Answer to Submitted Question Occasioned
by the Previous Class

Question (by a member of the class)

In light of your instruction concerning antinomianism, justification, and sanctification, how are we to understand passages in the Bible that clearly teach that if I do something then God will do something. Are these not demands with conditions?

Following are a few passages teaching “if then.”

2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Matthew 6:14, 15: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

John 11:40: “Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?”

Exodus 19:5: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine.”

 

Answer

Allow me to add one more such text to the list. I add it because my explanation of this text occasioned the new church, the Reformed Protestant Church, to devote almost an entire issue of its paper, Sword & Shield, to an attack on me as a Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian free willist, and federal visionist. At this point the editors ran out of epithets, which put an end, no doubt to their dismay, to their name-calling.

The text is James 4:8: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.”

My explanation of this text will at the same time explain, or at least give the sense of, the passages with which my questioner confronts me. First, it is clear as the sun in the heavens that the text teaches an activity of ours in the sphere of salvation, namely, drawing nigh to God, that precedes God’s activity in some sense of drawing nigh to us: “he will [thus and then; note the future tense: ‘will’—DJE] draw nigh to you.” One who cannot or will not notice that the text plainly teaches a certain activity of ours that precedes an activity of God is disqualified as a teacher of the Word of God, and a teacher at all, so plain, so explicit is the text: “draw nigh to God [in the present], and he will [in the future] draw nigh to you.”

For being faithful to the statement of James, “draw nigh…and he will draw nigh,” I became the object of the condemnation of the editors of the new magazine, who overlooked that their condemnation in fact fell upon James, who teaches “draw nigh…and he will draw nigh,” and upon the Holy Ghost, who inspired “draw nigh…and he will draw nigh.” As for me, I would be fearful of calling a writer of Scripture and the Holy Ghost Pelagians, Arminians, and federal visionists. It is one thing to amuse oneself, and one’s readers, by calling Protestant Reformed ministers names; it is another thing to contend with James and the Holy Ghost.

To do justice to James 4:8 by affirming that the text teaches that there is a certain aspect of salvation in which our activity precedes a certain aspect of God’s activity of saving us does not imply that James teaches that the believing sinner is first in salvation and that God is second, as my critics so eagerly and typically rashly charge against James and me. For the truth of the text is that we draw nigh to God by virtue of God’s drawing us nigh to Himself. The full truth of the text is, “I will draw you nigh to myself by the Holy Ghost, so that in the way of your drawing nigh to me, I will draw nigh to you.” God is first in this aspect of salvation also. He draws us to Himself, and He draws us nigh to Himself by the admonition of James 4, “Draw nigh to God!” By the admonition that so offends my critics!

My critics in the new church are scared to death of admonitions, as though admonitions imply some dependency of God upon the one to whom He gives the admonitions. This is their doctrinal weakness. And it will destroy them and their churches. They fail to take note that God uses admonitions to safeguard His children from evil and to draw them back to Himself. For all their proud clamor that they, and they alone, remain faithful to the Canons of Dordt, they are ignorant of Canons, 3/4.17: “Be it far from either instructors or instructed to presume to tempt God in the church by separating what He of His good pleasure hath most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more eminent usually is this blessing of God working in us,” etc. [emphasis added—DJE].

God draws us to Himself by sovereign grace, so that we heed His admonition and draw nigh to Him in lively faith and repentance. Thus and then, He draws nigh to us in our experience of the intimacy of the covenant.

I observe in passing that although my critics were fierce in their condemnation of my explanation of James 4:8, they offered no explanation of the text themselves.

I explain the sense of the entire list of “if then” texts that my questioner presents to me by a brief explanation of another of the passages, Matthew 6:14, 15. God not only wills to forgive our debts to Him, but He also wills that we forgive each other. Therefore He instructs us that He “will” [note well the future tense—DJE] forgive us when we forgive each other and in the way of our forgiving each other. He warns us that if we refuse to forgive each other, neither will He forgive us. I suppose that if I explain Jesus’ word about forgiveness, as I do, as meaning that there is a sense in the sphere of salvation in which our forgiving each other is first and in which God’s forgiving us follows, my critics, forgetting that they are criticizing Jesus Himself, will accuse me of putting man first in salvation. They will then exalt themselves as always putting God first, also in Matthew 6, as though I do not.

What they ignore and want their audience to overlook is that the text itself teaches that our forgiveness in the text is first and that God’s forgiveness follows [“your heavenly Father will also forgive you,” that is, after you forgive—DJE]. Their criticism, therefore, falls upon Jesus Himself for “putting man first in salvation.” My warm, brotherly advice to them is, “Be careful! Be careful not to criticize Jesus and not to be more orthodox than Jesus!”

But Jesus’ teaching and my explanation do not put man first in this aspect of salvation. For the truth is that we forgive our brother because God works in us the willing and doing of forgiving each other (cf. Philippians 2:12, 13). God wills to save us in such a way that we actively love and serve Him. He does not will to drag us to heaven like a piece of dead meat. So He makes us willing and active in living the Christian life that pleases Him. He works in us the willingness to forgive our fellow saints. He does this by means of the exhortation and admonition of Matthew 6. Only in the way of our actively forgiving each other do we experience the forgiveness of our sins by God. And the experience of forgiveness is the forgiveness of the passage.

Matthew 6 does not put man first in the aspect of salvation it refers to. It keeps God first. God works in us naturally unforgiving sinners so that we forgive each other. In this way, we experience God’s forgiveness of sins. And God works the willingness to forgive by the admonition of Matthew 6, something that my critics are fearful of and opposed to, regardless of all the admonitions in the Bible and regardless of the Reformed instruction of Canons, 3/4.17. Whatever may be their motive, they twist the Scriptures to suit their arbitrary theology, rather than to allow Scripture to form their theology. And I get the distinct impression that their unholy motive in this is that they may crow that they are more orthodox than anyone else: “We are the people, and the truth will die with us; you are required to agree with our arbitrary theology and then bound to join our schismatic church.”

I continue my explanation of Matthew 6, by applying the passage. When you wives make up your mind (usually with good reason) not to forgive your husbands for their latest sin against you, God brings Matthew 6 to your minds, so that you do forgive, and thus preserve your marriages. He is first in the matter of your forgiving, and you are dependent upon Him and His mighty grace, which He exercises by means of the admonition of Matthew 6. Do not, in an unhealthy fear, ignore or criticize the admonition of Matthew 6, as do the theologians of the Reformed Protestant Churches, but heed it and obey it.

With these detailed explanations of some of the texts that one of you has put to me, I consider that I have at least in general explained them all. I will, nevertheless, add the following comments concerning the Reformed understanding and handling of these and all similar passages in Scripture.

First, we must do justice to the teaching of these verses: a certain work of God’s salvation follows an activity of ours, and if we fail in this activity, we will not enjoy that particular work of God, but suffer painful chastisement, for example, living without the experience of the forgiveness of our sins, as is the warning of Matthew 6.

Second, all is God’s salvation, and He works—He works—in such a way that an activity of ours (which is God’s work in us) precedes an activity of His: our forgiving precedes His forgiving, so that if we do not forgive, neither does He forgive us. Denying this, the theologians of the Reformed Protestant Churches have a very difficult time explaining the fifth petition of the model prayer.

Third, this aspect of salvation is not conditional, because all is His work, including our forgiving each other, and the order of the work describes the way in which it pleases Him to work, that is, He moves us to forgive each other, which moving includes the admonition to forgive each other. He forgives us in the way of moving us to forgive each other. This expresses God’s will concerning His way of saving us.

Fourth, we must do justice to all of this; we may not ignore this aspect of salvation by teaching that God will forgive us, even though we refuse to forgive. This is really the teaching of my critics, who charge me (and Jesus) with putting man first in a certain aspect of salvation, because we teach that our forgiving our brother precedes God’s forgiving us. Their teaching is: God forgives you even though you do not forgive your brother.

Fifth, the texts do not teach a conditional theology, because a conditional theology makes salvation depend upon the sinner. This was the nature of the theology that the Protestant Reformed Churches rejected in 1953. It was, and is, a theology that has God graciously promising salvation to, with a will to bestow salvation upon, every baptized person. Whether this promise and will are realized, however, is said to depend upon the baptized sinner’s fulfilling the “condition” of faith and obedience. The passages referred to by my questioner do not teach such a conditional salvation. Rather, they teach the way in which it pleases God to save His elect, redeemed people, and the way in which He accomplishes their salvation.

 

Antinomism (or, Antinomianism)

We come now to the subject that brought out such a large crowd on this cold, snowy Michigan evening: antinomism, or as it is also called, antinomianism.

I confess at the outset that I have, and have throughout my entire ministry always had, a special interest in this heresy. This was not because of my seminary training. Anti-
nomism was hardly mentioned in my seminary classes; (I corrected this weakness in my own instruction). All the emphasis was upon Arminianism, specifically in the form of a well-meant offer of the gospel. I graduated with very little knowledge of the error of antinomism. But my first charge was a congregation the members of which came out of the German Reformed tradition. That tradition was influenced by the Dutch/German theologian Herman Kohlbrugge. He was inclined to antinomism (in controversial grace, I state his weakness mildly). The doctrinal weakness of my first congregation was not Arminianism, but anti-
nomism. I was forced to learn and deal with this corruption of the gospel. This included reading carefully Kohlbrugge’s commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, the shortest section of which is the explanation of the third part of the Catechism and the beginning of which section is the question, “what is the most thankful creature of God?’ to which the answer given is “the dog.” Thus, the holy life of the believer in obedience to the law is disparaged.

I read, in the original German (the two rudely bound volumes are not translated into English), the sermons of Pastor Michael Hofer, which carried on the antinomism of Kohlbrugge and which had been the staple of the persons who later became the founding members of the congregation of which I became the pastor. In these ways, I acquainted myself with the characteristic teachings of antinomism.

I considered it my calling to remain in this congregation until the theology of antinomism, and its manifestation, particularly, in the holy life of marriage, had been thoroughly rooted out of the thinking and practice of the congregation. Some colleagues unkindly wondered aloud whether I intended to remain there forever, but there was a reason in antinomism for the lengthy pastorate. God used this pastorate to make me knowledgeable of this threat to the Reformed faith and to the Reformed churches.

The name of the evil itself explains what the error is. “Anti” means “against”; “nomism” derives from the Greek word for “law”: nomos. Antinomism is a false doctrine that in a specific way is opposed to the law of God, specifically the ten commandments of Exodus 20, which are explained and applied to the Reformed congregations in the third section of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Antinomism denies that the Christian is bound by the law of God as the guide, or rule, of his holy life. Accordingly, the church must not teach the law as binding upon the believers. For a church to do this is to compromise the gospel of salvation by grace. When the heresy develops in a church or in a minister, there is no preaching of admonitions or of commands, how the people of God ought to live. Sensing the need for admonitions concerning the Christian life, some ministers, ridiculously, inform the congregation that God wishes them to live in a certain way. The antinomian minister will not use the word “must” in his instruction concerning the holy life of the members of his congregation. This would compromise the gospel of grace. If he is compelled to recognize the word “must” in Question 86 of the Heidelberg Catechism, “why must we still do good works?” his explanation is that we will necessarily perform good works. By the work of the Spirit in us, we cannot but perform good works. But the idea of being obligated to perform good works is anathema to the antinomian. To his way of theological thinking, the idea that God requires His people to perform good works of obedience to the law is “works-righteousness.”

When antinomism has developed fully, it takes the form of the teaching that professing Christians may, and even should, freely and grossly live in sin, the more vile the better, in order to enjoy the fullness of God’s forgiving grace. This was the advanced form of antinomian doctrine, and corresponding practice, found in the church of Thyatira according to Revelation 2:20-24. The female preacher taught the congregation to commit fornication and deliberately to practise idolatry. This behavior was not “merely” the sin of worldliness, not even advanced worldliness. It had a doctrinal basis. That basis was knowing “the depths of Satan,” in order thus to know the heights of forgiving grace. The theology of Pastor/Theologian Jezebel was antinomism developed to the furthest extent: “Let us sin that grace may abound.”

Although Luther definitely was not an antinomian and although rightly understood his startling statement was not antinomianism, but strong response to legalism, in making the statement Luther flirted dangerously with the heresy of antinomism: “Sin bravely!”

Antinomism is the teaching that one should not be bound by the law, and even that one should violate the law deliberately, because salvation is by grace, apart from works. Antinomism is not merely the doctrine that the Christian may sin freely. But it is the teaching that he may do so because of grace.

Here is the hallmark of antinomism: grace rejects the law. The charge of the antinomian is that teaching the law as the rule of the Christian life is a form of the heresy of salvation by works, the error condemned by Galatians and repudiated by the Reformation. O, how Kohlbrugge and his disciples extolled justification by faith alone, so that salvation is by grace alone! How they warred in every sermon against every notion that good works contribute in any way to the salvation of the sinner! How they disparaged even the good works that the believer performs by the Holy Spirit of sanctification! An elder in the German Reformed Church in Nebraska out of which the members of my first congregation had been expelled for confessing what the Heidelberg Catechism teaches about prayer in Questions 116-119 had declared in his Sunday School class, “our prayers do not get any farther than the ceiling of the room in which we make them.” Where antinomism reigns, there is no place for good works whatever, including prayer.

Holy Scripture warns against the heresy of antinomism. The classic passage in the Old Testament, which I preached vigorously in my first charge, is Jeremiah 7:8–16: “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?” The prophet judges this expression of antinomism as “lying words, that cannot profit.” God Himself, who is not impressed by the antinomian theologians’ rejection of giving admonitions to the church in the interests of grace, issues the sharpest of admonitions: “I will cast you out of my sight.” God abominates antinomism, and antinomian teachers.

The New Testament likewise recognizes the danger of antinomian heresy to the church of the New Testament and inveighs sharply against it. Significantly, the New Testament warns against the heresy as invariably an erroneous response to the gospel of grace. Where grace is taught, Satan will threaten the gospel with the false doctrine of antinomism. Then it also is made plain that the error is grievous. Having taught justification by faith alone apart from works of obedience to the law in Romans 3, Paul asks at the end of the chapter, “Do we then make void the law through faith?” (v. 31) His response is the strongest negative in the Bible, “God forbid.” Similarly, having finished his treatment of justification by faith alone, on the ground of the obedience of Christ alone, in Romans 3-5, Paul considers the antinomian response to this gospel of grace, apart from the law, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1). Obviously, already in Paul’s day, antinomism was a real threat to the gospel of grace. The apostle’s response to his question is again a vehement “no”: “God forbid” (Romans 6:1). The same rejection of the notion that the gospel of grace implies that the law is evil is found in Romans 7:7, indeed throughout the seventh chapter of the book of Romans. And, as I already pointed out, Revelation 2 contends with antinomism as a threat to the gospel of grace already in the days of the apostle John.

Now I expose the false doctrine, with regard to its fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel’s rejection of the law; in light of the rightful place of the law in the Christian life; and by the authority of the Reformed creeds. Contrary to the exclusion of the law from the gospel as though law and gospel are absolute opposites, the Bible applies the law to the Christian who is saved by grace alone. Nor is this application only that the law reveals the Christian’s misery. The application is also that the law is the necessary rule of the Christian’s thankful, holy life, a rule that the Christian is commanded, enabled, and empowered to obey. Romans, which teaches justification by faith alone (in chapters 3–5), goes on at once to command the justified believer to obey the law of God (in chapters 6, 7, and 12–16). In the apostle’s own language, grace does not void the law, but establishes the law (Romans 3:31).

Likewise, Galatians, which is the book of the Bible that proclaims and defends justification by faith alone and that condemns the heresy of justification by works of obedience to the law, calls the justified believer to obey the law, expressly warning against antinomism as it does so.

Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty [the liberty of justification by faith alone—DJE]; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Galatians 5:13, 14).

The error regarding the law that the Bible condemns is making obedience to the law the sinner’s righteousness with God and thus the basis of his salvation. 

The truth about the law with regard to its place in the Christian’s life is that God binds the law upon the believer, and the believer strives to keep the law, as the expression of his gratitude for God’s gracious salvation of him. This place is honorable, important, and, indeed, necessary. 

This is the authoritative confession concerning the law and its place in the life of the believer of the Reformed creeds. These creeds, therefore, are the blessed safeguard of Reformed churches and Christian against the dread evil of antinomism. 

In Question 86, the Heidelberg Catechism declares that believers “must…do good works.” The explanation of the ten commandments that immediately follows makes clear that the good works in view are deeds done in obedience to the law of God, so that, contrary to antinomism, the law is binding upon believers. The full phrasing of the question in Question 86 makes plain beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Catechism is deliberately contending with the heresy of antinomism: “since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works? [emphasis added—DJE]”

Indicating the Reformed faith’s detestation of antinomism, Question 87 goes on at once to consign the full-fledged, impenitent antinomist to perdition: “no unchaste person [or any other impenitent law-breaker-DJE]…shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Emphasizing the role of the law in the life of the Christian as the rule of his holy life, the Catechism then proceeds to a detailed explanation of the ten commandments, one of the longest sections of the Catechism. According to the Catechism, in these commandments God makes known how we must behave towards God and what duties we owe to our neighbor. He enjoins; requires; forbids; commands; and wills to have the law strictly preached. These verbs chase Kohlbrugge, Hofer, Jezebel, and all antinomians, including fledgling antinomians, who hesitate to call church members and others to repent, believe, and obey the law, out of the Reformed community, indeed out of the camp of Christianity. 

In one of the most splendid, and for the church today timely, articles in the Belgic Confession, the Confession denies, contrary to antinomism, that “justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life.” The creed insists that the believer who is saved by grace, apart from works of obedience to the law, is, nevertheless, bound to live in obedience to the law: “…the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word.” The Reformed view of the place of the law in the life of the believer is “that though we do [and are required to do—DJE] good works [in obedience to the law—DJE], we do not found our salvation upon them” (Belgic Confession, Article 24). 

With all Reformed churches the Protestant Reformed Churches must be vigilant against antinomism. They must approve the preaching of obedience to the law as an aspect of holiness, which is the saving work of God. They must approve preaching that proclaims that the believer “must” obey the law. They must judge opposition to the preaching of the law as the authoritative rule of the Christian life as serious error, one of the two main heresies in every age that attack the gospel: Arminianism and antinomism. Augustus M. Toplady has famously written that Christ is always crucified between two thieves: Aminianism and Antinomism. 

The Protestant Reformed Churches confess that Christ perfectly obeyed the law for the elect and in their stead and that He imputes this obedience to us by faith alone. They add that this is true of the saving work of justification. There is another saving work of Christ. This consists of infusing His righteousness into the elect believer, so that he actually obeys the law himself, although not yet perfectly, but only in beginning. This is Christ’s saving work of sanctification, a work that does not suffer in comparison with justification. Opposition to the false doctrine of antinomism has as its purpose honoring Christ Jesus as a complete Savior. He does not only save from the penalty of sin; He saves also from the power of sin. Antinomism presents Christ as an incomplete Savior, and thus as inglorious. 

If a minister loudly and persistently condemns the above doctrine and defends antinomism, he must be disciplined as a heretic. 

 

Peroration

There is something humbling, something discouraging, something absurd about the need in a Reformed church in AD2022to contend with antinomism, as though the teaching of obedience to the law and the necessity of a life of good works were evil doctrines. Has it come to this, that holiness of life, the binding authority of the law of God, and the lively performance of good works are suspect in a Reformed church? Is a Reformed church ignorant, or afraid, of the truth that a life of the zealous performance of good works in obedience to the law is the purpose of God with all His salvation of us? At this stage of the history of Reformed Christianity, does not every Reformed Christian know that the active Christian life of obedience to the law is the very purpose—the goal—of God with His justification of her members? Justification by faith alone does not end in itself, but in a holy, God-glorifying life of gratitude.

Our trouble is not that we justified Christians dare to be somewhat active in a life of good works, but that we are not nearly active enough. Our sin is not that we prize a life of obedience to the law too highly, but that we do not esteem it nearly highly enough. The weakness of the Reformed pulpit is not that it calls too vigorously for the holy life, but that it comes short of doing justice to holiness as the goal of God with all the gracious salvation of sinners. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (I Peter 1:16).

Has it truly come to this in a church that claims to be Reformed, that it confirms the charge of Rome that the gospel of grace leads to an inclination to live contrary to the law of God in all manner of sins, as though this were the implication and natural effect of grace? Shall a Reformed church lend credence to this God-dishonoring, Christ-shaming, Holy Ghost-despising theology by its opposition to the law of God and its nervousness about obedience to this law?

Not the Protestant Reformed Churches!

As for us, our confession is that the work of grace is a “sincere joy of heart in God through Christ, and with love and delight to live according to the will [law—DJE] of God in all good works” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 90).

Thinking creedally, when the danger is that of attributing too much to the good works of believers or even of making good works the basis of justification, the Protestant Reformed Churches confess, with the Heidelberg Catechism, that “the holiest men…have only a small beginning of this obedience” [to the law of God—DJE]. When, on the other hand, the antinomians so stress the natural depravity of the believer as to deny the reality of his performance of good works, the Protestant Reformed Churches respond, with the Belgic Confession, that “these works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace” (Article 24). 

Between the two thieves is Christ!