Questions drawn up by the consistory of First Protestant Reformed Church for Rev. Hubert De Wolf’s Formula of Subscription examination
I. In regard to your statement: “God promises every one of you that, if you believe, you shall be saved.”
1. Regarding this statement we ask you:
a. Do you still maintain it as it stands there?
b. On which article or articles of the confessions do you base this?
c. Is not this a general conditional promise (every one of you…if)?
d. Do you not see the difference between this and Heidelberg Catechism question 84: “Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith,” etc. Canons 2.5: “Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” According to your statement, “God promises to every one of you”; according to the confessions, it is only to the believer, and to the consciousness of the believer, i.e., to the elect, that God addresses the promise.
e. Will not every Arminian subscribe to your statement, and is it not your calling, according to the Formula of Subscription, “to refute and contradict these errors”?
f. Is, according to your conviction, the promise conditional?
2. Regarding the promise:
a. Heidelberg Catechism question 22 speaks of the promise as including the whole of our salvation, including the gift of the Holy Spirit and of faith. Is that promise conditional? County (sic) you say, “God promises to every one of you faith and the Holy Spirit?”
b. Heidelberg Catechism questions 65–7 speak of the promise:
1) Question 65. Is faith here a condition or a means whereby we are made partakers of salvation?
2) Question 65. The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit conditional?
3) Question 66. The promise of the gospel is that God “freely grants us the remission of sins and life eternal.” This promise he seals unto us. What does it mean that God seals, and who are the “us”? How then can you maintain that “God promises (in the gospel and in the sacraments) that he will save every one of you, if (conditional) you believe?”
4) Question 67. Is the assurance by the Holy Ghost conditional?
5) Question 69. This question is very personal. Who is the “I”? Is it “every one of you”? To this person God addresses the promise forgiveness of sins. General? Conditional?
6) Question 70 adds to the promise “renewal by the Holy Ghost.” Is that promise conditional?
7) Question 70 also adds to the promise sanctification, death unto sin, and the leading of holy lives. Is this condition or fruit?
c. Question 74 speaks of the promise in infant baptism. The promise is redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost as the author of faith. Is this promise conditional? Is it to “every one of you if you believe”? Or is it unconditional and for the elect only?
d. To whom do the personal pronouns refer in Netherlands Confession articles 34–35? To “every one of you” or to the believers, i.e., the elect?
3. As to unconditional election:
a. Canons 1A.6: If faith proceeds from God’s decree, how can it be a condition?
b. In Canons 1A.8 will you explain the term “according as”? How can the application of election be conditional if election itself is unconditional?
c. Canons 1A.9: If faith, obedience of faith, holiness, etc. are no prerequisites in God’s counsel, how can they be in its realization?
d. Canons 1B.5: If God in his eternal election did not foresee “faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance” as conditions required beforehand, how can he see them as such in time? And if he does not see them as such, how can they be conditions at all?
Again, how can these be conditions and fruits at the same time?
4. As to faith:
a. In Lord’s Day 7 is faith presented as a condition or as a God-given means whereby he ingrafts us into Christ?
b. Likewise in question 53.
c. Likewise in Netherlands Confession article 22.
d. Canons 3–4.14: Is is (sic), perhaps, so that God bestows the power of faith, and that our act of believing is a condition unto salvation, or does he work both: the power and the act?
e. Heidelberg Catechism question 64. Is our walking in good works a condition unto the salvation, or are our good works the inevitable fruit of faith?
Once more, in the light of all the above: Is it Reformed to preach that God promises every one of you, if you believe, that you shall be saved?
II. In regard to your doctrine that our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of God:
1. In regard to this teaching of yours we ask:
a. Do you still maintain this doctrine as your (sic) preached it?
b. On what article of the confession do you base this teaching?
2. What, according to our confessions, is the meaning of prerequisite? Canons 1A.9; 1B.5.
3. Do you maintain that our act of conversion is before we enter into the kingdom of God? (Prerequisite.)
4. Are we not in the power of darkness before we enter into the kingdom of God? Heidelberg Catechism question 8, Netherlands Confession article 14, Canons 3–4.1–4, 10.
5. Are not our regeneration and conversion the entering into the kingdom? How, then, can conversion be before entering into the kingdom? Canons 3–4.10–12.
6. Is conversion, first of all, a work of God or an act of man? Canons 3–4.10–12.
7. Do we enter the kingdom, first of all, by our act of conversion or by God’s work of translating us? Canons 3–4.10.
8. Are we, then, in the kingdom before we do or can convert ourselves? Canons 3–4.10–12. How, then, can our act of conversion be a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom?
9. Is not our act of conversion the fruit of our entering into the kingdom of God? Canons 3–4.12, 16.
10. Is our daily or continued conversion (or entering into the kingdom) first of all the work of God or the act of man? Canons 5.3, 6, 8.
11. Is our act of conversion a prerequisite consciously to enter into the kingdom, is our consciousness of being in the kingdom antecedent to our act of conversion, or are they simultaneous? Canons 5.7, 9, 11.
12. How, then, in the light of this clear teaching of our confessions, can you maintain that our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter?
Transcript of Reverend De Wolf’s Formula of Subscription exam, given by Rev. C. Hanko
CHAIRMAN HANKO: “In regard to your statement”—I am reading now from the questions as drawn up before—“‘God promises every one of you that, if you believe, you shall be saved.’ Regarding this statement, we ask you: A. Do you still maintain it as it stands there?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that that statement permits of a correct interpretation, although I have never maintained it is a concise expression of the truth. My interpretation of that statement is recorded in a letter of August 27, 1951, and in a letter to the consistory of September 5, 1951, which I read in the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “On which article or articles of the confessions do you base this?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I would say that it isn’t up to me to say on what article this statement is based, but it is up to the consistory to say which articles of the confessions this statement is supposed to contradict. That is according to the Formula of Subscription. I don’t believe that a minister must be able to point to some particular article as a basis for every statement he makes. The confessions, I think we all hold, are a minimum and not a maximum of the truth.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “Is not this a general conditional promise (every one of you…if)?”
REV. DE WOLF: As I explained before, by “God promises,” I meant the same as God declares to you, or God assures you that if you believe, you shall be saved. That was really my meaning.
However, even if the idea of promise in the strict sense of the word be maintained, it refers only to that which follows upon believing. It does not, therefore, include the gift of the Holy Spirit and regeneration and faith. It simply certifies that this “shall be saved” will follow upon the believing. This promise of being saved, is, therefore, not general but is limited by the “if you believe.”
Moreover, the faith through which one believes is the gift of God, which he unconditionally bestows upon the elect. What is general is not what God promises to do but the proclamation of what God promises to do for everyone who believes.
And, as I said, Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to in any way bring in the idea of conditions. I had no intention of doing that, but since I am being held responsible for that statement, and since it seems that the consistory is not satisfied with what I mean—although it at one time did accept my meaning and interpretation and then retracted and demanded that I take back the statement, as such. I feel that now I am held responsible for something which I really didn’t mean to say in the beginning when I made the statement. But I am still of the opinion that you can defend this statement, and I shall attempt to do that, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to quote some authorities for that. I would like to read a little bit, if I may, from a pamphlet entitled Calvin, Berkhoff (sic) and H. J. Kuiper, A Comparison, page 32, and on 35 and 56.
He affirms here [that is, Calvin] what we have always taught, as we have written often in the past, that inasfar as the message is general and comes to all, it is conditional. The offer is eternal life. The condition limiting this offer is “turn from your wicked ways.” This condition makes the contents of the general message particular. Just as we have emphasized in the past, a contention our opponents have tried to laugh to scorn, there is a general proclamation of a conditional and particular gospel. He promises to all that believe, peace and eternal life. Thus is the plain exposition of Calvin on this passage. He teaches all that hear a conditional doctrine. If ye turn, ye shall live, and because it is conditional, it is also particular.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I would not go along with that statement myself. I don’t believe I would say it that way. If I was to speak of particular and conditional, I would turn that around, and I would say that because it is particular, it is conditional, and not because it is conditional, it is particular, but the statement reads here,
And because it is conditional, it is also particular, and God, in reality promises eternal life only to the elect, for it is quite certain, according to Calvin, that men do not turn from their wicked ways on their own accord, nor by any instinct of nature. It is equally certain that none turn from their wickedness but the elect, therefore, the contents of this externally general message is particular, and applies only to the elect of God.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Rev. Hoeksema, who is the protestant in this case, used the word “promise” in the same sense in which I meant to use it in this statement, when he wrote in another pamphlet. By the way, there is more in this book that I wanted to read. I want to read on page 35, (reading):
And Calvin explains that the two members of the text (this is out of Ezekiel) must not be separated; that God in the text, as taken as a whole, promises life only to them that turn from their wicked way, and that, therefore, the contents of this gospel is conditional and particular. That moreover, the condition can never be fulfilled by the natural man, but only by those to whom God gives grace of repentance, and that God gives this grace of repentance only to the elect, so that, according to Calvin there is in these words nothing that is in conflict with the doctrine of eternal predestination.
We find then on page 56,
Secondly, the passage is in plain denial of the view that the gospel is a message of peace to all without distinction. It is a power of salvation to them that believe only. Though the outward calling is general, the preaching is conditional and particular nevertheless.
As I was saying, the Rev. Hoeksema has used that idea of promise in that same—I would say the loose sense—in which I meant to use it when he wrote in his sermons on Romans on page 296 of that book,
Does not the Word of God clearly promise: “Ask and it shall be given you. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” And when the Lord says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give unto you rest,” does not then the fulfillment of this promise of rest depend upon our coming to him, and is it not, besides, the experience of every sinner that is saved, that he found God only in the way of seeking him; or is there ever a sinner that finds God without having sought him; has found peace in the everlasting arms without having inquired after him? To be sure, only he that asketh receiveth. Never he that asks not. Only he that seeketh, findeth. Never he that seeks not. Only to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Never to him that knocks not. Only to them that come unto him is the promise of rest, not to them that refuse to come. Therefore, only in the way of seeking God and inquiring after him can we ever find him.
I have one more quotation, Mr. Chairman, which reads as follows, from page 227 of this same book.
The sole requirement unto salvation is that you believe on him, and call upon his name, and there is no but. If you put your confidence for righteousness upon the Christ, and upon him only, you shall be saved. In this gospel there is no appendix. There is nothing to be added. It must stand alone, absolutely alone.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the answer to that question.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “Do you not see the difference between this and Heidelberg Catechism question 84: ‘Thus: When according to the command of Christ it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith,’ etc. Canons 2.5: ‘Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life.’ According to your statement, ‘God promises to every one of you.’ According to the confessions, it is only to the believer, and to the consciousness of the believer, i.e., to the elect, that God addresses the promise.”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here, I feel, and it would not, perhaps, be right for me to say that I don’t see any difference here. Yet I believe that I may say that essentially, essentially as far as the truth itself is concerned, there really isn’t any essential difference. The difference is mainly due to the fact that—at least I feel that the difference to a great extent is due to the fact that my statement is in the form of direct discourse, while those that are quoted are in the form of indirect discourse. So that actually there is no discrepancy here.
According to my statement, God addresses the promise of salvation to the believer, to the consciousness of every hearer. I would like to have that plain, Mr. Chairman. God addresses the promise of salvation to the believer, to the consciousness of every hearer. The promise itself is always to the believer, and never to everyone, irrespective of whether or not he believes. Therefore, if one believes, he has the promise. If he does not believe, he does not have the promise. And since God gives the grace to believe only to the elect, it must follow that the promise is only for the elect. Really, the thing I meant to convey in that particular sermon, and in that expression, was that God confronts everyone in my audience with the fact, “If you believe, you will be saved.” That fact, I called that a promise.
I have explained before that by promise I really meant there the assurance in the sense that the word of God is a promise; that you may take God at his word. If you believe, you will be saved, and I think you can say that to anyone, Mr. Chairman. That does not predicate any ability at all as to whether or not he is able. It says nothing about that. It simply states this fact, that the believer is surely saved. And when you say that in direct discourse, then you say, if you believe, you will be saved. That is my answer, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “Will not every Arminian subscribe to your statement, and is it not your calling, according to the Formula of Subscription, ‘to refute and contradict these errors’?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, this question implies really what it ought to prove, namely, that anything with which an Arminian agrees is erroneous. I am sure that any Arminian will subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity and of the virgin birth. And I would ask, are they, therefore, false doctrines that are to be refuted because the Arminian also agrees to them? The fact that an Arminian agrees with a statement of a Reformed man does not condemn that statement. It is a question of interpretation. This is always true, and that’s true also of many texts of scripture, as I have written to the consistory before in one of my letters. That is true with such a text as John 3:16. And I think that in the context of my sermon, Mr. Chairman, I did not leave any room for an Arminian interpretation, and I certainly refuted it when I made very plain that it was only by the grace of God which he sovereignly bestows upon his elect that we are able to do this. And I said that, Mr. Chairman, in so many words, and I don’t think that any Arminian is going to agree with that. That is my answer, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “F. Is, according to your conviction, the promise conditional?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, here, you see, once again you have—this puts me on the spot. I have never gone out of my way to preach conditional promise. I have never done that, but now I am being driven to the very extreme because of this one statement I made. It has got to be exploited to the very end. And, of course, I will try to defend that. If that’s a conditional promise, I will try to defend it because I made that statement. Although, I say once again, it was not my intention, as I said to the consistory more than once. And I still believe that the interpretation I gave of promise is a very usual one which we use very often and which has been used in the past. Perhaps it was a little bit dumb of me that I didn’t realize that I shouldn’t have used the word “promise” there because of the implications which it might have, but which I do not believe it necessarily has to have.
I would answer that question, Mr. Chairman, by saying that it depends on you mean (sic), in the first place, by “promise,” and in the second place, by “conditional.” If by “promise” you mean all that belongs to our salvation, including the Holy Spirit, regeneration, and faith, it is never conditional, never; and if you mean by “conditional” that God is dependent in the realization of salvation on what man of himself must do, that promise is never conditional.
However, I believe that you can find in scripture the promise of salvation in an eschatological sense of the word, and that that is often presented in a conditional form. I think that you have that in many instances. I could quote from scripture, Mr. Chairman, such texts as Revelation 3—well, very many texts in Revelation 3, if you will allow me just a moment’s time to look it up—not only in 3 but in these churches to which the Lord writes. I had a reference here to 3:21—just a moment—I know there are others here. I didn’t take the pains of looking up a lot of references on this.
“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” You have it also in Revelation 3:10 and 12: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon earth.” 11: “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God,” etc.
I believe that there are also many instances in scripture in which God assures us that he will do something if we will do something. At least, I say, that that’s the form which it comes to us in scripture. You have that, for example, in Malachi. Malachi 3:7, in the last part of verse 7: “Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts.” I say that that is the form, that comes to us in this form, that if we do something, God will do something. You have in verse 10, where the Lord says, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”
I find the same thing, Mr. Chairman, in James 4:8 and 10: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.” In some sense, Mr. Chairman, there is an action of God that follows upon our action. Verse 10: “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.”
You have in the Old Testament—I don’t have to read it, in 1 Kings 11:38, the conditional promise to Jeroboam: “You keep my statutes; walk in my way, and I will establish your house.”
The Lord even says to Cain, “If thou doest good, shall it not be well with thee?”
And, of course, Psalm 81, the verses 8 to the end, I think, expresses the very same thing:
8. Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me;
9. There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.
10. I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
11. But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.
12. So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels.
13. Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!
14. I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.” Etc.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the answer to that question.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: That brings us to 2. “Regarding the promise. A. Heidelberg Catechism question 22 speaks of the promise as including the whole of our salvation, including the gift of the Holy Spirit and of faith. Is that promise conditional? Could you say, ‘God promises to every one of you faith and the Holy Spirit’?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit piqued about this, if I may say that—with no malice. I preached on the Heidelberg Catechism for eight years. I can’t understand that the consistory comes and questions me on that after hearing me all the time. I don’t believe there is even any suggestion in anything that I preached of what these questions imply. I would say that simply in general. I have preached for eight years on the Catechism, and the elders have always given me the hand on it; and I have never had any objection to the things I have said when I explained the Catechism. Now, of course, I am being quizzed on it, and it is my duty to submit, Mr. Chairman. I humbly do so.
Question 22. Would the elders please take their Psalter out if you do not have them. I would like to have you look at those things. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, in question 22, you have a question of exegesis. You have the problem there. What is meant by the promise? Now, if you follow the idea of the promise from here on in the Catechism, you will find that the Catechism is speaking of the promise from a very particular point of view, which, I believe, is also mentioned later on. Namely, the point of view of what you have in question 66—the answer there, the promise of the gospel that God freely grants us the remission of sins and eternal life.
Now, I do realize, Mr. Chairman, that the promise referred to here in question 22 may very well, and I believe it does, I think I would be ready to say that, and I haven’t looked up my sermons that I preached on this particular question; but I think the usual interpretation is that this promise includes all that God has promised in his word, in the comprehensive sense of the word, from the very beginning, including the cross of Christ and his resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and all that God has promised; and that including also the gift of the Holy Spirit and faith.
Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, I have never contended that that would be conditional. Never. I wouldn’t say that now. I simply don’t believe that. That would be Arminianism. That would mean that the Holy Spirit and faith depends upon something that man does. It would, in fact, be a contradiction in terms, unless it would have to imply, necessarily, that faith was man’s own work, and then it couldn’t be a gift of God, and he couldn’t receive it either from God, so, certainly that is not conditional. But a promise made to a conscious believer, Mr. Chairman, cannot include faith and the Holy Spirit because he already possesses them. I mean when the gospel comes to me as a believer, I confess that that faith whereby I believe has been given me of God. I certainly confess that, but I do not appropriate faith by means of faith, and that’s why the promise as it comes to the believer—and that is really the promise of which the Catechism is speaking in the rest of these questions that follow—that promise does not include the gift of the Holy Spirit and faith, because he is a believer. He already has the Holy Spirit and faith, but it refers to what you have in 66 there, as I have mentioned before.
Of course, no Reformed man will ever say that God promises to every one of you faith and the Holy Spirit, and I didn’t say that, Mr. Chairman. It certainly would have been ridiculous for me to say that. To say that God promises every one of you that if you believe, he will give you faith and the Holy Spirit, how in the world would that be possible? But I don’t believe that it is ridiculous to say that if you believe, you will be saved. Then that salvation must mean salvation as conscious reality. And I believe that in that conscious sense, as we experience salvation, that that salvation is contingent on our believing and that that believing of ours is, of course, again, the fruit of the grace of God which he bestows sovereignly upon his people. I think that—well, I don’t have to—I was going to say I am in good company there too. I was going to give you a quote. Maybe I can pass it up. That’s all right. I will let it go at that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “Heidelberg Catechism questions 65–71 speak of the promise. Question 65 reads,
Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence doth this faith proceed?
Answer: From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments.
Is faith here a condition or a means whereby we are made partakers of salvation?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, the Catechism presents it here as a means, but I fail to find that the Catechism mentions faith as included in the promise here. The promise here is clearly defined as: “that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of” the suffering of Christ, I believe, etc., you will find in answer 66. That is my answer, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) 2 on the same question. “The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit conditional?”
REV. DE WOLF: Again, Mr. Chairman, I fail to find that the Catechism says anything about the gift of the Holy Spirit here, and that it is included in the promise, that is, in this particular promise here that the Catechism is speaking of. I hope you understand what I mean. It doesn’t even mention anything about the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now, the question is, “The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit conditional?”
Mr. Chairman, that all depends on what specific aspect of the gift of the Holy Spirit is meant. If you mean in the initial sense, never conditional. Or, if you mean that the Holy Spirit can only do something if we do something, never conditional. God is never dependent on man.
I have never preached that. I don’t believe that. I would never preach that. God is never dependent on man.
But, Mr. Chairman, you do find in the Catechism that those who pray receive the Holy Spirit; that God gives his Holy Spirit only to those who sincerely desire that Holy Spirit; and that for that purpose prayer is necessary. And so I would say, from that point of view, you could possibly say in the sphere, on the plane of our experience, as we experience these blessings of salvation as rational, moral creatures; and because God has instituted means with which he has connected his grace and Spirit, that, therefore, yes, you could say, in a sense, that the gift of the Holy Spirit is conditional upon the use of those means. I think you may say that, but in the sense that the Catechism means it here, my answer is no.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) Question 66 reads:
What are the sacraments?
Answer: The sacraments are holy, visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.
(Chairman continuing reading from prepared questions) “The promise of the gospel is that God ‘freely grants us the remission of sins and life eternal.’ This promise he seals unto us. What does it mean that God seals, and who are the ‘us’?”
REV. DE WOLF: Do you want me to answer that first?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Probably better, yes.
REV. DE WOLF: Of course, here you have the very particular aspect of the promise mentioned and defined, to which I have already referred. I would answer that question, Mr. Chairman, by saying that God seals, that righteousness is by faith; and, therefore, every believer receives this assurance. God seals that fact. That means he makes that fact sure to every believer. And if you ask who are “us” then, of course, it is very evident here that the “us” are the believers.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: The last part of this question reads: (Reading) “How then can you maintain that ‘God promises (in the gospel and in the sacraments) that he will save every one of you, if (conditional) you believe’?”
REV. DE WOLF: Because, Mr. Chairman, “If you believe” means that you are a believer to whom God seals the promise of which the Catechism speaks here, namely, the forgiveness of sin and life eternal. If you weren’t a believer, you couldn’t believe. That is my answer, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: “Question 67.” Question 67 reads:
Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?
Answer. Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.
The question is, “Is the assurance by the Holy Ghost conditional?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, that question is very ambiguous. I have three answers for that because there are three possibilities there. Perhaps I could ask the committee which one they had in mind. But if you want me to read what I have here, Mr. Chairman, I will give my three answers—my three possibilities, I mean.
If you will pardon me while I look it up. I am dealing mostly with the answer here, of course.
Now, I would say if you mean the assurance of which this question and answer speaks, the answer is no. The Holy Spirit never assures us of anything else. There is no condition upon which the Holy Spirit would ever assure us that our salvation is not all in Christ, and that is the assurance of which this particular Lord’s Day speaks, Mr. Chairman. That’s why I asked that question.
Notice, if I may explain it to you, thus. What is that, 67? Yes. (Reading) “For the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.”
Now, upon no condition would the Holy Spirit assure us of anything else than that, Mr. Chairman. That is the only thing that the Holy Spirit ever assures us of—that our salvation is entirely in Christ.
I feel, however, that evidently is not the meaning here.
If it means, on the other hand, that in the initial sense, the Holy Spirit cannot assure us unless we first do something—if that’s the meaning of this question—is the assurance of the Holy Spirit that we are—that our salvation is wholly in Christ—if that assurance depends on something in you and me, then it is not conditional. Couldn’t be. That would simply be Pelagian.
However, if you mean by assurance of the Holy Spirit the conscious personal assurance of our personal participation in that salvation, if that’s what you mean—but that’s really not what the Catechism is speaking of here. If that’s what you mean, then my answer is yes. It’s conditional. It is from the subjective point of view of our experience.
And for proof, Mr. Chairman, I quote question and answer 86 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Question 86 reads:
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?
Answer: Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit after his own image; that so we may testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for his blessings, and that he may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof; and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.
I do not have that in mind.
Canons 5, article 5 reads:
By such enormous sins, however, they very highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes lose the sense of God’s favor for a time, until, on their returning into the right way of serious repentance, the light of God’s fatherly countenance again shines upon them.
You cannot have—I mean the Catechism makes very plain—you cannot have the assurance of your personal enjoyment of that salvation when you live in sin. You have that only in the way of sanctification. Article 11 of this same head. Article 11 reads:
The scripture moreover testifies that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it (1 Cor. 10:13), and by the Holy Spirit again inspires them with the comfortable assurance of persevering.
And, finally, in this same head, article 13. Article 13 reads:
Neither does renewed confidence of persevering produce licentiousness or a disregard to piety in those who are recovering from backsliding; but it renders them much more careful and solicitous to continue in the ways of the Lord, which he hath ordained, that they who walk therein may maintain an assurance of persevering; lest, by abusing his fatherly kindness, God should turn away his gracious countenance from them, to behold which is to the godly dearer than life, the withdrawing whereof is more bitter than death, and they in consequence hereof should fall into more grievous torments of conscience.
Now, I believe that those articles show, Mr. Chairman, that the assurance of the Holy Spirit, that is, the assurance which the Holy Spirit works concerning our personal participation in that salvation, is conditional, from the point of view of our experience, upon many things— upon sanctification, I would say, as long as we remember—as long as we remember, Mr. Chairman, that persevering is always the fruit of preservation. That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) Question 69 reads:
How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
Answer. Thus: that Christ appointed this external washing with water, adding thereto this promise, that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.
This question is very personal. Who is the “I”? Is it “every one of you”? To this person God addresses the promised forgiveness of sins. General? Conditional?
REV. DE WOLF: What question is that, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: 5 under B.
REV. DE WOLF: My answer to the first part, Mr. Chairman, is, the believer who consciously appropriates the promise that is added to the sacrament.
The second part—well, I would like to say that I believe that I limited the “every one” by saying, “If you believe.” I certainly limited the “every one” to the believers.
As far as the really receiving the promise is concerned, the promise is given to the believers. Only he who is a believer can appropriate that promise, even though it was proclaimed to everyone in the audience.
Nevertheless, although God addresses this promise to the believer, let me read what I have here. (Reading) “This promise is proclaimed to the whole church every time the sacrament is administered. Nevertheless, only the believer receives it because it cannot be appropriated except by faith. Whether or not we consciously appropriate that promise, therefore, depends on the conscious activity of faith. You must believe in order to appropriate that promise.
Therefore, the act of faith may be said to be the condition for appropriating the promise. The act of faith may be said to be the condition for the appropriating of the promise, and faith is the gift of God to his elect, enabling them—(End of recording tape).
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Did you finish your answer to 5?
REV. DE WOLF: Yes, I will let it go at that, Mr. Chairman. I think that’s sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Question 70 reads:
What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?
Answer. It is to receive of God the remission of sins freely, for the sake of Christ’s blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin and lead holy and unblamable lives.
(Reading from prepared questions) “Question 70 adds to the promise ‘renewal by the Holy Ghost.’ Is that promise conditional?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, it is not true that this is added to the promise. That is not correct. The Catechism does not say that. In question 69 it says that Christ adds to the external sign of baptism “the promise that, etc.” as you find it there.
But in question 70 the Catechism does not speak of what is added to the promise. It speaks of something entirely different—not what we are promised, but what we have in the essence of spiritual baptism. That’s what the Catechism is speaking of here—not what Christ promises us, but what he gives us in the essence of spiritual baptism. It refers to what God does for us, and in us, as believers. That’s my answer, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “Question 70 also adds to the promise sanctification, death unto sin, and the leading of holy lives. Is this condition or fruit?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, this is neither fruit nor condition, but it is the contents of spiritual baptism. He who is truly baptized receives these things. You cannot possibly receive true baptism without receiving these things. This is what you have in true baptism. It is neither one.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading from Catechism all of question 74) Question 74 reads:
Are infants also to be baptized?
Answer. Yes; for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church, and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.
This question (reading from prepared questions) “speaks of the promise in infant baptism. The promise is redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost as the author of faith. Is this promise conditional? Is it to ‘Every one of you if you believe,’ or is it unconditional and for the elect only?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a remark, this is very remote from anything, of course, that I said in that statement. But my answer is no. An infant cannot receive this promise by a conscious faith. This is an abstract promise to the elect, that is, to the elect church, and is consciously appropriated by the believer. That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Netherlands Confession, articles 34 and 35. It won’t be necessary, I don’t think, to read the whole articles. (Reading from prepared questions) “To whom do the personal pronouns refer in Netherlands Confession, articles 34, 35. To ‘every one of you’ or to the believers, i.e., the elect?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, in my own defense, once again, I did not simply say, “Every one of you.” In the second place, to the believer, of course. It is the believer here who makes confession of faith. That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “3. As to unconditional election, Canons 1A.6 reads:
That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God’s eternal decree, “For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). According to which decree he graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while he leaves the non-elect in his just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.
(Reading from prepared questions) “If faith proceeds from God’s decree, how can it be a condition?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, would you give me your judgment of number 3—the whole of number 3? Is it correct that the consistory also suspects me of believing in conditional election? Is that correct? The consistory accepted these questions, but is that true that I am suspected of believing in conditional election? I wasn’t aware of that fact, and yet I am being questioned. I can answer these questions if you want me to, but it seems to me that it certainly isn’t apropos. I wasn’t aware of the fact that I was being suspected of that. Of course, the consistory hasn’t anything in the minutes whereof I am suspected.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Will you, nevertheless, answer the question?
REV. DE WOLF: All right, Mr. Chairman, 3A. Because God has decreed faith as a means unto salvation, and therefore it often occurs in the function of a condition—notice, I say in the function of a condition—in such instances as, for example, “Believe and thou shalt be saved. Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.”—which certainly means faith—and God, when he realizes his salvation in the elect as rational, moral creatures, has the right in the preaching of the gospel to demand of every one who hears that gospel, that he will believe, even though he has sovereignly determined to give that faith only to the elect, in order that they may be able to comply with that demand. God may demand faith of every one, and God may also sovereignly give his grace, as he does only to his elect who comply with that demand. And, therefore, faith could—faith could appear in the function of a condition, from that point of view. That is my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: “In Canons 1A.8,” I will read the article. Article 8 reads:
There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament; since the scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose, and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which he hath chosen us from eternity, both to grace and glory, to salvation and the way of salvation, which he hath ordained that we should walk therein.
(Reading from prepared questions) “Will you explain the term ‘according as’? How can the application of election be conditional if election itself is unconditional?”
REV. DE WOLF: Is that the question?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: That is right.
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, of course, there is no “according as” in that article. I imagine that was supposed to be “according to.”
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Correct.
REV. DE WOLF: My explanation is, if the meaning of the question is that the application of God’s election is conditional in the sense that it depends on something which man himself must do in order that God’s salvation of the elect may be realized in him, then it is certainly unconditional. But that does not mean that God cannot work out what he has decreed by confronting his people with pedagogical conditions. God is never conditioned by anything that man does. Never. And I think that’s what this article is speaking of. That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) Article 9 reads:
This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: “He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).
(Chairman reading from prepared questions) “If faith, obedience of faith, holiness, etc. are no prerequisites in God’s counsel, how can they be in its realization?”
REV. DE WOLF: Well, Mr. Chairman, once again, when you speak here of conditions or prerequisites, I would like to have it clear that any condition which man fulfills, he fulfills only by the grace of God; and any prerequisite which he fulfills, he fulfills by the grace of God. I would like to have that clear and that, therefore, that condition and prerequisite can only pertain to the subjective realization of any decrees or salvation which God grants. And my answer to that question then, in that light, would be that they are decreed in God’s counsel to appear in time as requirements but not as prerequisites upon which the counsel of God’s election depended.
And that’s the doctrine of the Arminian. He makes this the work of man. And God saw it beforehand, and so that’s the reason he is elected. He meets the condition—of himself he meets the condition—and God saw that, and that’s why God elected him. And that is Arminianism. That is my answer, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Now, turning to Canons 1B.5. Article 5, Canons reads:
Who teach that the incomplete and non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness, godliness, which either began or continued for some time; but that the complete and decisive election occurred because of foreseen perseverance unto the end in faith, conversion, holiness and godliness; and that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness for the sake of which he who is chosen is more worthy than he who is not chosen; and that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur.
This is repugnant to the entire scripture, which constantly inculcates this and similar declarations: Election is not out of works, but of him that calleth (Rom. 9:11). “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy” (Eph. 1:4). “Ye did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). “But if it be of grace, it is no more of works” (Rom. 11:6). “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son” (1 John 4:10).
(Reading prepared question) “If God in his eternal election did not foresee ‘faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance’ as conditions required beforehand, how can he see them as such in time? And if he does not see them as such, how can they be conditions at all?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, in the main, my answer to that question is the same as the one above, the one that was answered, that you asked me before. I would like to add this, that election and the consciousness of our election are two different things. We can make our calling and election sure, the scripture calls us to do that. But that does not mean that we decide our election for God. Man is not elected because he believes, and God didn’t choose him because he was going to believe or persevere to the end, as that article also states, because it refutes the Arminian doctrine there. But man believes because he is elected. That’s what I believe. That is my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading question) “Again, how can these be conditions and fruits at the same time?”
REV. DE WOLF: Because, Mr. Chairman, fruit and condition are not mutually exclusive. Something can be a fruit and at the same time can assume the function of a condition. Therefore, scripture often admonishes us to bring forth fruits; threatens us when we do not bring forth fruit; and pronounces us the more blessed in the measure that we do bring forth fruit. I think that is taught in our confessions, and I could show that if necessary, but I will let that go.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: 4 deals with the subject of faith (Lord’s Day 7). (Reading) “In Lord’s Day 7, 1. Is faith presented as a condition or as a God-given means whereby he engrafts us into Christ?” based on question 20. Question 20 reads:
Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?
Answer. No, only those who are ingrafted into him, and receive all his benefits, by a true faith.
REV. DE WOLF: The answer is, Mr. Chairman, as a means, as an active means.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: You mean a God-given active means?
REV. DE WOLF: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Question 53. Question 53 reads:
What dost thou believe concerning the Holy Ghost?
Answer. 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.
(Reading from prepared questions) “Is faith presented here as a condition or as a God-given means whereby he engrafts us into Christ?”
REV. DE WOLF: Did you read the right one there, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Question 53.
REV. DE WOLF: Question 53.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Particularly this part: “secondly, that he is also given me, to make me, by a true faith, partaker of Christ and all his benefits.”
REV. DE WOLF: Yes, that is correct. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. The Holy Spirit is, of course, the agent and means. And—what is the question there?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Is faith presented as a condition or as a God-given means?
REV. DE WOLF: A means which the Holy Spirit works.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Netherlands Confession, article 22. Article 22 reads:
We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all his merits, appropriates him, and seeks nothing more besides him. 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 too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior.
Therefore, we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits and so many holy works which he has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.
Again, the question is whether faith is presented as a condition or as a God-given means?
REV. DE WOLF: I can answer that question in a lot less time than what it took you to ask it, Mr. Chairman. It is the same as the others. It is a means. It is, of course, a means that, whereby we embrace, as the article also states, enabling us to embrace, etc.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Canons 3–4.14. Article 14 reads:
Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred, breathed, and infused into him; or even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because he who works in man both to will and to do, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.
(Reading from prepared questions) “Is it, perhaps, so that God bestows the power of faith, and that our act of believing is a condition unto salvation, or does he work both: the power and the act?”
REV. DE WOLF: Either the consistory suspects me of not believing the Canons, or otherwise this is, with no malice, Mr. Chairman, an insult to my intelligence. It says there that it is both. You read it.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: And you agree with that?
REV. DE WOLF: Of course.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Heidelberg, question 64. Question 64 reads:
But doth not this doctrine make men careless and profane?
Answer: By no means; for it is impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by a true faith should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.
(Reading from prepared questions) “Is our walking in good works a condition unto the salvation, or are our good works the inevitable fruit of faith?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I have never contended that there are conditions unto salvation in that comprehensive sense of the word. I believe, however, that there are conditions to the enjoyment of our salvation, and I think that that can be shown upon the basis of scripture. And I say once again, Mr. Chairman, conditions which we fulfill by the grace of God, not that we do anything of ourselves, not at all.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “Once more, in the light of all the above, is it Reformed to preach that God promises every one of you, if you believe, that you shall be saved?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, if you interpret that as I do, and make plain as I did also in my sermon, that the faith to believe is the sovereign gift of God to his elect, that statement can stand. That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Now we turn to the matter of the second sermon with regard to conversion. (Reading from prepared questions) “3. In regard to your doctrine that our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of God: 1. In regard to this teaching of yours, we ask: A. Do you still maintain this doctrine as you preached it?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, that’s no special doctrine of mine. My answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “B. On what article of the confession do you base this teaching?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, my answer to that question is the very same as the answer to that similar question you asked me before at the beginning. I don’t believe I have to read that again. I can save you time by simply telling you that. I will read it, if you want me to.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Will you read it?
REV. DE WOLF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. (Reading) “It is not for me to say on what article this statement is based. It is up to the consistory to say which article of the confessions this statement is supposed to contradict. That is according to the Formula of Subscription. I do not believe that a minister must be able to point to some particular article as a basis for every statement he makes. The confessions are a minimum and not a maximum of the truth.” That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Now, turning to Canons 1A.9, article 9 reads:
This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: “He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).
(Reading from prepared questions) “What, according to our confessions, is the meaning of prerequisite?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, this article, of course, is again refuting the Arminian error. But I am sorry to say that I did not find a definition for the term of prerequisite in the article. And for all of the articles, however, that question reads: These articles condemn the idea of anything being a prerequisite unto our election. That is what this article is speaking of, not a prerequisite in general but of prerequisites with a view to our election. There are none.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: 1B.5. I read that article before. Particularly this last part, I think: “And that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur.” What is the meaning of prerequisite, in this case, condition?
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I have the same answer in respect to that. It does not define it except with a view to election. There are no such things.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: But in that connection, it refers to it as something which is required beforehand?
REV. DE WOLF: That’s correct. That is the idea of the Arminian—with a view to election—not, Mr. Chairman, not simply something that God requires beforehand. This prerequisite is in the idea of this article with a view to election. You cannot say when you use a word with a view to some special particular thing that that is a general meaning of the word throughout.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: But in article 9 it does speak of prerequisite as cause, does it not?
REV. DE WOLF: Our Canons refute that, don’t they?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Uh-huh. “Do you maintain that our act of conversion is before we enter into the kingdom of God?” That is, prerequisite?
REV. DE WOLF: In the sense of our consciousness of entering in and being in the kingdom, it is. I would say that you may say that it belongs to our act of entering into the kingdom.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “4. Are we not in the power of darkness before we enter into the kingdom of God? Heidelberg Catechism, question 8; Netherlands Confession, article 14; Canons 3–4.1–4 and 10.” Is it necessary to quote all these references?
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I have virtually quoted them, I believe, although not—Well, yes, I can tell you the gist of them. Do you want me to do that?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Will you?
REV. DE WOLF: Question 4. Perhaps you ought to read the question.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Question 8 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Question 8 reads:
Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?
Answer. Indeed we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.
REV. DE WOLF: Yes. Heidelberg Catechism 8 says nothing about the kingdom of God or of our entering into that kingdom of God. Of course, that is not the idea either. The idea of this question, as I take it, is to show in question 8 of the Heidelberg Catechism and of article 14 of the Netherlands Confessions to prove the doctrine of total depravity. That is what you have taught there. Man is totally depraved and by nature incapable of any good, inclined to all evil. Now you come to the Canons.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Netherlands Confession, article 14.
REV. DE WOLF: I mentioned that also, Mr. Chairman. That is also to prove that man is totally depraved. That is what that article is about. If you want to read it, you can read it. I assure you that is what it is.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Canons 3–4.1–4 and 10.
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say about this question, I will come to that reference. That question is not an easy question. The question concerning our entering into the kingdom, the manner of our entering into the kingdom, that which takes place in the sinner who enters into the kingdom of God, and the chronological order of events, with the view to his entering into the kingdom.
I have been trying to make a little study of that, Mr. Chairman, as you find these various references in scripture, and I am not prepared to give you a full explanation of these things because it is rather an involved problem, and it is not to be oversimplified by making a line and saying that man is first on one side, and then on the other. I assure you, and the Canons, of course, also do not do that. It is rather difficult to immediately establish these things here that are in question.
“Are we not in the power of darkness before we enter into the kingdom of God?”
Well, Mr. Chairman, you can say a lot of things about that. Certainly, it is true that the natural man is in the power of darkness, and it is also true that when one is in the kingdom of God, he is in the light. I think we may say that.
Now, I would like to call your attention to article 10, particularly, to show you that this problem is not so simple. You read in article 10, “But that others who are called by the gospel, obey the call, and are converted.” And, Mr. Chairman, the reason I call special attention to article 10 is because it mentions the kingdom. The other articles do not, if my memory serves me correctly.
“Is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others, equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversions, as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains; but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who as he has chosen his own from eternity in Christ.”
And now, Mr. Chairman, may I call your particular attention to the order in which we have these things here in this article. “As he has chosen his own from eternity in Christ, so he confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of his own Son.”
Now, Mr. Chairman, there must be some reason why our fathers used this order. They speak of that “translation into the kingdom of his own Son” as following upon being “rescued out of the power of darkness, as following upon the conferring of faith and repentance upon them, which faith and repentance are certainly active conscious realities. Repentance cannot be anything else but conscious; must be. And faith, I believe, according to our confessions, usually also has the idea of the conscious act of faith. I think that if you look up the idea of faith in our confessions, you will find, Mr. Chairman, that that is the aspect of faith that stands upon the foreground—not the potential, not the potential of faith, but the act of faith. And I find it very significant, Mr. Chairman, that the fathers put it in this order.
Now, I know I am not trying to draw a necessary doctrine from this; but I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that no one else has any right to change this order, unless he can show very plainly that that is the way it should be and that our fathers are not right in having this order.
That is the problem, Mr. Chairman. I am simply trying to present the problem. You can’t just draw a line and say it’s that way on one side. First you are there. Now you are on the other side of the line, and that settles the matter. That is not so easy to do.
Now, the question here is, what does this translation consist in, and how does it take place?
You have got to face that question. If it refers to regeneration alone, if entering into the kingdom refers to regeneration alone, then it must take place before God confers faith and repentance because faith and repentance are the fruits of regeneration. But notice that this article says first that God confers faith and repentance and that then he translates them. You have the very opposite order there. The translation, I would say, may refer rather to the act of God that takes places after he has conferred faith and repentance, and which is realized in man’s act of turning, so that it is conversion from the point of view of a man’s act in that conversion as the fruit of the work of God that is referred to here. So that then you would have this idea: while the elect are in the power of darkness, God confers faith and repentance upon them, by which they come to the knowledge of their depravity and bondage in darkness and by faith trust in Christ, turn from their sins—there you get that conversion—turn from their sins and so are rescued out of that power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his Son.
And then, Mr. Chairman, conversion is prerequisite to entering into the kingdom.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, you have the problem here of entering. And entering is active. That does not mean being dragged in, pushed in, rolled in, or anything else. It means entering—consciously entering in. There is an activity there that you cannot ignore. And if you are going to say that if regeneration alone is the prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of heaven, as it has been said here, you simply ignore all these things.
I have no objection to saying that regeneration is prerequisite to entering the kingdom. But I deny, Mr. Chairman, that regeneration ever stands alone. God’s work is complete. With regeneration always comes conversion, always. It’s the very counter-side of regeneration. It is the result of regeneration. And if you say that regeneration is prerequisite to entering into the kingdom of heaven, you must also say that conversion is prerequisite to entering into the kingdom of heaven. You can’t possibly avoid that because those two things belong together.
And now for proof of the fact that you may speak—and, Mr. Chairman, I’m not pleading for this thing, for I will frankly admit that I said more on the pulpit than what I now realize I said. But I will not admit that I preached a false doctrine. I am more convinced now that I didn’t. I am more convinced of that now. I didn’t realize all the implications. And I’ll frankly admit, and I suppose almost any minister will, we sometimes talk about things that we don’t understand so very well, until we are put on the spot, and we have to start investigating them, and then we find things that we haven’t found before.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if the elders will please turn to question 83 of the Heidelberg Catechism. And the point I am trying to make here, Mr. Chairman, by all of this is this, that you cannot very easily accuse a man of heresy when he says that conversion is prerequisite to entering into the kingdom of heaven. You have to be very careful with that, I assure you. That isn’t so easy to say that all of a sudden. I say simply the only point I am trying to make, and that is why I am trying to develop this a little bit.
Notice, Catechism question 83:
What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel and Christian discipline, or excommunication out of the Christian church; by these two—notice—the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers.
That means, Mr. Chairman, that every time the gospel is preached, the kingdom is opened to believers over and over again. Why? So that they enter in.
And, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking of the daily, conscious entering into the kingdom of God when I preached that sermon. I was not speaking of conversion in the initial sense. I wasn’t concerned about it, but I was speaking exactly of that fact.
Now the question—well, I will come back to that, perhaps, later. I want you to notice here that it is opened so that believers may and do enter consciously, consciously, because it is the preaching that does that. It is the preaching that opens that door and that closes that door every time the gospel is preached. And every time it is preached, God’s people turn from their wicked ways. They convert themselves, if you want to use that—perfectly all right with me. I believe that. They turn, through the grace of God, they turn all over again, and they enter into that kingdom.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I could go on and talk about the kingdom of God because I would like to say this, too, that the kingdom of God is spiritual and that the horizontal line is the line of this world and this earth on which we live, and that the horizontal line of this earth and this life is intercepted by the vertical line of the kingdom of God that touches our life over and over again. That is why you cannot make the kingdom of God a field with a fence around it. That isn’t what it is. The kingdom of God in our daily life and entering into it is a very, very narrow way, very narrow, so that we are constantly called to turn away and to walk in that narrow way, that we may enter in day by day and finally enter in hereafter. I will leave it with that for the time being, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Question 5. (Reading) “Are not our regeneration and conversion the entering into the kingdom?” Do you want to answer that first, or shall I add the second?
REV. DE WOLF: I am a little confused with my notes I have here, Mr. Chairman. Will you give me time to orient myself, please? I am looking for those questions. What is that question?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: “Are not our regeneration and conversion the entering into the kingdom? How then can conversion be before entering into the kingdom?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, you understand that really these problems that follow, and also this is related to that whole problem that I have presented here. And I have no objection to saying that regeneration and conversion are the “entering in.” I really have no objection to that. I think in a sense, certainly they are the entering in. I would say they are, but that does not mean—that does not mean that you cannot use them in a sense of before.
Just because they are the entering in, that does not mean that you cannot speak of conversion also from the point of view of being a prerequisite. That is the point I am trying to make. The one does not exclude the other. I have written here in relation to that second question, because that’s the vital question here, that again from the point of view of our consciousness, we are constantly entering into the kingdom.
And as I said before, always that conversion is the fruit, result of regeneration. It’s only possible because of regeneration.
And as I have said before, if you may say that regeneration is prerequisite, which has been said, and I think which you may say, you may also say that conversion is prerequisite from that very same point of view. It is one work, essentially one work, Mr. Chairman. I don’t say the same work; it is essentially the one work of God. That’s my answer.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: 6. All these questions are based on these articles: 10, 11, and 12. I don’t know if it is necessary to read them. (Reading from prepared questions) “Is conversion, first of all, a work of God or an act of man?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, conversion is always, first of all, a work of God, always. You can’t have conversion if God doesn’t work conversion.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “7. Do we enter the kingdom, first of all, by our act of conversion or by God’s work of translating us? Canons 3–4.10.”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, there again you have something that relates to that same problem. “Do we enter the kingdom, first of all, by our act of conversion or by God’s work of translating us?” Now, you see that God’s work of translating us stands opposed to our act of conversion, and that’s a big question. I question that, Mr. Chairman. I question whether God’s translating us, whether our conversion is not a part and a process of God’s translating us. I believe it is. And I don’t think that you can oppose these two. That’s the only way I can answer that question at present.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “8. Are we, then, in the kingdom before we do or can convert ourselves? Canons 3–4.10–12. How, then, can our act of conversion be a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom?”
REV. DE WOLF: What is that, 9?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: That’s 8.
REV. DE WOLF: That’s 8. Oh, excuse me. Well, there you have got that same thing again, Mr. Chairman. “Are we, then, in the kingdom before we do or can convert ourselves?” If you mean are we natural people, lost, totally incapable of any good and inclined to all evil without having the Spirit of God working in us, are we simply purely natural men? Well, of course, then, we are not in the kingdom. We are not in the kingdom then; of course, we aren’t.
But the question is, just where does that entering into the kingdom commence, and in how many senses may you speak of entering into the kingdom? There you really have that same question there again. “How, then, can our act of conversion be a prerequisite to entering the kingdom?” The implication of this thing is, Mr. Chairman, that the natural man does it.
Now, I have never taught anything like that, never. I didn’t teach that in that sermon. I didn’t teach that a man by nature, a man totally depraved, is faced with the fact he must convert himself and that he can do it. I wasn’t even speaking of natural people. I was speaking of the people of God who are already in the kingdom. That’s what I was speaking about.
But you cannot so easily compose a question like this because there are problems involved.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Article 16 is the one that is added here. We have article 12 and 16 on question 9. I will read article 16, since that is introduced here. Article 16 reads:
But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor takes away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it; that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign, in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore, unless the admirable author of every good work wrought in us, man could have no hope of recovering from his fall by his own free will, by the abuse of which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.
The question reads: “Is not our act of conversion the fruit of our entering into the kingdom of God?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, in respect to that question, I have read those articles, and the articles do not teach that. The articles teach that conversion is the fruit of the work of God. That’s what those articles teach. They are the fruit of the work of God.
Now, I would rather say in the light of the problem that we have here—because I am fully persuaded that we do have a problem here—I would rather be on the safe side and say that our conversion is a part of the whole process of God’s translating us into his kingdom. We constantly walk in conversion as those who know ourselves to be in the kingdom, as a fruit of the work of God’s grace. I will say that. That is, the conscious believer, and that’s what I had in mind. From that point of view, he is in the kingdom. I wasn’t, as I say again, I wasn’t speaking of conversion in the initial sense of the word, the calling out of darkness into light. That’s about the best I can do for that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Canons 5.3, 6, 8. Article 3 reads:
By reason of these remains of indwelling sin, and the temptations of sin and of the world, those who are converted could not persevere in a state of grace if left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who, having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end.
Article 6 reads:
But God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from his own people, even in their melancholy falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification, or to commit the sin unto death; nor does he permit them to be totally deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction.
Article 8 reads:
Thus, it is not in consequence of their own merits or strength, but of God’s free mercy, that they do not totally fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish finally in their backslidings; which with respect to themselves is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible, since his counsel cannot be changed, nor his promise fail, neither can the call according to his purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession, and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated.
“Is our daily or continued conversion (or entering into the kingdom), first of all, the work of God or the act of man?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, my answer is that the act of man is always the fruit of the work of God, also when man fulfills conditions and prerequisites.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: (Reading) “11. Is our act of conversion a prerequisite consciously to enter into the kingdom, is our consciousness of being in the kingdom antecedent to our act of conversion, or are they simultaneous? Canons 5.7, 9, 11.”
REV. DE WOLF: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, what is that first question there?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: “Is our act of conversion a prerequisite consciously to enter into the kingdom?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, not in the initial sense; it couldn’t be. You know what I mean by—I think the elders understand what I mean by the initial sense. The Christian can never convert himself apart from any operation of the Holy Spirit and of faith. Conversion is always the fruit of the Holy Spirit and faith. Nevertheless, I would like to add this: it is certainly true that no unconverted man can claim a place in the kingdom of God. We certainly must understand that.
And in the second place, in respect to the other question there, “Is our consciousness of being in the kingdom antecedent to our act of conversion, or are they simultaneous?”
Well, Mr. Chairman, there again you have a difficult question. That is related to this whole question of entering in and of being in the kingdom. I hardly know how to answer some of those questions exactly for that reason. If you want to take a purely objective view, and you say that either a man is in the kingdom or he is in total depravity, then this question is very simple to answer—if you take that view. Then, of course, his being in the kingdom is antecedent to his conversion. It would have to be. It would have to be. If you can make a line between light and darkness, a sharp line between light and darkness, and you say, “Well, here he is a natural man; here he becomes a spiritual man,” he certainly must become a spiritual man before he can convert himself. He certainly must be regenerated.
But you again have that question of what is the relation between regeneration and conversion and the act of entering into the kingdom. I think you can say that they are simultaneous too. I think you can say that. Our act of conversion is also at the same time our entrance into the kingdom. I think you may say that. I believe that scripture, therefore, also admonishes us to convert ourselves as progressive activity of entering into the kingdom.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: You were finished with question 11, weren’t you?
REV. DE WOLF: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: That leaves 12. (Reading) “How, then, in the light of this clear teaching of our confessions, can you maintain that our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter?”
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to question 11 what you read in question 84 of the Heidelberg Catechism and question 85. I won’t go into that now. I simply would like to have that on the record in connection with what I said.
That question 12, my answer is this, Mr. Chairman, as I have explained before, namely, from the point of view of our consciousness—as the Lord plainly teaches us in the text of Matthew 18:1–4—the turning and humbling is necessary for the entrance into the kingdom, over and over and over again. And I believe that to deny this is to contradict the plain words of Christ: “Except,” etcetera.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Do you have any more on 12?
REV. DE WOLF: No, I haven’t. Nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN HANKO: That brings us to the conclusion of the examination.
REV. DE WOLF: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one remark, if I may. I have done a lot of off-the-cuff speaking here, and is the idea now that I am held responsible for every word that I have said and every statement that I have made; that it is going to be that I am going to be prosecuted because of that? Now, I hope that that’s not the idea because there is the possibility that after I, if I should read what I have said here, that I would say, “Well, I wouldn’t say it that way.” I would like to have that—
CHAIRMAN HANKO: You certainly will be given that opportunity to correct any error you may have made.
REV. DE WOLF: All right, thank you.
(Discussion relative to having meeting recording typed up, etc.)
REV. DE WOLF: There is just one thing I would like to call to your attention. You are going to take my remarks, many of them which I made at random, and you are going to study them. Will I be given time also to study some of the questions that may come back on my remarks, or will I be, will I have to simply answer them right off the cuff again?
CHAIRMAN HANKO: Well, I don’t see why you wouldn’t be given time, if you need it. Maybe you won’t need it.
REV. DE WOLF: Well, perhaps not. I am perfectly willing to attempt to answer any questions impromptu. But in case I should feel that there is a problem, or that there is a problem there, I wouldn’t like to express myself. I would like to have that right.
(Further discussion relative to having recording typed, motions, etc., and meeting adjourned.)
Share on
Reformed Believers Publishing
325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315
