—she also no longer has an unconditional covenant; she has a conditional one—a cleverly conditional one. She is jettisoning God’s decree as controlling the covenant. Instead of starting with God’s decree, she starts with man’s experience in her explanation of scripture and the experience of salvation, and that is very Schilderian too.

Our criticism of that doctrine and our consigning it to the anathema of Paul are not based on mistaking post hoc for propter hoc but on detecting that the doctrine teaches justification by—propter hoc—faith and repentance, and it is not even subtle any longer.

Hoeksema, Luther, Paul, James, Jesus, and Malachi all rejected that doctrine, and we with them do too!

Rewriting 1953

Then there is Professor Engelsma’s very strange section about 1953. He writes,

The appeal by the men of the RPC to the Reformed controversy at the Synod of Dordt and to the Protestant Reformed controversy with conditional theology in the 1940s and 1950s, therefore, is wholly mistaken, illegitimate, misleading, and unjust. The issue in these controversies was not at all whether justification and remission of sins follow faith and repentance.

We agree. The issue in those controversies was not at all about whether faith follows justification, absolutely not about that! Who would be so dense as to think that? Neither is the present controversy about that. That analysis is only Professor Engelsma’s straw man. He is fighting against his own foe and not the actual foe, if we be a foe. We do not contend against first this, then that. First repentance, then faith, then justification. So we sweep away all his rhetoric about the Synod of Dordt and the doctrinal issue in 1953.

What is interesting to me is his new analysis of 1953. He writes, 

We learn what that issue was, and what it was not, not from the writings of individual ministers, no matter how respectable, but from the official document that decided the issue, the “Declaration of Principles”…The issue was whether God makes a gracious, conditional promise to all baptized children that He will save them, which promise is dependent upon a child’s fulfillment of the condition of faith.

Now, I would like to know from Professor Engelsma, which “respectable” Protestant Reformed minister got it wrong in 1953? Was it Rev. Herman Hoeksema with his “do nothing” sermon on the Philippian jailor? Because in that sermon Hoeksema was not dealing with a baby but with an adult. Was it Rev. John Heys with his “Afraid of the Gospel” series in the Standard Bearer? Because he was not dealing with babies either but with the gospel as such—with the question of what the gospel is, with the way ministers actually preached it and how they subtly denied the gospel in their preaching. We have appealed to both, and I know of no other to whom we have appealed. Who was it, then? Who got it wrong, so that appealing to them we miss the issue of 1953? Professor Engelsma should answer this question for the sake of the PRC, if for no one else. The denomination should know which of her ministers got it wrong.

Further, Professor Engelsma knows that the controversy that culminated in 1953 began with the question whether God makes a conditional promise to all baptized babies, but that is not where the controversy stayed. The Declaration of Principles was written in 1951 to condemn as unreformed the conditional covenant theology of the Liberated. But Rev. Hubert De Wolf made the issue one of covenant theology for adults too, as it really was for the Liberated as well. The Liberated never kept the issue at babies, but it was a matter of whether at any point in the covenant man is first, and God waits on man—to put it crudely. De Wolf made it an issue of the gospel at all times, in all places, and to all people. And so did his defenders at the May 1953 session of Classis East. The question was of an offer, not just to babies but also to adults. The question was of conditions, not just for babies but also for adults. The question was of the nature of the promise, not just for babies but also always for everyone. The question became the nature of the preaching!

De Wolf had preached, “God promises every one of you that if you believe you will be saved.” That was Liberated covenant theology applied to the preaching of the gospel. The Liberated’s gospel, which is no gospel, was first man and then God—first what man must do and then what God would do. Then De Wolf preached that repentance was a prerequisite to enter the kingdom. First what man must do and then what God would do. So first De Wolf went after faith, then he went after repentance, and he made both what man must do to be saved (justified). He did not use this language that I am aware of; but to put it in today’s language, De Wolf made both faith—as man’s activity—and repentance—as man’s activity—means unto justification.

Indeed, before the Protestant Reformed Classis East of May 1953 was the question of whether in the daily experience of salvation man is first. That was the issue. I have proved from the documents in an earlier Sword and Shield article that that was the issue.²

De Wolf defended his statements by the subterfuge that he was not too keen on the terms prerequisite and condition and could gladly use the term in the way of. His colleagues tried to help him out in the majority report by saying that he was only talking about the experience of salvation—the daily entering into the kingdom—and by appealing to active faith and the idea that De Wolf was only emphasizing the need for active faith and that he was preaching to regenerated people. The controversy had to do with the nature of the promise and of grace and of salvation itself and whether God waited upon man and man’s activity and doing. Key to the controversy was this concept of an active faith.

Professor Engelsma says that hopefully until Christ returns the PRC will be making the confession of the truth that was made in 1953. But the denomination has already departed, if his explanation of faith, repentance, and justification is what the denomination believes. I can only hope that in this case Homer nodded and that if he did, he will wake up quickly and realize that the theology he taught me and that I have defended has no place in the PRC anymore.

It ought to make Professor Engelsma pause and reconsider his email, blog post, and explanations of Malachi and James and this whole matter of faith and repentance—man first in experience—that the defense of De Wolf himself and by his colleagues in the documents and in De Wolf’s false apology was an appeal to an active faith. They spoke about the experience of salvation and actively entering into the kingdom. The language of the majority report and the language of today are eerily and strikingly similar. De Wolf’s and others’ use of that language was a ploy, legerdemain, sleight of hand, and theological misdirection in order to bring in Liberated covenant theology in the name of the believer’s experience. All De Wolf was doing, crowed the majority report, was emphasizing the need for an active faith.

And Hoeksema and others chopped off the rooster’s head. The believer’s experience must be explained as Paul did in Romans 8—beginning in election. All the benefits of salvation, like a golden chain, follow from election. The election obtains the promise, also in the case of the believer’s experience. It is always God first and man after. The Protestant Reformed denomination wants to start with experience and has lost the gospel.

James 4:8 Again

Professor Engelsma also says that our mistaken notion of post hoc puts us in direct conflict with James 4:8. But he should stop bringing up this passage. We answered him, and our explanations are perfectly orthodox. We devoted an entire issue of Sword and Shield to explaining these things, which he ignores. So I will repeat what our position is: the issue is not one of first repentance, then forgiveness. That passage is not even teaching about what is first, second, third, fourth, or fifth. The passage is about God’s call. If a man tells you, “Draw near to me,” then it is first, second, third. But when God says, “Draw near to me,” that is an effectual call that draws the sinner unto God. That call proceeds from God’s eternal decree. That call is effectual to accomplish what the decree determined. The issue is God’s effectual call. The issue is not God’s causing man to do something, so that man’s doing is the means to his receiving God’s blessing. The issue is about the nature of God’s call, and the issue is about whom God calls. He calls his elect, so that many are called, but few are chosen. The elect are called to him, and the reprobate are hardened.

Then there is this curious matter of Professor Engelsma’s insertion in his blog post about an appeal to the regenerated human’s activity. I take this in the same sense as I take his language about an active faith. And I note that this is not the first time I have encountered this language. Late in the controversy in the PRC, in October 2018, Rev. Kenneth Koole wrote an absolutely atrocious article in the Standard Bearer about what a man must do to be saved, in which article he cleverly militated against the synodical decision in June 2018. He was supposedly exegeting Acts 16:31. Koole taught that there is something man must do to be saved and that Herman Hoeksema’s exegesis of the passage in his sermon as “do nothing” was nonsense. Professor Engelsma rightly called Koole out on that. I note, though, that the most Engelsma would say was that Koole’s criticism of Hoeksema merely threatened the unconditional covenant that Hoeksema was defending in the sermon that Koole so lovelessly savaged. Better would have been that Koole’s exegesis was Arminian and an assault on the unconditional covenant. Nevertheless, Koole deftly parried Engelsma’s blow and drove him from the field by appealing to the fact that he (Koole) was only talking about regenerated people, and, of course, we all know that regenerated people are active. It was clever, devious, and effective. It fooled many and ended Engelsma’s assault. But it also was revelatory because it showed that what Koole was saying was suspect. It was the same sort of defense that De Wolf’s colleagues and supporters gave for him. Koole, like De Wolf, had to take refuge for his theology in a subterfuge. Is it okay to be an Arminian when talking about regenerated people? Is that what regeneration now means in the PRC? Regeneration means that we are free to do theology like the Arminians. Before regeneration we are all good Calvinists. But after regeneration we become good Arminians?

Now Professor Engelsma employs the same device in his explanation of James 4:8. He adds to his letter these words in his blog post:

The Scripture of James 4:8, in an exhortation to the regenerated human’s activity, has the believer’s drawing nigh to God precede God’s drawing nigh to him or her. One can, indeed must, explain this truth of salvation, but he may not explain it away.

I will not explain the truth of salvation away, but I will explain it. God’s efficacious call draws the sinner to God. The sinner whom God calls is elect. When God says, “Draw nigh,” God draws the sinner; and in saying those words, he has already drawn nigh to his people. It is an election theology that governs the calling, the covenant, salvation, and the experience of salvation.

But there is this added in the blog post: “an exhortation to the regenerated human’s activity.” Koole did the same thing when he explained Acts 16:31. Paul was talking to a person who had been regenerated. De Wolf’s friends had the same excuse: he was talking to the congregation as regenerated! But then, of course, with election there is no first man, then God. Then all of salvation—regeneration, calling, faith, justification, and sanctification—comes to the sinner because of election. Election brings it all to him.

Perhaps Professor Engelsma can explain what he meant by that insertion. Why did he feel the need to add it? Is it because without it his explanation sounds rankly Arminian? Are the only people to whom I may say, “Repent and believe,” or to whom I may say, “Draw nigh,” those whom I assume are regenerated? Or is my calling to them to draw nigh to God based on my appeal to their regenerated nature?

Frankly, I find the addition to be hyper-Calvinistic. On the mission field, in the congregation, and wherever God sends me, I declare in the name of God to the adulterers and adulteresses, “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you,” and I am not addressing only regenerated people. Rather, I am demanding in the name of God to all and sundry that they repent; and no man, unregenerated or not, has a right to refuse to draw nigh to God. Frankly, I do not care if they are regenerated, unregenerated, or Martians. God says, “Draw nigh.” I say in his name, “Draw nigh.” God promises that he will draw nigh to all who draw nigh to him, and he will refuse none. It is a promise. There is promise there! Does not anyone see it? The promise of covenant fellowship with God is at the heart of the text in James 4:8. Let me put Professor Engelsma’s explanation in that language: when the promise of God is God’s drawing nigh, there is a certain sense in the fulfillment of God’s promise that man is first; there is a certain, specific sense in which in the realization of that promise man is first.

I do not believe that. If he does, then we must part ways, and he will be responsible for leading the PRC astray. If he does not believe that, then he must condemn his explanation of the text as unreformed and not Protestant Reformed.

Controversy about the Truth

Professor Engelsma trained me, and I teach what he taught me, even if what he taught me has been sharpened by controversy. He cannot complain about a minister’s growth after seminary. He required it of his students. And I am saying that I teach what he taught me and that my teaching has no place in the PRC. My colleagues complained about that teaching before my suspension, some openly and more behind my back. Many in the congregation and consistory hated it and fought against it. Before Crete’s consistory seized on the Persian subterfuge of requiring my resignation from Sword and Shield, there were efforts by the newly elected elders to silence the preaching. I grew to find out that they had been sent to the consistory with that very purpose. Election theology was hated; sound, Reformed theology was hated; the theology that I had learned from Professor Engelsma was not wanted.

Frequently, Professor Engelsma told us, his students, that we must not do theology in the 1920s, but we must face the errors of the new day. We have done that. I just never thought that in doing so, Professor Engelsma would be my opponent, if he be my opponent. As I said before, I do not relish a fight with him, but if he wants to have it, let us have it. He will in a sense be fighting himself, because I will only present him with what he has taught me. But in this fight let us not set up stupid straw men to knock down. We have written and continue to write voluminously about the issues that faced us in the PRC and where we see departure from sound doctrine in the PRC. No one will answer what we have written. It is worthless argument, according to the PRC. We have been contending that there is in the PRC a new threat to the gospel, and we have explained what that threat to the gospel is, and we were killed for that.

In that light I add for Professor Engelsma’s benefit, since he complains about our tone—growing hatred—that we were finished a long time ago with polite arguments and friendly debate. The time for friendly debate has long since passed. It had passed when I was still preaching and writing in the PRC. The denomination, mainly through the consistories’ and the ministers’ condemnation of Sword and Shield, made clear that there was to be no debate on the issues facing the denomination.

It was perfectly permissible for Rev. K. Koole, Rev. R. Van Overloop, Prof. R. Cammenga, and many others to militate against the decisions of the denomination and to do it in the most underhanded ways, so that when they were accused of it, they could say, “Who, me? I agree with synod. I would never militate against synod!” All the while they hated what synod had decided, and they worked constantly to undermine the decision by pushing the rejected conditional theology that had snaked its way into the churches and that had cloaked itself by deceptive language and appeals to orthodox words. These men are guilty of massive ministerial malfeasance. If they were doctors practicing medicine, each of them would have written over his office, “His remedies are poison!” The time for debate in the PRC is finished. The time for debate with the PRC is finished. I wish it were different. I wish there could be a debate. I would debate publicly with any Protestant Reformed theologian who offered. The denomination is not debating anything. The ministers, elders, and professors make pronouncements—papa dixit!—and they issue their bulls and decretals. All their arguments are merely loud assertions, rhetoric, or angry recriminations. Their best tactic is an amateurish fight against straw men. And there is a massive reeducation effort underway to make sure that the new language is cemented in the minds of the people and especially in the minds of the young people. For the denomination there is no controversy; there has been no controversy; it was schismatics who were to blame. This all is nonsense, and everyone knows that.

Still more, the time for friendly debate long since has passed based on the actions of the PRC, including Professor Engelsma. His denomination put out two faithful ministers who preached the gospel. He has made peace with that wickedness by writing off what his denomination has done and by writing off what we have done as the misbehavior of some ministers. His last public act was to step over the dead body of his spiritual son, the former minister of Crete Protestant Reformed Church, and to strengthen the hand of the wicked there with an excuse and a justification. There was wickedness by somebody somewhere. You cannot make peace with that wickedness, or you will become like those who do it, and you will be guilty of aiding and abetting them in their wickedness with your excuses. Silence in the face of evil, as Professor Engelsma well knows, is complicity in that evil, and the connivers bear the guilt of that evil.

Since he has obliquely warned me, I warn him as a son a father. War has come now upon the Protestant Reformed Churches. The war is between the denomination and God. That is what happens to the church that departs from the truth, graces her evil with the name of God, gives aid and comfort to false teachers and corrupt men, and loves not the truth unto death. An adversary is among the churches. The denomination thinks that she kicked out the adversary, but she invited him in. She kicked Christ to the curb and invited the devil in. I would say this to every Protestant Reformed minister who still has a mind to preach Christ: “Don’t! The people do not want him. They put him out. He stands outside the door and knocks. Do not try to drag him back up to the pulpit because you will look foolish, the people do not want him, and you anger them and Christ. He stands outside the door and knocks, and he is not coming in. You must go out to him.”

That war has come upon the PRC is clear because this fight is about the truth. It becomes clearer and clearer to me with every sermon, with every blog post, with every email, with every speech, and with every article that the issue has been about the truth and that one side was lying.

Who was lying is also being made clearer and clearer. We have been insisting for months that the truth is at stake, that the issue is about the truth, that the truth is being compromised, and that the truth—Christ—is being dishonored in the PRC. And everyone in the PRC kept saying, “It is not about the truth; it is about the misbehavior of some ministers!” This has been preached off pulpits and said in speeches and written in articles. “We had”—so the PRC’s story goes with forced sullenness, crossed fingers, feigned sighs, and false laments—“to get rid of them for their misbehavior. For the sake of the unity and peace of Jerusalem, we had to stop their misbehavior at all costs.” But the professors, ministers, elders, and others who said this were lying. That they were lying is clear with every new letter, article, and email. Every one of them is about what the truth is and whether the truth is antinomian, radical, idiotic, logical fallacy, and all the rest. These writers and speakers all argue about what the truth is. And they are becoming louder and bolder in their crowing that they have driven off the opponents of the truth, radicals who make stupid logical fallacies, and misguided zealots who in their zeal for justification deny obvious truths about the gospel.

Anyone who has eyes to see yet and ears to hear yet had better be listening now to the voices in the PRC that are swelling to a chorus—Professor Engelsma among them—that this controversy has always been about the truth. Do not swallow what has been and remains the lie that this controversy had anything other than the truth at its root. Since 2015 and before, the controversy has been about nothing else than the truth.

Professor Engelsma scornfully dismisses us as having no doctrinal basis or “validation” for our separate existence and then promptly argues and shows what the doctrinal basis (“validation”) of our separate existence is. It is a big deal to us whether God is first or man is first, no matter how you explain it. It is a huge deal. It is a big deal whether faith and repentance are means unto justification. That is a Reformation issue. It is a matter—and it is my conviction that history will prove this—so serious that it involves whether a denomination is in principle false or whether a denomination continues as true. It involves the article of the standing or falling church.

Professor Engelsma and others with him are constantly pointing out where we err doctrinally. I thought this controversy wasn’t about doctrine? I thought that everybody loved and taught the same truth, and this was only a matter of misbehavior? That was a lie, and everyone involved in the lie and in spreading the lie knew that. They knew it at Byron Center; they knew it at Crete; they knew it at Trinity, where my brother led the deceit; and they knew it at Peace. It was about the truth. It was about the truth that was being preached off the pulpits at Byron Center and Crete and that was appearing in the magazine Sword and Shield and that powerful men in the PRC were sick and tired of hearing. They wanted smooth things.

Blow the Trumpet

I will remind Professor Engelsma what the issue is—and he knows this too and should need no reminder. It is about John 14:6! Everything we are contending for comes down to that verse. His denomination is teaching in many different ways that the way to the Father is by the works that the Holy Spirit works in a man. Jesus is good too, but the way to the Father is especially by the works that the Holy Spirit works in a man. The way to the Father is by unconditional obedience. Jesus is okay, but especially unconditional obedience is necessary as the way to the Father. The more you obey, the more God blesses you. Do a little more, be a little more godly, work a little harder, pray a little more fervently, repent a little more deeply, and you too can be closer to God. It is modern-day monkery. That is the issue.

It is, and he knows this too, about justification. And though he refused to admit it in his protest to Synod 2017, the issue is about the unconditional covenant.

Professor Engelsma, do not set up straw men. It is unworthy of you. Deal with our arguments, our preaching, and our writing. Tell us that it is not a big deal and no worry to you and can be explained as perfectly orthodox that not only could those lies about John 14:6 be preached off Protestant Reformed pulpits, but also that theology was in such an absolutely sorry state in the PRC that a consistory, classes, and synods of learned men could not—or would not—condemn those lies for years. Then once the lies had been condemned, ministers and professors went on to bring the wretched theology back into their preaching and writing. We have given many examples, and they are multiplying. Read them. Professor Engelsma, if all this does not bother you, there is nothing more I can say that will alert you.

I can say that I would rather be found denying some temporal order than teaching available grace that is different from the irresistible grace of regeneration, as Reverend Koole preached! I would rather be found confusing post hoc with propter hoc than teaching that the way to the Father is Jesus and my good works. I would rather be guilty of the worst thing that I have been accused of than be guilty of preaching the heresy of conditions and that there are two rails to heaven, as Reverend Van Overloop did. This is the theology now of the Protestant Reformed denomination, which was once a grand lady.

Professor Engelsma should ask himself, how in the wide world could it be that John 14:6 has been so corrupted in the Protestant Reformed Churches? How could it be that ministers preached conditions off their pulpits? How could available grace that is not irresistible be preached? And hardly anyone batted an eye! How could that be?

I disagree with Professor Engelsma’s assertion that I hate the PRC. Rather, I hate what bad theologians and ministers have done to the denomination, which was such a grand lady and now has become a vindictive and lying old hag under their watch. I hate what ministers who are called to preach the gospel have done to sheep that I know and love. I hate what ministers who are charged with preaching the gospel have been doing to whole congregations for years by their man-centered, man-glorifying, and deceptive preaching, about which they crow that they have only been emphasizing the activity that God causes us his people to do and that they have only been preaching about the proper order of salvation.

What ought to wake up Professor Engelsma is what those churches did to two of her ministers who had been preaching neither post hoc nor propter hoc but Jesus Christ and him crucified as the only way of salvation to all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, and who had been contending for that against all the post hocs and propter hocs—hocus pocus is more like it—sounding around them. Those churches murdered them, and they will not suffer the ministers’ bodies to be buried but insist that every member give his assent to that murderous evil. Besides the wickedness perpetrated publicly, there are all of the shenanigans that were going on behind the scenes that await the day of judgment for their revelation. Professor Engelsma should explain that properly and not take refuge in the bland and deceptive analysis that it was the misbehavior of some ministers and that the issue we are contending for is because we are so dense as to confuse post hoc with propter hoc. Do not explain what happened to us ex post facto by pointing to invented deviations in doctrine and idiotic logical fallacies. Professor Engelsma was a better teacher than that, and he should give himself more credit for our education.

As Jesus Christ wept over Jerusalem, I weep for the PRC. After several of my last sermons in Crete Protestant Reformed Church, I could hardly give the benediction because I saw what wolves—evil elders, who rose up right in the council, and influential members who egged them on—were going to do to the sheep. I weep for the PRC, whose situation now Professor Engelsma makes worse by confirming the denomination in her departure by giving an excuse and a cover for it with his post hoc and propter hoc. He continues to put the PRC in a pair of brass shoes, so that, once floundering, now the denomination is rapidly sinking. 

If only she knew the things that belonged to her peace, but God will gather all his chicks whom ministers scattered and tried to keep from coming to Christ.

Since Professor Engelsma warned me, now I warn him. Christ put him as a watchman on the walls. Does he not see that war has come? People have died, in some cases nearly literally. Families are split, churches are torn apart, officebearers have been deposed, and members are leaving. Shall there be evil in the city and God—God—has not done it? It is gross negligence on the part of a watchman to chalk all this up to confusion about post hoc and propter hoc. God did this. What is his message? 

I say, “It is war. It is not a debate anymore.” The war is between God and the PRC. I tried to debate for months in the PRC, and no one would. I wrote twenty articles on the RFPA blog, and the only response I got from anyone on the other side was anger that I dared to suggest that there was a controversy in the PRC. I tried to publish on the RFPA blog, and the editors at the Standard Bearer had conniptions, bullied the RFPA board to take the post down, and charged me with sin. We tried to write into the Standard Bearer to have a debate. I tried posting on the RFPA blog to debate, and the professors and editors of the Standard Bearer charged me with sin. We tried to get the Standard Bearer or the RFPA to publish debate and were charged with sin again. I was charged with sin so many times and for so many different things that I stopped taking the charges seriously and realized that they were only the tactics of evil men to silence the truth. There was no debate then. It is surely not a debate now. War has come. 

Professor Engelsma must either damn us, or he must damn the Protestant Reformed Churches.

He warns us, and now I will warn him: “Blow the trumpet!”

But I fear his emails are his blowing of the trumpet, and its sound is at best uncertain—and worse, signals the people of God to hunker down instead of to flee. It is a tune for peace rather than a blast for war. He has sounded the wrong note. The enemy is within. God put him on the walls with a trumpet in his hand. God commanded him to blow the trumpet. If he does not—first that, then this—then the blood of the Protestant Reformed Churches rests on him!

I am free from it.