The Old Drunk
The old man’s face is beet red, and his eyes are bloodshot and watering profusely as he sits on the edge of his bed. He is hunched over and wheezing. The poison has eaten away his strength. He has an almost continual slur to his speech, so that he is difficult to understand. He shuffles to the kitchen. His hands are shaking now as he pours himself another gin. He used to enjoy the good stuff. Now a cheap ten-dollar bottle of swill is fine with him. He does not bother with the tonic and limes anymore. It takes too long, and the gin is what he wants anyway. He has not had a drink since last night, and his mind and body are craving some liquor. He finishes his drink in one big quaff. Ah! Relief! All is well now! Contentedly, he sinks into his chair while the alcohol floods his system, numbing his mind and destroying his body already decrepit from years of overuse. He has, of course, convinced himself that he functions much better with booze in his system. His family likes him better this way. He performs better at his job. Life is easier to take. He cannot possibly be without booze. He awoke this morning with a groggy mind and with strange injuries from his staggering about. Last night’s activities are a blank in his foggy mind. Having polished off the first glass in a single gulp, he quickly pours himself another nip to get the day off on the right foot. And now juiced up on alcohol, he speaks grandiose things, his tongue and mind loosened by the elixir. Illusions of grandeur flood into his mind. He is ready for the day now.
The old drunk!
Such also has the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) become: an old drunk! He is drunken on the doctrine and wisdom of man. The PRC cannot be without them. He cannot imagine life without them. He has convinced himself and spends his time convincing others of the lie that he functions much better with the alcohol of man’s doctrine and wisdom coursing through his system. He would be a careless Christian without them. He too used to enjoy the good stuff: the old preachers of man were smooth, convincing, and enjoyable. Now he contents himself with some badly made moonshine distilled by a few backwoods, theological hicks. The stuff gives him an awful headache in the morning, but it gets rid of the shaking of his daily withdrawals. Every now and then his stomach rebels and vomits in protest. But he must have a drink.
If someone accuses him of being a drunk, he becomes very offended. He is a perfectly sober person. He has convinced himself that he alone is able to balance man and Christ as the way of salvation. He can drink some man and still honor Christ! If someone threatens to take away his booze, he becomes equally enraged, lashes out, and flails about trying to hit the offender, slurring, “Anthinomianths!” A few weeks ago he slipped and almost drowned in his own vomit that an ailing stomach hurled out in protest; thankfully he was able to get up somehow.
His hand is shaking now as he pours himself another glass. Just a sip: but the gospel does require an obethient response from man. Just another sip: we must accurately dithtinguith between the right to life and the possethion of life. He is glugging now and no longer sipping: a man musth do thomething to obtain the pothesethion of salvation; good workths are not to be thslighted in assuring the soul of its jussificathion…glug, glug…these thstatemenths while thsuggesting errrrooor and…laacking clarificathion…and though these thstathmenths asth commonly underthstood are error…falsth doc…errorsths…He is struggling now, the alcohol slurring his speech badly and taking away all sound judgment…butth asth we ethplain them, they do not conthra…conthrathict thscripthure…or the confethissons, or conthradict the dethithissions of synod twenthy-eighteen…glug, glug. He made it. He prides himself on his clarity of expression and that no one suspects that had a few nips before he took the bench as judge. He sinks into his chair exhausted by the effort.
He will perish, will the old drunken PRC, with his booze of man. What has come upon him, the prophet Habakkuk prophesied long ago,
15. Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
16. Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the Lord’s right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory. (Hab. 2:15–16)
Long ago Protestant Reformed ministers started giving their congregations the inebriating drink of man. And the ministers made the people drunk on it and exposed them to folly and derision. And the Lord is making those men drink too and is exposing them to folly and derision. The whole piece of advice considered by Classis East on February 8, 2024, was nothing but the shameful rambling of a man who had overindulged on the hard liquor of the doctrine that man must do something to be saved. Some of the protests to classis were the protesting vomit of a drunk’s stomach that the night before had had enough of the rotgut gin of man. The other protests were holding out to the drunk a glass of badly made theological scotch as an alternative to the bad gin that has caused so many hangovers.
Derail by Declaring Illegal
At the recent meeting of the Protestant Reformed Classis East, the classis treated a number of protests against its decision to exonerate Rev. K. Koole of false doctrine taken at a previous classis. I treated that decision earlier.1 That decision was, of course, a hash; and it appears that nearly everyone recognized this, and the classis overturned its decision. The previous decision was written under the leadership of Prof. R. Dykstra, and the pre-advice to classis had his slimy, political, and unethical fingerprints all over it. When protestants came to the January 10, 2024, meeting of classis pointing out the shamefulness of the decision—foolishly thinking that they were dealing with honest men—Dykstra tried to derail the whole movement to treat these protests by suggesting that they should be declared illegal. According to the transcript, he said,
Mr. Chairman, as I hinted earlier, I have some difficulty with simply saying that they have satisfied article 31, particularly the protests that have to do with classis’ not dealing with the three statements and that we need to get into those three statements and decide them. Again, the Church Order, article 31, says that if anyone complain that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, then he has the right to appeal. Not one of the protestants indicated a reason why they thought they were fulfilling article 31, how they were wronged. This is a matter, to my mind, between a consistory and the minister and Grandville’s consistory requiring an apology. Reverend Koole wrote it. Grandville approved of his apology. So this is a matter between consistory and minister. If Reverend Koole thought he was wronged, then he had every opportunity to protest and appeal. He did not. It is his case. He is perfectly capable of protest and appeal. No one needs to step in for Reverend Koole. Should the churches allow others simply to stand, to start protesting and appealing someone else’s matter? That’s my concern.
With the previous appeal of Mr. VanDer Schaaf, he brought to our attention that a consistory had condemned the minister for false doctrine without demonstrating it from scripture and the confessions and that the minister then was guilty of serious sin without being condemned by the confessions. But now we have something different. Now we have three statements of Witsius, statements that Classis East left alone. Again, Grandville demanded an apology. Reverend Koole apologized. He repudiated those three statements. That to my mind should finish it. What possible damage to the churches would there be from simply leaving those statements alone? I see no benefit whatsoever to our discussing those things. Someone might not like them. Someone might say they can be rightly interpreted. But if those statements stand as they are repudiated by Reverend Koole, I do not see any way how that’s going to affect our churches. Let not classis argue over statements of theology by a man who was not Protestant Reformed, never was, been dead for three hundred years, and statements that Reverend Koole himself has repudiated. This, this, just seems like something not worth our work of classis. Classis doesn’t need to do this.
But article 31 is where the rub, seems to me, comes. Are the men bringing this really wronged? Are they wronged? I realize our churches for a long time have been very lenient on this. I can appreciate that. I don’t want wrong pipelines. But I do think we need to send the message to the churches that just because you don’t like something, does not give you the right to protest it. You realize that technically if we go this direction, a man can comb the bulletins of the churches and say, “I don’t like the decision that the consistory of such and such made,” and so protest it. That is what this leaves us open to. Anybody who doesn’t like a decision may go ahead and protest it. I believe it has to be tighter than that; it has to be really that the man himself is wronged by the decision. So that is why I’m going to vote against that the protests are legally here…
This is a favorite tactic of the unethical men of Classis East when they do not want to deal with an issue: just declare it illegal! Perhaps the protestant will be discouraged and drop the matter. Perhaps the screws can be put to him, and he will back down. Dykstra’s argument is completely bogus, of course, as anyone with half a brain can see and understand. The advice he approved deliberately avoided the doctrinal matter laid before classis. The doctrinal matter could not be any more serious: Did Christ do all that is necessary to be saved, or is there that which man must do to be saved? The October 2023 classis sidestepped the doctrinal matter. That is an offense and a grievance to the whole denomination. That should not need to be stated. If there is a doctrinal controversy that comes to classis and the classis completely sidesteps the issue, then that is the offense and that is the grievance personally of every member because the classis left the matter undecided, and the matter of doctrine is the most important matter that a classis can treat. Deal with the doctrine!
The classis did not listen to Professor Dykstra. The reason was very simple: there was a doctrinal impasse between the consistory of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church and the protestant Pete VanDer Schaaf. The case was not either, as Dykstra deceptively framed the case, a finished matter between a minister and a consistory. This was a matter of Grandville’s consistory having charged its minister with false doctrine for teaching those statements and of a protestant arguing that there was no false doctrine taught. Pete was also not arguing merely that a consistory cannot convict a minister of false doctrine without using scripture and the creeds. But Pete was arguing that Koole did not teach false doctrine. Period. The previous decision had tried to avoid the doctrinal issue like it was the plague.
Several protestants demurred.
Heretical Statement One
The issue at the classis was Koole’s promotion, use, and explanation of three statements from Herman Witsius, the dead theologian that Koole had promoted as orthodox in a series of Standard Bearer articles three years ago. The first statement, as taken from the committee of pre-advice’s document, is as follows.
The committee advised,
The classis took a decision that the statement could be explained in an orthodox fashion that does not contradict scripture and the confessions. Classis said that one can, in fact, and Reverend Koole did, explain that scripture and the confessions teach that man must do something that he may be saved and that scripture and the confessions teach that a man must do something that he may obtain the possession of the salvation purchased by Christ. Classis hid that statement behind all kinds of qualifications and caveats, but the basic decision is this: with the right clarifications you can explain that egregious phrase rightly in an orthodox sense that does not contradict scripture and the confessions. Classis did not, in fact, prove that. Where do scripture and the confessions hint in the least sense that a man must do something to obtain the possession of his salvation? The committee tried to talk the statement straight by simply imposing a meaning on it. But Witsius did not mean what classis said. He meant a man’s doing something to obtain the possession of his salvation. Be honest with the man. He believed in the distinction between the right to salvation and the possession of salvation, and he taught that many holy exercises of faith and obedience are necessary before one has the possession of salvation.
What is supposed to save this phrase in part is that Witsius rejected conditions. The committee said, “[Koole] demonstrated that Witsius rejected conditions in the first article of the series.” Reverend McGeown argued,
I am going to quote from the first SB article, November 15, 2020. It says, “Witsius rejects the notion that Reformed theologians can speak of some condition a man must perform to receive salvation, while at the same time holding to the doctrine of election, that is, claiming to maintain that Christ purchased salvation for the elect in the absolute sense of the word. It is either/or. Either Christ purchased salvation for the elect absolutely and fully, or He did not.” So Reverend Koole teaches that you may not say that man fulfills a condition or that he…works or something else to receive salvation. He says that in the very first article. That is the context in which these articles were written.
But that one has to defend his phrase from the charge of conditionality means that in all likelihood the phrase is conditional. And that Witsius rejected the word condition is no more proof that he was not conditional than the PRC’s saying that she does not teach conditions is proof that her theology is not conditional.
The committee told us that Reverend Koole was not guilty of false doctrine because he explained the phrase rightly. What was his explanation? That a man must do something to obtain the possession of salvation means that “when the Word is preached, there must be a response to the call of the gospel in a positive, submissive, obedient way.” So responding to the gospel in a positive way is what man then does to obtain the possession of salvation? Still heretical!
So Koole continued,
Witsius…is neither referring to doing something to give Christ the right to save…nor to gaining a right to salvation. The key word is “possession.” Witsius is referring to the personal experience of one’s own salvation and one’s own enjoyment of it.2
So then what we have is that man must have a positive response to the gospel to obtain the possession of his salvation, and this possession of salvation is his experience of salvation. He must do something to experience his salvation. Nope! Still heretical!
Every Reformed man knows that the experience of salvation is the effect of the Spirit’s application of salvation. The experience of salvation is not the result of man’s working, whether that is his doing faith for salvation or his doing works for salvation. The experience of salvation is not by works either.
I am not sure what more glorious experience can be imagined than knowing Christ. It is at the very heart of the Christian experience. According to the Heidelberg Catechism, my only comfort is knowing that I belong to Christ! That is some experience! And the apostle says in Philippians 3:8, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” I note that the apostle includes in that his good works, when he says, “Not having mine own righteousness” (v. 9).
So Koole continued,
It is evident that Witsius is using the phrase “the way to life” in two different manners. In the first instance, Christ is the way to life in the sense of being the one only ground for approaching God and His work the sole basis for the right of access. But for Witsius, using the phrase, “the way to life” in connection with that central truth does not rule out using the phrase also in connection with Christian piety. As for the second usage of the phrase, it is clear that what Witsius has in mind is what we now refer to as “in the way of.” As he states, “…because thereby we go to the possession [!] of the right obtained by Christ.”3
So now what we have is Christ is a way to life as the sole basis of access to the Father. And Christian piety is a way to life in the sense of obtaining the possession of salvation, which would be access to the Father. Is not life with God eternal life, as Christ said that to know God and Jesus Christ, his Son, is eternal life? So now we have two ways to God: Christ and Christian piety. And it is even worse, for we learn from Koole that all that Christ did is get us the right to access God, but works are the actual way to God. And this he says is what the PRC means by “in the way of.”
What classis did do is to give an interpretation of what classis now means by an obedient, willing, active response to the gospel. It is man’s doing something to obtain the possession of his salvation. The decision of this classis tells us that all the talk in the PRC about order, necessary way, obedient responses, and in the way of means that there is something man must do to obtain salvation from God. Obedient responses are the way to obtain the possession of salvation. This sounds a lot like what David Overway taught when he said that Jesus Christ and man’s Spirit-wrought works are the way to the Father. In fact, Koole’s doctrine is not one whit different.
What classis left out was the ABCs for every Reformed person as expressed in Lord’s Day 6:
Q. 17. Why must He in one person be also very God?
A. That He might, by the power of His Godhead, sustain in His human nature the burden of God’s wrath; and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life. (Confessions and Church Order, 88)
Jesus Christ obtains! Having obtained, Jesus Christ restores to us—as our possession and in our own experience—both righteousness and life. And when you deny that by teaching that there is that which man must do to obtain the experience of his salvation, then you assault Christ’s Godhead and say that he is not God.
Bernie Kamps, a member of Grandville’s consistory, said on the floor of classis,
We are not in any way whatsoever concerned with Reverend Koole’s orthodoxy right now, since we made that announcement after his apology that he is Reformed. We believe he’s Reformed and orthodox…Reverend Koole wrote that these statements were improper, and he came to see that these weren’t clear; he doesn’t want it off the pulpit; he stated this himself many times. Yet we go round and round here.
Oh, of course, Reverend Koole does not want Witsius’ statement preached! Just like De Wolf said that he could give up the word condition. But Koole in his own deceptive words is preaching and teaching the substance of what Witsius taught in plain words. And Grandville and the whole Protestant Reformed denomination should see that Koole’s explanation is every bit as bad as Witsius’ statement. Koole said that he does not want Witsius preached, but Koole never militated in his preaching and teaching against Witsius, and more importantly Koole never repudiated his own explanations of Witsius.
One delegate was nervous. Reverend Kortus spoke:
Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of this advice. And part of it is that section on page 8, #2 with the parentheses, and then a through e. What I’m hearing is, uh, all of us can agree with all of those statements. But what I’m wondering, is that really all that was being said? When I go back to taking Koole’s own definitions and plugging them into that statement that we’re discussing, and it works out to this: the believer must do good works that he may obtain possession of salvation. Or a believer must do good works that he may enjoy/experience salvation. If we approve this, we are saying that that statement, those two statements, do not contradict scripture, the confessions, or the decisions of Synod 2018. Are we so bold as to put that on paper? I find it noteworthy that that’s not on paper. That in a through e, there’s no positive statement that it’s not contrary to scripture to teach that the believer must do good works that he may obtain the possession of salvation or that he may enjoy and experience salvation. I think we’re softening what was communicated in the articles, what was taught in the articles, to try to say we’re okay with this. I think what was taught is stronger than what’s set forth in a through e. And maybe that’s a question we need to face: Are we, would we put those statements on paper and say we approve of this?
The answer to his question is, yes, they were so bold. You have to dig and take out all the verbal mumbo-jumbo, but in the PRC you may preach and you must preach as sound orthodoxy that there is that which man must do to obtain the possession of salvation, only you can say that by saying that there is that which man must do to experience and enjoy his salvation. It is the same thing. Different words. Same false doctrine.
Heretical Statement Two
Regarding statement two, the committee said,
The committee advised,
Now, that is some linguistic gymnastics! Later in the advice, the committee also tried to talk straight Reverend Koole’s explanation of Witsius:
Men drift in the direction of antinomianism exactly because they fail to distinguish between what grants the right to life, over against what God has ordained shall contribute to the possession (the personal enjoyment and benefits of that new life, and may properly be promoted as such in the preaching.
Yep! That is heretical too!
Now understand that the classis left in place and did not address the matter of the distinction between the right to life and the possession of life and Koole’s use of that distinction by saying that what man does contributes to his possession of his salvation. The Reformed have always made a distinction between the accomplishment and the application of salvation. But when they taught the distinction, then they always made it clear that both are by grace alone. Grace is the power of the accomplishment of our salvation at the cross. Grace is the power of the application to the elect sinner of that salvation finished and perfect at the cross. The application of salvation to the elect sinner is the work of the Holy Spirit—a wonder of grace—through faith alone and not by works at all! The application of salvation to the elect sinner is the specific reference in Ephesians 2:8–10:
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Salvation—salvation as the sinner’s possession of it and his enjoyment of its benefits—is by grace alone and not by works. Salvation is by grace alone and not by the toxic and vile combination of grace and works that Koole promotes. It is not true that the sinner’s works contribute to his possession and enjoyment of his salvation. It is not true according to the specific language of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 2:8–10. It is not true according to the Reformed creeds either. Lord’s Day 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism says,
Q. 53. What dost thou believe concerning the Holy Ghost?
A. First, that He is true and co-eternal God with the Father and the Son; secondly, that He is also given me, to make me, by a true faith partaker of Christ and all His benefits, that He may comfort me and abide with me forever. (Confessions and Church Order, 103)
Giving the possession of salvation is the specific work of the Holy Spirit. According to that confession, then, the Protestant Reformed classis by not condemning Koole and rather exonerating him of false doctrine insulted the Holy Spirit and robbed him of his work and gave it to man’s works. The classis maintains that there is such a distinction as Witsius and Koole make and in the way that they use the distinction. Note well that their distinction is not between the accomplishment of salvation by Christ and the application of that salvation by the Holy Spirit. But their distinction is between the right to salvation purchased by Christ and the possession of that salvation by man’s active faith and his works of obedience. We have the right to salvation by Christ, and we have the possession of salvation by works! That is the theology of the PRC by this decision, if words have any meaning at all. And still more, as with the previous decision, a man can preach these things that Witsius taught and that Koole explained and never be condemned. The minister can be asked to explain. But he cannot be condemned for false doctrine.
Heretical Statement Three
Regarding statement three, the committee report reads:
The committee noted Koole’s explanation:
By that last phrase, where Witsius speaks of sanctification as “assuring the soul as to its justification,” he is not speaking of sanctification serving as the basis of justification, but of one’s sanctification…serving as evidence to the soul that one is numbered with the justified.
That is heretical too! And we have yet another distinction that the PRC makes up to save the doctrine of man and to salvage man’s honor and man’s reputation. Take out all of Koole’s distraction words, and he says that good works assure souls of justification because good works are evidence that one is justified. That is not an explanation but a deceptive restatement of Witsius’ clear statement. Sanctification for Koole means good works.
Sanctification is not, in fact, good works. Good works are the fruits of sanctification. Sanctification is God’s work by faith alone to cleanse the sinner from sin and to make him a saint. God does that without works. God does that by faith alone through the operation of the Holy Spirit and by the preaching of the gospel as the means of grace.
But for Koole sanctification means works. He throws in a few Spirits and a Christ or two and sprinkles on the word gift like a little salt. But the bare statement is that good works assure souls of justification because good works are evidence of justification. So the soul is looking not at Christ for assurance of justification but looking at works. Koole tries to defend his doctrine by claiming that saying good works assure of justification is not making them the basis of justification. But that is not an escape. Assurance must rest on a sound and solid basis so that what assures of justification may rightly be said to be its basis. Faith is assurance of justification because faith lays hold on the foundation of justification, which is Christ alone and his perfect atonement and his everlasting righteousness. If faith looks at works too, then works must also function as a basis of justification, all of Koole’s denials notwithstanding.
The committee recommended about statement three:
Here the classis attacked Christ outright. No dodges or weaves. They hit him right on the face and plucked the hair off his cheeks! Christ is not enough. Good works also function along with Christ for the assurance of justification. This is the death of Christian hope and assurance. The classical committee also showed that it is completely unethical in its treatment of the decision of Protestant Reformed Synod 2018. According to the committee report, Synod 2018 said,
True faith cannot look to its works to help find or maintain the assurance that is found in Christ alone…Good works have a proper place and function in the Christian life but they do not function as helps for finding and maintaining assurance of our justification.4
The classical committee said that good works are not to be slighted when we are assuring souls of justification. Stated positively, good works assure souls of their justification. In fact, when the minister is assuring his congregation of justification, he may not slight good works but must diligently direct the congregation to their good works for the assurance of their justification. The 2018 Protestant Reformed Synod said that good works do not assure souls of their justification. If words have meaning, that is the truth of the matter.
So how did the unethical men of the committee get around that? Listen!
Synod’s statement does not rule out that good works are evidence which the believer may observe to confirm that he is in the faith, and thus that he is justified by faith (practical syllogism).
Just sweep aside the contradiction. The committee wants good works to assure of justification. Synod 2018 said good works do not assure of justification. So the committee simply asserts an invented syllogism. The syllogism is apparently this: A man is justified by faith. Faith produces works. A man has works. Therefore, he is justified.
But that is a sorry syllogism and a worthless foundation for assurance. The fact is that one of the premises of the syllogism—that I am justified by faith—is not good enough. The correct statement is that I am justified by faith alone without or apart from or before good works. That is the statement of the gospel. The gospel is not that I am justified by faith. A Roman Catholic can sign that. The correct statement is that I am justified by faith without works, or I am justified by faith alone. That correct statement rules out and destroys the rest of classis’ syllogism. If I am justified by faith alone without works, then works are also worthless for the assurance of justification. This is also scripture’s teaching in Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”! Peace with God is assurance. The believer has that being justified by faith alone without works. There is no syllogism necessary. It is not necessary because Christ is enough. He is enough, and I have Christ by faith, which is the assurance that everlasting righteousness and eternal life are mine for his sake.
Children of the Majority Report
These men of the committee and the classis showed that they are not the children of the valiant defenders of the truth in 1953. Listen to those men deal with heretical statements:
In our opinion both the statements which the protestants condemn are literally heretical regardless of what the Rev. DeWolf meant by them, regardless of how he explains them and regardless of however much we may rejoice that his examination shows that he does not believe the heresy implied in them.5
That is how real men endowed with the Spirit of truth deal with heresy. Reverend Koole took statements of Witsius and introduced them to the churches to talk those statements straight, and they are egregious. Koole was teaching the churches those things, and he intended the churches to learn the Arminian dialect that there is that which man must do to be saved, that good works assure of justification, and that to obtain the possession—experience—of his salvation, there are many holy exercises of faith and obedience that man must perform. Not only were the statements bad, but Koole’s explanations of them were worse, if nothing else for their deceptiveness.
The committee members and the classis that followed them are the children of the writers and supporters of the majority report that was on the floor of Classis East in May 1953, which tried to talk De Wolf’s heretical theology straight. The recent classical committee tried to talk Reverend Koole’s statements straight, and the committee approved the false doctrine of justification by faith and works, Christ and works as the way to the Father, and man’s doing something to obtain the possession of his salvation. In this connection one of the protestants painted a picture for the classis. It was a good picture and a telling picture. Protestant Dan Van Uffelen:
Mr. Chairman, I think there’s been several references to Reverend De Wolf and 1953, and I think that’s an important comparison, not because I’m trying to compare the two theologically necessarily, but it’s how the churches handled erroneous statements or statements that were suspect. In 1951 and 1952, as has been pointed out earlier today, Reverend De Wolf had said, “God promises everyone of you that, if you believe, you shall be saved.” And “Our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of God.” Classis East of May 1953 responded this way to those two statements, and this is a quote: “The statements are literally heretical, regardless of what the Rev. Hubert De Wolf meant by them, regardless of how he explains them.” The mind of the men in ’53 was, “We’ve got bad statements here. We can’t let them stand. They need to be repudiated, regardless of what Rev. Hubert De Wolf meant by them, regardless of how he explains them.” Imagine the historical context. It matters, of course. The historical context was the Declaration of Principles. Those statements obviously went against the Declaration of Principles. And the historical context today matters too. The synod of 2018, which Grandville appeals to, that’s the context. And so I want you to imagine for a minute, that in 1953, what would have happened if classis said, “The statements by themselves, as commonly understood, can suggest error. And Reverend De Wolf’s explanations and uses lack clarifications and are difficult to reconcile with common understandings, but these statements do not contradict scripture, the confessions, or synod.” If that had happened, the Declaration of Principles would have been rejected. The schism may have been avoided for a while. But the conditional covenant would have reigned in the PRC…If we look back to the way that our fathers handled this, it’s refreshing. It’s a decisive way to deal with doctrinal matters.
But the picture that Van Uffelen painted did actually happen in 1953 when the colleagues of Reverend De Wolf decided to talk his statements straight. And that is also precisely what happened at this Protestant Reformed classis. It has been going on in the PRC for some time, and the result is precisely what the speaker says: the doctrine of a conditional covenant, a conditional justification, and a conditional experience of salvation is regnant in the PRC.
One is tempted to mock as Elijah on Mount Carmel mocked the foolish and doped-up prophets of Baal. “Call a little louder! He might be on a vacation! Maybe the drivel that you dreamed up will work this time! Maybe God will deliver you from your predicament with the wisdom of man that you sucked out of your thumb on this occasion! Maybe your defense of men’s honor and your trampling on Christ’s honor will bring peace at last! The doctrinal statement dreamed up by some of your ministers did not work and was found to be false doctrine. The Protestant Reformed Synod 2018 did not work either, and its decision too was found to be devilishly clever. Grandville’s compromised decision and Koole’s false apology did not work. The wickedly political decision of the October 2023 classis did not work. Maybe with this go around, you will arrive at a way to deny Christ that everyone can accept!”
If it were not so serious, the report of the committee of pre-advice that was substantially adopted by the classis would be hilarious. One would not think that intelligent men could come up with such a concoction of lies and sophistry. Some of them have obviously learned to be politicians during their time in the PRC. The goal seems to be to say nothing and please everyone. Certainly, the idea seems to be not to come out and condemn someone. And honestly, I was waiting to see what this committee came up with. There was some glimmer of hope that perhaps, just perhaps, the men might say something worthwhile. But instead, as a drunk staggering around, pretending that he is sober, they made complete fools of themselves. The Lord put those men on the committee so that he can tear the mask of orthodoxy from them and show that they, like the rest of the PRC, have forsaken Christ.
A Drunk as Judge
What this drunken man that is the PRC did not do—with what iota of understanding was left in his intoxicated brain—was to put himself to bed. He decided instead that while drunk he was going to enter into the most serious task that a church can perform: judge doctrine! And this drunken judge took in hand this past February 8 to put Christ on trial. In Psalm 69:12 Christ himself prophesied of these men and the decisions that they took: “They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards.” Ah, yes, drunken judges in David’s time and in Christ’s time and in our time. There is nothing new under the sun.
And when the drunken Protestant Reformed classis put Christ on trial, the result was predictable: the classis crucified Christ afresh and put him to an open shame. That is because the drunk is a spiritual vacuum. God is apparently not done asking the PRC what she thinks of Christ and who she says Christ, the Son of man, is. She has, of course, previously made clear what she thinks of Christ and who she says the Son of man is. He is a buffoon; he is a schismatic; he is a destroyer of peace, a tearer down of churches, and a divider of families; he is an antinomian and a rebel against authority. He is but half a savior, and he and his work are not enough. These things the PRC has said about Christ through her decisions to remove faithful ministers; and she says them repeatedly in her sermons, writings, and in public family letters. As Christ came to the PRC, she despised him as a worthless thing, certainly worthless by himself to give fellowship with God apart from man’s works of obedience. And Christ was put on trial again by a classis that was completely blitzed on its own badly made moonshine of man.
Several men at classis claimed confusion about who was on trial. No one seemed to understand, or no one cared to understand, that Christ was on trial. The classis argued back and forth about whether Koole was on trial or Witsius was on trial or both were on trial.
Some argued that classis forget Witsius and just judge Koole. Professor Dykstra said,
Is the statement of Witsius the doctrinal impasse? Is that what we’re here to decide today, whether this statement of Witsius is Reformed or not? Is that what we’re going to decide here at classis? I think that’s the problem. And in my mind the classis has to focus on b), but we can’t because we have a) here…
That’s what classis has to be concerned about: not in the end how orthodox Witsius was, but whether Koole’s explanation is orthodox.
Later on Dykstra chimed in again,
So if we’re going to sit here and debate Witsius, to me it’s foolish. Our concern is Reverend Koole. Are his statements, are his statements, heretical? And give me the scriptural and confessional proof for that. That’s all that this classis needs to do.
It was not Reverend Koole on trial. He sat in the back watching and listening to the classis wrangle over his false doctrine, and he did not lift a finger to help or offer a word of explanation. Many of the delegates tripped over themselves and their own words to make sure to let everyone know that they, of all people, did not question Reverend Koole’s orthodoxy. “Of course, Reverend Koole is orthodox,” they chimed. How dare anyone question the orthodoxy of a Protestant Reformed minister. Surely, they were not so mean-spirited. Never mind that Koole preaches about available grace and that he preaches that the scarcely saved righteous must have a righteousness of works and obedience that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees or they cannot approach the table of the Lord. Never mind all that. Reverend Koole must be orthodox. He is a Protestant Reformed minister after all.
One delegate made plain that he was not advocating for a Formula of Subscription exam, but he noted that it would sure be nice to hear from Koole. Reverend Spronk:
What is in the heart? We can’t judge the heart directly, but based on the testimony of Reverend Koole, what is his doctrine? I don’t know how to get there. If we need to recommit and focus just on that, or if—I’m not making the statement to, uh, well, I guess I do wonder about just asking the man. I’m not saying, I don’t say that I want a Formula of Subscription exam, but in a certain sense my question is, how does the classis get at that? That’s the issue. We want to know the orthodoxy of Reverend Koole.
It would have been interesting, to say the least, to hear from the old fork-tongued serpent. He has been preaching sermons for years that are utterly Christless, fumbling around with his notes either to cover his total lack of preparation or to cover the rotten statements that he does make behind a smoke screen of stammered words and unfinished sentences. He should have been given a Formula of Subscription exam many years ago. He could have been given one at classis. At least some of the delegates acknowledged that there was suspicion surrounding him and his orthodoxy. One of the delegates said,
Even the statements from 1953 that we all agree are wrong—about our act of conversion, or God promises to every one of you—in the end were not the subject of the examination of Classis East. Those statements can be debated and talked about in the Standard Bearer or the theological journal, but I think the same thing about the Witsius statements.
I point out that the 1.a.2) with its statement that Synod had something negative to say about certain statements—Synod did not get into a long discussion about those statements; Synod did not even say that ministers could never use those statements. For example, someone could say that obedience is necessary for fellowship in the covenant—that would not mean that the Protestant Reformed minister had said something that automatically means he is a heretic, false teacher. The right thing to do would be to ask him, “What do you mean by that?” And I think that there have been men in the past who used that statement—obedience is necessary for fellowship in the covenant—and then explained themselves in a very orthodox fashion, so that no one questioned whether that man was trying to teach the improper function of good works.
And so that’s the same thing that I’m seeing here. We are getting into a discussion about Witsius’ statements, that I think could be a good theological debate in the Standard Bearer, in the Protestant Reformed journal; but at the end of the day, if we’re not here to discuss the orthodoxy of Reverend Koole, then I don’t know what we’re doing here.
I’m glad that Grandville said that he was orthodox and that they didn’t want him to be under suspicion, but I think part of the issue is that there may be suspicion. Is classis in its decision getting to the heart of it, so that when our decision is done either we have said, “Yes, that suspicion is merited”; or we have said very clearly, “No, there is no suspicion,” and our judgment shows it’s orthodox, and there is no suspicion of Reverend Koole’s orthodoxy?…
In 1953 the whole matter had to do with De Wolf’s orthodoxy, and today this whole matter has to do with Reverend Koole’s orthodoxy. And we do have a duty to the brethren to dig into that and make a statement about that.
But Reverend Koole was not on trial.
Some delegates thought that Witsius should be on trial. So Reverend Mahtani said,
I don’t think it would be the right direction for classis to try to judge the orthodoxy of Reverend Koole. From the simple point of view, from the simple proof that was already mentioned, that his orthodoxy has already been judged by Grandville. The difference between Reverend Koole and De Wolf is that Reverend Koole apologized, and so there is no question about his orthodoxy. And he apologized for it, and Grandville has received his apology. I think the right direction is to focus on the statements. The statements have already been declared by Grandville erroneous, and Reverend Koole has acknowledged it and apologized for it. And the history shows that now there’s a protest and an appeal to classis that those statements—not the orthodoxy of Reverend Koole—the statements should be viewed as orthodox or not and then declared erroneous.
Witsius has gone already to his long home. He wrote what he wrote, and if the church does not have the sense to see that what he wrote is bad, then that church does not have the guiding hand of the Spirit anymore either. What Herman Witsius wrote is bad. It is to be rejected as false theology.
Other delegates were very squeamish about putting the dead body of Witsius on trial. Perhaps it smacks of the Roman Catholics, who exhumed dead bodies to condemn the heretics posthumously and in absentia. Joshua Hoekstra said,
The difficulty in judging this case is that the main doctrinal impasse centered around three statements that were then explained by Koole…Some want to emphasize this interpretation or that interpretation. Some want to emphasize what Koole explained; some want to enter into debate of whether Witsius was orthodox or not. So this advice tries to wade through that, and I think a) is still important. When you think about what caused the confusion or the controversy that led to the seven protests that come here today, it has to do with how people first read, first understand a statement by Witsius. Now whether that’s appropriate or not of a reader, I’ll withhold on that. Witsius is a top-ten theologian listed in the Standard Bearer for sovereign and particular grace.
But Herman Witsius was not on trial.
So Pete VanDer Schaaf argued that the trial was only a matter of not persecuting ministers for using language from other eras that may need some explaining in an environment of suspicion and slander whipped up by men who gave themselves over to slander:
I am convinced that we have come to this position, this deliberation, because at one point there was a Protestant Reformed minister who did give the wrong place to good works in, if my memory is correct, either fourteen or seventeen statements that synod specified. That appears to have given people, some people, the impression that because a minister gave the wrong place to works in specific sentences—statements—and contradicted other teaching, which was biblical, that it is now permissible to pull statements out of their context, to ignore clear definitions of words that are given, and to judge a minister on that basis. What happened after that made the situation worse. What happened after that was that a few men—I’m not talking about the many who were misled; I’m talking about the few who were the leaders—gave themselves over to the sins of slander and of schism and of the false doctrine of antinomianism, very effectively misled some of our sheep, and they’ve frightened many more to the point where speaking about the value and the benefits of the sanctified life has now become extremely difficult. That is my understanding of how we’ve gotten to this deliberation.
For the brothers who are sincerely concerned that my protest would introduce language that—I’m trying to remember what one of the speakers said…This protestant does not have the purpose of trying to move ministers to use language from a different age, which our people may need explaining in order to understand. The purpose of this protestant is to remove from the discipline of ministers the idea that language, or the language we’re referencing, must be taken as heretical, or even may be considered the basis of discipline. I want to assure the brothers of that.
Ah, yes, the trial was a defense of some language. Pete does not want the language, to be sure. But this all is just the result of bad ministers who made it impossible to speak about the value of a holy life.
But the words of Witsius and Koole were not on trial.
Christ was on trial.
And he was tried by those drunk on the doctrine of man. Listen to one delegate. Rev. Bill Langerak argued for what he believes is the truth of the gospel, apparently also the gospel that he preaches: “Good works are necessary to enjoy or experience fellowship with God. Period.” You put the period in the wrong spot. This is, though, the Protestant Reformed statement about the gospel. First, it is Christless. It is completely false from that point of view. What is necessary to experience fellowship with God is Christ and Christ alone. But this is the Protestant Reformed gospel. It displaces Christ.
And, second, if we go back to the PRC’s supposedly vaunted Synod 2018, her gospel puts Christ and man and his obedience on the same level. Rev. Bill Langerak, defending Synod 2018, said,
I believe that’s part of the confusion, or maybe even the objection is in the statement of synod that fellowship with God, or the experience of it, is by faith and. The and there is not optional: “and in the way of obedience.” That is not talking about justification there; otherwise, the and may not be added. When we are talking about the life in the covenant, the life of the covenant, fellowship with God, the and must be there. It is not negotiable. So if that is the confusion, we had better clear it up.
The and is not optional! It is demanded. The PRC teaches that we experience fellowship with God on the basis of what Christ did, through faith, and in the way of obedience. The PRC did not even phrase it this way: “We have fellowship with God and the blessings of salvation through faith and on the basis of what Christ has done. PERIOD. And good works are the fruits of thankfulness in our fellowship with Jesus Christ.” No, no. The PRC is going to fight tooth and nail for that AND. Christ AND our obedience. It does not matter one whit that the PRC says, “In the way of our obedience.” The meaning of the word AND is to coordinate two things. In the Protestant Reformed doctrine, the word AND coordinates Christ and man as the way one has fellowship with God. The PRC does not want Christ alone. She does not want a Christ that is enough. And that ends one finally with statements like Rev. Bill Langerak made, “Good works are necessary to enjoy or experience fellowship with God. Period.”
In answer to the question of Pontius Pilate to the Jews, “What evil has he done?” the Jews shouted that Christ made himself the Son of God. With that answer they rejected a Christ who was enough. They rejected Christ’s claim that he is the light of the world; they rejected his word that except a man eats Christ he has no life in him; and they rejected his word that they believed not because they were not of his sheep. They rejected Christ because in his demonstration that he is the Son of God, he took away all their works of obedience to the law as being worthless for salvation, blessing, and fellowship with God.
And in answer to that same question that was before the judges of the Protestant Reformed classis: “What evil has he done?” the committee of pre-advice and the classis as a body said, “He took away our works!” That is the same rejection as the Jews gave when they said Christ made himself the Son of God. The Son of God does not need your works! The PRC cannot conceive of a Christ who does not need man’s works; she does not want a Christ who does not need man’s works; she cannot say every day about man’s works what the Reformed confessions put in the mouth of the believer over against the gospel of Christ, “I daily increase my debt!” The PRC cannot say with the publican, “Lord, be merciful to me the sinner!” She cannot say with the prophet, “All our righteousnesses are filthy rags!” And she cannot say with the apostle Paul, “I count all my works but loss and dung!”
All the PRC can talk about is works. Even the way that she talks about the controversy, a question of the place and function of works, is telling. The PRC makes the whole controversy about works. That controversy cannot be settled until one correctly answers the more basic question of the place and function of Jesus Christ. Get that straight first. If one gets that straight, then one will see that works are fruits and only fruits.
Sanctified by Faith Alone
In seeking to answer the question of the place of works, the PRC is fond of making a distinction between the place of works in justification and the place of works in sanctification. But that distinction is telling too.
For example, Rev. Bill Langerak made a few different statements on the floor about this:
Mr. Chairman, some things were said in between, but I do believe that what a previous speaker said is why there is some controversy and confusion because what was said is contrary to Synod 2018. There seems to be a continued application of justification with salvation, which is not orthodox. Synod 2018 said that obedience and good works are, are, the life of the covenant. And it interpreted “in the way of” very clearly in that way…The fact of the matter is that good works and obedience are the possession of salvation. They are gifts of salvation that are worked in us and given to us. They are the liberty, the actual freedom, the power from sin that is granted in justification…Justification grants me the right to freedom. Sanctification is that freedom. That is why we must object to good works and obedience obtaining that. That is one reason anyway. And we have to do justice to that.
There is a lot there, but a number of things come out. Good works are the life of the covenant. Good works are gifts of salvation. Good works are the liberty of covenant life. And Reverend Langerak says that sanctification is also that liberty. Now, what I gather from this is that good works and sanctification are synonyms. They are both the liberty of covenant life. And as Reverend Langerak argued earlier, when we talk about how one experiences covenant fellowship, it must be Christ and the way of good works. The and is not negotiable. So also on this basis regarding sanctification—which he says is the life of the covenant—we must speak about Christ and the way of good works as how one experiences God’s fellowship, salvation, and blessings. What Reverend Langerak did was to make sanctification synonymous with good works. And others did that throughout the debate as well. The ploy is that they can say, “When we talk about justification, then works are excluded.” And remember that for them justification merely gives the right to liberty. Justification apparently has no function in the actual experience of covenant fellowship with God. And then they can go on to say, “BUT when we talk about sanctification—the life of the covenant—then we must talk about the way of good works.” Good works and sanctification are synonyms.
In justification the works of the sinner are absolutely excluded. You must confess that or you are not Protestant and you are not Reformed. The scriptural statement of the gospel is that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). The creedal statement of the gospel is Lord’s Day 23 that “though my conscience accuse me that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them…” (Confessions and Church Order, 106). Works are excluded.
To say that we are justified in the way of our obedience is to destroy the gospel. But the PRC is fine with our sanctification being in the way of our obedience.
But sanctification too excludes our works. We are sanctified by faith alone as much as we are justified by faith alone. I can prove that both from scripture and the creeds. First Corinthians 1:30 is used by Lord’s Day 6 as a statement of the gospel:
Q. 18. Who then is that Mediator, who is in one person both very God and a real righteous man?
A. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. (Confessions and Church Order, 89)
Jesus Christ is our sanctification. Our works are not our sanctification. They are its fruits. The Belgic Confession in article 24 says,
We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. (Confessions and Church Order, 52–53)
The works of sanctification are fruits, and only fruits, of the word of God and the Holy Spirit’s work of sanctification. There is no “in the way of works we are sanctified.”
The PRC makes the distinction because she wants our works to be the way to God, the way to fellowship, and the way to blessedness in God’s covenant. In short the PRC wants those works to get man something. But works are the fruits of God’s salvation of us. Works are fruits of the covenant and all its glorious salvation and all the experience of that salvation that we have by faith only and for Christ’s sake alone.
And we must be mindful that the PRC makes her decisions over against the clear testimony and witness to the gospel that has been given against her, specifically over the past couple of years. Pete VanDer Schaaf let it be known that in this controversy, even though there is an agreement to ignore the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) by the clergy of the PRC, nevertheless the PRC is hearing what the RPC is saying. And the PRC is rejecting it and by that rejection is being driven deeper and deeper into her error.
And, too, one must understand that the PRC must trumpet these classical decisions as further development of the truth. The PRC was busy trying to hide her trial of Christ. I understand that an announcement was made at the meeting of classis that no recordings or pictures of the pre-advice were allowed. Such an announcement, of course, is nonsense, since church meetings are public assemblies not private assemblies. Even the state recognizes that public meetings can be recorded. The ban also goes against the PRC’s own history when Rev. H. Hoeksema would publish transcripts of entire exchanges from the public assemblies of the church. The PRC is busy trying to limit information. What are you so scared about, boys? Afraid to step on a land mine?
I have several pages of transcripts of the debate at classis, and the whole thing is shameful. In all the thousands of words, the name Christ comes up twenty-five times. Of those, the majority of the uses are in quotations from Witsius or a random Christ from this or that speaker! Most of the rest are from two ministers, Reverend Kortus and Reverend Mahtani; an elder, Tom DeVries; and Dan Van Uffelen, one of the protestants. The rest can talk only about works. Sanctification is our works. Fellowship in the way of works. Blessing by works. Assurance by works. Works, works, works!
No Valiant Men
There was not one valiant man who stood up and damned the whole damnable report. Not one. Even those who spoke against the advice did so as though they were scared to offend men, and they probably were. The whole classis was concerned about the honor of men. There was not one man who stood up and gave a defense of the truth that was clear and compelling. That means that there was not one man who stood up and defended Christ. Not one. The whole report was designed to save a man and to save men. Where is Christ in the whole report? What about his offended honor? That is because even the men who do not apparently like what Koole said do not believe that the church can exist without man and his works.
Listen to Rev. Dan Holstege regarding statement one, that there is that which a man must do to be saved:
That’s where I’m at with the statement itself. I believe it is wrong to say, ever, “There is something that man must do to be saved.” There is something that I must do to be saved. I’m referring now to good works. If we’re talking about faith, then we can debate that differently because I could believe—yes, that’s different. But with regard to works, that I must do good works to be saved, I don’t know that that statement can ever be explained properly. It’s erroneous. I’m almost willing to call it erroneous. I’ve been struggling with it, and I think, I’ve been kind of landing on it’s extremely ambiguous and not distinctively Reformed, and I’m very pleased with that. But it’s almost always erroneous.
Someone was quick to correct him:
Just pointing out that that’s not the statement. The statement is not, “There is that which must be done to be saved”; it’s “that we be saved.” That’s been a point of maybe debate or discussion, but there is a different word usage, so we have to be careful with that.
Yes, be very careful with men and very careless about Christ. The speaker’s sickening precision was about a distinction without a difference! Reverend Holstege had a problem with saying that works are what a man must do to be saved. He could not quite bring himself to call that erroneous. If it is about works, maybe he could be convinced. But he did not have a problem with saying that faith is what man must do to be saved. Would not want someone to think that you taught that man must do nothing to be saved! He too cannot imagine a Christ who does not need man’s works, a Christ who says, “Do nothing to be saved!”
The men who do not apparently like what Koole said are drunk too. They view it as a threat to the church’s holiness to say that we have salvation, fellowship, blessing, eternal life, and all of Christ’s riches and gifts by faith alone. PERIOD. They are afraid to say that faith is not what man does to be saved. They believe that it will make careless Christians if you say that repentance is not what man must do first before God will forgive his sins. They and their professors trash the idea that we are justified in eternity and that we are saved in eternity and at the cross. They are afraid of the gospel, some of them. And some of them hate the gospel with the same hatred of the Pharisees for Christ. And you can tell because whenever Christ comes into their assemblies to be tried yet again, they condemn him every time. Drunk on man. That goes for the best of them.
I was wondering if there would be some new faces in church on Sunday after the decision, especially among those who said that they categorically denied that there is that which man must do to be saved and who said categorically that the only work that must be done for our salvation is Christ’s work. But they apparently are not willing to leave all and lose all for Christ. There are jobs, schools, relationships, associations, and reputations to maintain, after all.
Everyone wants to focus on Koole’s supposed explanations as though he was only explaining in our language what Witsius was teaching. But does not anyone reason backward, so that when Koole explains that when Witsius wrote that man must do something to obtain the possession of salvation and that when Koole explains that this is what the PRC means by “in the way of” that he is in fact creating an entirely new idea about what “in the way of” means? He is saying that “in the way of” means that there is that which man must do to obtain the possession of salvation. Also understand that it is now orthodox in the PRC to preach and teach these things.
Especially telling, and this was the prize for those ministers who are intent on destroying the PRC with their false doctrine, was Witsius’ third statement: “Hence, I conclude, that sanctification and its effects, are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.” And the classis said, “That Classis make the judgment that statement #3 and Rev. Koole’s explanation and use of the statement, are not in conflict with Scripture, the Confessions, or the decisions of Synod 2018.”
This is a total overthrow of whatever good there may have been in the 2018 synodical decision of the PRC. You have assurance by works. You have peace, hope, joy, assurance by works. Not merely that your works are visible and evident fruits of faith, so that the believer says that he is in the faith. It is not what a believer does in his self-examination, but it is full-blown assurance by works. Romans 5:1 says that Christ is enough. Lord’s Day 7 says that Christ is enough. The entirety of the Reformed creeds say that Christ is enough for salvation, joy, hope, blessing, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, and eternal life. Christ is enough! So the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 11 asks, “Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?” The word translated as “welfare” in the Lord’s Day could be translated as bliss, security, or assurance. Do they believe in Jesus who seek their assurance in their works?
They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Savior; for one of these things must be true, either that Jesus is not a complete Savior, or that they who by a true faith receive this Savior must find all things in Him necessary for salvation. (Confessions and Church Order, 95)
For the PRC, man must look at his works to find assurance that he is justified! And the Belgic Confession in article 22 says,
For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or, if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him. Therefore, for any to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides Him, would be to gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior. (Confessions and Church Order, 49–50)
According to the advice of the classical committee, Jesus Christ is not enough to assure us of our justification, but we must look to our works for the assurance of our justification. And the PRC blasphemes Christ as but half a savior. Ministers must preach in the PRC, and the PRC must trumpet as her gospel, that assurance of justification comes by faith and by works. Now, assurance of justification is one’s justification. No one may deny that. To know in my conscience and in my mind that my sins are forgiven is having those sins forgiven. And that comes by faith and by works in the PRC. It is justification by faith and works. And it is another gospel that is no gospel at all.
And the drunk stumbles on…
Will any sober up?
Share on
Footnotes:
Reformed Believers Publishing
325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315
