That None Turn

A delusion is a lie. A delusion is, in fact, a deception. A delusion is a fixed, even stubborn, false opinion and belief about objective things. Delusions lead astray; and like all species of the lie, delusions lead to destruction. A delusion in life is serious. A man might have delusions about his own abilities, and so like Icarus he soars where he does not belong. A delusion in doctrine is eternally serious. So the apostle Paul says, “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:11–12). The thing about delusions, according to this text, is that God sends them. The result of the delusion that God sends is that the people believe a lie. The reason that God sends the delusion is his sovereign purpose of reprobation that many be damned because he did not will their salvation, but he willed their damnation. Their damnation is on account of their unbelief and their pleasure in unrighteousness.

Part of the strong delusion that the Lord has sent to the Protestant Reformed Churches involves the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness. Stubbornly, tenaciously, with malice, the denomination clings to her delusion that there is that which man must do to be saved.

One of the chief purveyors of the delusion is Prof. David Engelsma. On February 14, 2024, he gave a speech concerning the relationship of repentance and forgiveness, a transcript of which was spread around by email.¹ A copy of the text of the speech came across my desk, and I read the speech with interest. I note that my copy is dated February 14, 2014, and that Engelsma said, “The doctrine of the PRC concerning repentance and forgiveness in AD 2014 is the same as it has always been,” which are obvious errors, since the speech was recently given and mentions recent events. With every piece of writing that Professor Engelsma produces on the doctrinal divide between the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) and the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), he strengthens the hands of the wicked, so that they do not repent. So Jeremiah prophesied of these days: “I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah” (Jer. 23:14).

According to the text in Jeremiah, all of Professor Engelsma’s professed interest in the doctrine of repentance is vain. Because his doctrine of repentance is wrong, it does not lead to repentance, but it leads to impenitence. There is a doctrinal side to that impenitence. None in the Protestant Reformed Churches will turn from their wicked, man-glorifying, and God-dishonoring doctrine precisely because of men like Professor Engelsma and precisely because of his speeches and writings on the subject. There is also a very practical effect to this impenitence: his doctrine does not lead to true repentance. For years while I was a minister in the PRC, I grieved over this fact. When dealing in consistory with pastoral and discipline cases and when dealing in the broader church with such cases, it was nearly impossible to get elders and members to see what true repentance is. What was in vogue and what is still in vogue in the PRC is what I call “I’m sorry” repentance. It is repentance that is as false as it is superficial. In short, it is not true repentance at all but the repentance of the world that works death. I lay that view of repentance at the feet of Professor Engelsma’s doctrine. He does not, in fact, teach true repentance at all, but he teaches a repentance that hypocrites have and do easily mimic. What is missing in Engelsma’s doctrine of repentance is evidence.

The Reformed Form for Excommunication speaks of real repentance:

We cannot conceal from you, with great sorrow, that no one has yet appeared before us who hath in the least given us to understand that he…is come to any remorse for his sins, or hath shown the least token of true repentance. (Confessions and Church Order, 276)

The same thought is contained in the Church Order. Article 75 says that reconciliation shall take place “upon sufficient evidence of repentance,” and article 76 speaks of those who show “no signs of repentance” (Confessions and Church Order, 401). Repentance is itself not a way but an evidence, and thus repentance also has clear and unmistakable evidence. Repentance is not a one-to-one activity with sin, so that with every sin there is repentance—an “I’m sorry”—and then forgiveness. Repentance is a way of life that evidences the true faith out of which repentance comes.

Professor Engelsma does not believe that repentance is an evidence, and he does not teach that repentance has any real evidence. But for Professor Engelsma repentance is a one-to-one correspondence with sin. One sin. One repentance. One forgiveness. He teaches at best a superficial sorrow of the world. And that does not lead to true repentance in the churches; but as the apostle says, it leads to death: “Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:10).

Yes, for years in the PRC this worldly sorrow has been accepted as true sorrow, and the fault is in the PRC’s doctrine of repentance. Husbands beat their wives and got away with a superficial “I’m sorry.” Men raped children and were received into the communion of the church after a few tears and some expressions of regret. Men were serial adulterers, and an empty show of contrition swayed consistories that the men were repentant. This is not hyperbole. These are facts. I can produce the details to establish the facts if necessary. The PRC, like Rome, has no business lecturing anyone on repentance. The practical fruit of all the Protestant Reformed ministers’ and professors’ repentance preaching and their repentance doctrine is not repentance, but the fruit is the deadly sorrow of the world that takes the form of “I’m sorry” repentance.

The PRC’s doctrine of repentance cannot lead to true repentance because that doctrine is as false as it is superficial. And I say that Professor Engelsma bears blame in this matter, for it is his doctrine that now reigns in the PRC. In the recent controversy with the RPC, he has shown the way for the PRC. He gripes from time to time that no one listens to him, but the people are listening. And it is amazing that he will produce a letter or a speech, and soon afterward his talking points are heard from the pulpits. He still is the PRC’s theologian. And his doctrine of repentance is the PRC’s doctrine, although there is evidence from the writings of his colleagues that they are moving past him and intend eventually to leave him in the dust.

The Reformed Protestant Churches supposedly cannot and do not preach repentance properly, if the ministers preach repentance at all. The RPC cannot teach about repentance properly because she does not teach the proper relationship between repentance and forgiveness. The proper preaching of repentance is supposedly that one repents in order to be forgiven. Repentance cannot be taught any other way, the PRC says, without fundamentally corrupting the idea of repentance itself, corrupting the idea of forgiveness, doing despite to God’s way of salvation, making men careless and profane, and imperiling souls now and forever. The RPC strengthens the hands of the wicked, so that they do not repent.

In the PRC this idea that you repent in order to be forgiven is phrased in many different ways. You repent for forgiveness. You repent unto your forgiveness. You repent first, and then and only then can God forgive you. You repent, and God may forgive you. You turn and draw near to God first in repentance, and then God will return and draw near to you with forgiveness. All these things that you do first are gifts, of course, and so this apparently saves repentance from being termed a condition. And this all is supposed to mean that forgiveness comes and only comes in the way of repentance. In the way of repentance, God forgives the sinner.

This is supposed to be so obvious that those who deny it are stupid and dense; they deny the Reformed, the Protestant, and the Christian faith; and they deny what Peter, Paul, Jesus, and all the patriarchs and prophets of both the Old and New Testaments taught. So then the ministers and members of the Reformed Protestant Churches in their teaching of repentance are radical and idiosyncratic crackpots, who are not only schismatics, but they also endanger souls and salvation by their evil doctrine.

And tellingly, the PRC adds that if the Reformed Protestant doctrine is correct, then there is no reason for the sinner to repent. If the sinner does not repent in order to be forgiven—and let me phrase that another way: if the sinner does not get something for his repentance—then there is no reason for the sinner to repent.

Professor Engelsma with his speech yet again lends his voice to this chorus that has been singing the same tune accompanied by the same one-string fiddle for a number of years now. In his speech Professor Engelsma does not add anything new to the debate. But if one repeats a lie enough times, it becomes truth; and every good propagandist knows this. Professor Engelsma’s speech is not about doing theology, but the speech is about propaganda. In fact, if one takes out all of his empty rhetoric, there is not much left to the speech. He does not, in fact, do much theology. He certainly does not interact with his opponents in any meaningful way, but he caricatures their position, sets up a straw man, and knocks it down. This is an old and favorite tactic of the PRC against the Reformed Protestants.

Beginning with Lies

But the speech aims to delude and is the product of a delusion.

First, Engelsma begins with the delusion that the subject of his speech, the relationship between repentance and forgiveness, “was not the cause of the schism.” Indeed, he maintains that the cause of the schism was “not doctrinal.” He must be off his rocker, which I want to hope for his sake is true. But I do not believe that he is off his rocker. He is of sound mind and apparently rather sound in body. He is probably healthier than I am, and certainly his mind is still sharp, as evidenced by his speech.

What he is doing with the statement that the cause of the schism was not doctrinal is repeating the lie that was invented about the 2021 schism and that really goes back to the formation of Sword and Shield in 2020: there is no doctrinal issue. The Lord has been beating the PRC for the past number of years with doctrinal controversy after doctrinal controversy, and all are ultimately centered on the one main issue whether there is that which man must do to obtain the experience of his salvation. But apparently the schism was not about doctrine. Sword and Shield has been writing since June 2020 about almost nothing but doctrinal controversy, but the schism was not about doctrine. Elders of the faithless consistory of Crete Protestant Reformed Church attacked my preaching, but the schism was not about doctrine. The PRC, including Professor Engelsma, had been bellyaching about Reverend Lanning’s doctrine and preaching long before he was deposed; but no, no, no, the schism was not about doctrine! The schism was just about bad behavior.

Professor Engelsma is deluded. He has repeated so often that doctrine was not the cause of the schism that he believes his own lie. And he aimed to delude his audience.

The reformation of 2021 was a doctrinal one. In 2018 I began writing publicly about the doctrinal issues in the PRC, and I have not stopped since. All anyone talks about regarding the schism between the PRC and the RPC is doctrine. We in the RPC are mocked for our doctrine. Not only our persons are slandered, but also our doctrine is slandered. The PRC shouts that she has the right doctrine. And she shouts even louder that the RPC has the wrong doctrine. Favorite among the slanders is that Reformed Protestant doctrine is antinomian. Protestant Reformed ministers and professors preach against Reformed Protestant doctrine, although they do not have the courtesy usually to name us as their opponents. Professors write against our doctrine. Members of families on opposite sides approve or damn our doctrine. When he says that the issue in the split was not doctrine, Professor Engelsma lies against the objective facts, and he knows it. In my phone conversations with him during the time leading up to the split, the issue was doctrine. Besides, he knows us. He taught many of us. And many of us had talks with him about doctrine. As he alludes in the speech, some of us used to listen to him. He knows that we fight about doctrine. We are not petty and fault-finding and divisive people. He lies against his knowledge of us too.

But was the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness part of the split? I am not entirely sure why this is relevant, so that Professor Engelsma feels compelled to mention in his speech that the doctrine was not the cause of the split. Earlier he wrote about the doctrinal issue,

Our difference over this relation of repentance and forgiveness seems to be the main doctrinal issue between us, or, at least, very close to the heart of the main issue.²

But let us grant him his point for a moment. Who gives a snap whether a doctrine about which we now contend was part of the split or not? That is like saying that when Rev. Harold Dekker proposed universal atonement in the 1960s in the Christian Reformed Church that Prof. Homer Hoeksema should not contend with Dekker and condemn his theology because universal atonement was not part of the split in 1924. What a silly statement is Engelsma’s.

In fact, the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness was and remains a part of the controversy between the PRC and the RPC. The issue from the outset was the way to God: the way to his presence; the way to blessing, grace, joy, happiness, and peace. The doctrinal issue was that according to the heretical sermon preached on John 14:6. In that sermon the issue was also justification by faith alone, which is the same as forgiveness. The issue was especially the way to God in the experience, heart, and mind of the believer. And in that sermon the way to God, Jesus Christ alone, was shunted aside for man and his activities—Spirit-wrought activities! Engelsma makes a huge point in his speech that faith is a gift, that repentance is a gift, and thus that these things are all wrought by the Spirit. But in that John 14:6 sermon, the issue was precisely the Spirit-wrought gifts, activities, deeds, and works of man as part of the way to God. These were said to be part of the way to the Father. Jesus was one part of the way, and man’s Spirit-wrought activities were another part.

That the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness was a huge part of the doctrinal issue in the split was not spelled out so clearly until Professor Engelsma’s comments on Malachi 3:7.³ But that is beside the point. The heart of the issue in the controversy—and it is the heart of the issue in the subject of Professor Engelsma’s speech—is really very easily stated: Are there activities of man—gifts, Spirit-wrought, by grace—that precede blessings of God, so that those blessings of God cannot and do not come until the activities are performed? Are the activities of man— gifts, Spirit-wrought, by grace—the way to God and the experience of his forgiveness and thus of peace with God? The answer of the PRC is yes. And it is the RPC’s contention, and has been from the beginning, that this is a Pelagian and Arminian conception. Professor Engelsma’s teaching that repentance is the way unto the forgiveness of sins is simply one species of that main issue.

Not Judging, but Judging

Second, the other lie with which Professor Engelsma begins his speech is the following:

My purpose is not a discussion of the recent division in the PRC. It is not my purpose to offer judgment on the division. Emphatically, it is not my purpose to criticize the leaders of the movement that has left the PRC and who now, on their part, severely criticize the PRC and their ministry.

In the very speaking of these words, Professor Engelsma offers his judgment. The division was but a “movement.” Later he becomes more pointed when he calls the division “schism,” and the leaders he pronounces guilty of “accusatory allegations” and foolish “doctrinal meanderings.” A little further along he speaks of the “leaders of the schism.” Afterward he mentions “the doctrine of the schismatics.” He turns quickly from his purpose “not…to offer judgment” or “to criticize the leaders of the movement that left the PRC.” He likes to play that he is aloof from the fray. But he cannot play that game. He must criticize those in the Reformed Protestant Churches and their doctrine. That is not my demand, but that is Christ’s demand and the demand of the scriptures. Professor Engelsma must name the false teachers, and he must condemn without compromise their teaching as false. In this instance he needs to damn us for our false doctrine and for our schism. What is this business about not offering judgment, while throughout the speech he offers judgment that we are schismatics? And what is this business about not criticizing so serious a sinner as the schismatic? After all, the apostle Paul damns the schismatic in very hard terms: “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:17). According to Engelsma’s stated purpose, he does the work of the Lord lackadaisically and keeps back his sword from blood. His stated purpose is also just a lot of lowbrow rhetoric.

I will do his work for him. To the PRC the members of the RPC are schismatics. To the PRC we are false teachers. We are buffoons, idiots, liars, deceivers, hard, and hardened people. We corrupt the gospel. We corrupt repentance. We endanger souls. We are antinomians. We make the work of discipline virtually impossible because we will not tell sinners to repent in order to be forgiven. We confirm the sinner in his sins and cause him to perish because we will not call him to repent in order to be forgiven.

What Engelsma Said Earlier

What begins with a lie cannot contain the truth. The way that Professor Engelsma starts carries through the rest of the speech. It is a fine piece of deception. In the speech he is not even honest with what he previously wrote. I note that in support of his doctrine, he appeals to some scripture texts; but the texts that should be his bulwark, he does not quote. He does not appeal to Malachi 3:7: “Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Earlier, he wrote about Malachi 3:7,

We do draw nigh to God; God calls us seriously to do so; and there is a sense, a certain, specific sense, in which our drawing nigh precedes God’s drawing nigh to us. To deny this is to contradict the inspired Word of God.⁴

And again, he wrote, “First, to repeat, there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us.”⁵

In his recent speech he also does not appeal to James 4:8: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.”

I will remind the reader what Engelsma said back in 2022 about the James passage:

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.⁶

Engelsma wrote previously concerning the Malachi passage that there is a certain, vital sense in which man is first in drawing near to God. He doubled down in the James passage. We draw nigh to God first (by grace, of course), and then—and only then—does God draw nigh to us with forgiveness and peace. This, Engelsma says, is the way God works. This is what forgiveness in the way of repentance is supposed to mean. This is the plain word of scripture. No matter to Engelsma that he ungods God. And this is supposed to be so clear that we all are idiots and disqualified as teachers for not seeing it. He has not taken those statements back, and they stand as expressions of his doctrine. In a certain, vital sense (by grace, of course) man is first in returning to God, and then God turns to man.

To anyone who thinks that he is teaching that man is first, Engelsma explained to the idiots,

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!⁷

What? So what Professor Engelsma is saying is that man is first, only that God makes man first so that God can be first? Again, Engelsma ungods God himself, so that God binds himself and his blessing to man’s working first (by grace, of course).

In a letter that Engelsma passed around, he wrote on the subject again,

God works in such a way that He moves us to act in order that He may then act in the way He has determined. In that particular aspect of salvation, God works in such a way that our activity (which He accomplishes) precedes His activity. The precise reference was to His act of the forgiving of our sins. Our repenting precedes His remission of our sins. My statement was as follows:⁸ “It pleases God…to forgive in the way of the sinner’s repenting…Neither is repentance the cause of forgiveness…[As an aspect of faith it is] the (God-worked) means. It is not the cause…The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance.(12)

Again, he wrote, “…repentance as an aspect of faith. Repentance is not a ‘good work’ of the sinner that is a ‘fruit’ of faith produced by the sinner, but an element of faith itself” (14).

Here repentance is an aspect of faith and a means unto forgiveness! Reformed theology is very clear that faith is the only means of salvation and especially the only means of forgiveness. The Reformed faith is also clear that faith is one thing and repentance is another thing. But here we have repentance as a part of faith and repentance as a means unto forgiveness. I will say right here that if I deny that repentance is the way unto the end or blessing of forgiveness, then I emphatically deny that repentance is an aspect of faith and that repentance is a means unto forgiveness. That is plain justification by works. We are justified by faith alone. We are forgiven by faith alone.

Engelsma also wrote, “God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this repentance, He may forgive” (13).

Here we have God’s hands so tied by the necessity of the sinner’s repentance—a gift, Spirit-wrought, by grace—that God may only forgive following the sinner’s repentance. May. God does not have the right or the power to forgive unless and until the sinner repents (by grace, of course).

And Engelsma wrote the following regarding the fifth petition of the Lord’s prayer, “Forgive us our debts”:

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.⁹

Forgiving one another is an act of love. So now what we have is the sinner first performing an act of love, and then and only then will God forgive. Love is works. This is forgiveness by faith and works, which is justification by faith and works.

About the relationship between repentance and forgiveness, Engelsma wrote,

His reference was to my assertion that in a certain aspect of God’s work of salvation God works in such a way that He moves us to act in order that He may then act in the way He has determined. In that particular aspect of salvation, God works in such a way that our activity (which He accomplishes) precedes His activity. The precise reference was to His act of the forgiving of our sins. Our repenting precedes His remission of our sins. (12)

Our repenting precedes God’s remission in order that God may then act in the way that he determined. Man’s repentance—a gift, Spirit-wrought, by grace—is the trigger that allows God to act. God may not act until we act (by grace, of course).

A New Approach

I bring up Engelsma’s previous comments because he does not repeat them in his recent speech. Indeed, the speech has the appearance that he is pulling in his horns. The speech has the appearance that he is walking back what he previously wrote and spoke. No more is he saying that in a certain, vital sense man is first. He says nothing about how repentance is an aspect of faith. In the one passage from Acts 3:19 that he cites to support his doctrine, where he could have taught that the sinner repents in order that God may forgive him, Engelsma is silent on his previous comments. There is no man must repent—by grace, of course—and God may forgive him. If Engelsma were honest with what he previously wrote and spoke, he should have said these things in this speech.

The ostensible purpose of the speech was to make sure that the Protestant Reformed people and maybe some Reformed Protestant people who will still listen to him would not be confused on the doctrine of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. Those previous phrases that he used and the statements that he made were clear and let everyone actually know what he means by “in the way of our repenting He forgives” (13). But Engelsma falls silent on those previous statements and phrases. He now trumpets the plain phrase “in the way of,” so that repeatedly—ad nauseum—in the speech he tells his audience that “God forgives sins in the way of our repentance.”

He states that the PRC has not changed her doctrine but that the PRC is teaching only what Hoeksema taught. But that is not true. Hoeksema did not mean by in the way of that man is in a certain sense first. He reprobated that thought repeatedly. He did not teach that in the way of means that we repent in order that God may forgive us. And Hoeksema certainly did not teach that repentance is an aspect of faith! Or that repentance is a means unto forgiveness! Or that man repents that God may forgive him!

In this speech Engelsma never actually gets around to telling his audience what he means by “in the way of.” He talks about how good teachers distinguish properly. Distinguishing properly is the last encouragement that Protestant Reformed people and ministers need. They have distinguished the truth to death. But what about good teachers defining properly? Every good teacher who wants to be clear and to be understood should properly define his terms. Those are not my words but Engelsma’s own advice to his students. And he does not follow his own advice. One of the crucial questions about the whole speech is, what does “in the way of” actually mean? He never answers it. The phrase is just a mantra. The closest he comes to a definition is this:

In the way of means, and can be expressed thus: the repenting of the sinner is an aspect of the way in which God forgives sins. It is part of the work of God of forgiving.

But this amounts to saying that a cow is a cowy thing. “In the way of” means the way God forgives. That is not a definition.

Professor Engelsma comes a little closer to an actual description of what he means by “in the way of” when repeatedly throughout his speech he substitutes the words before or precedes for the phrase “in the way of.” But that still is not a definition. Our argument with the PRC is not about whether repentance is before or after anything. Our argument is regarding these questions: What is repentance? What is the relationship of repentance to forgiveness? What in the world do the PRC mean by forgiveness in the way of repentance? But Engelsma has told us in many words in many letters and other speeches what he means by forgiveness in the way of repentance. He pretends that he is just teaching what Hoeksema did. But Engelsma goes far past Hoeksema. Engelsma means that in a certain sense man is first, that repentance as a part of faith is a means unto forgiveness, and that sinners repent in order that God may forgive them. And that is the plain, old heresy of justification by faith and works.

Engelsma defends his doctrine of forgiveness in the way of repentance—repent in order to be forgiven; repent first, and then God will forgive; and repentance as a means unto forgiveness—by appealing to the fact that repentance is a gift. He says in the speech,

That repentance is the way to forgiveness does not jeopardize the gospel of salvation by grace…The repentance of the sinner is God’s gift to him. God causes the elect sinner to sorrow over his sins and to turn to him for the deliverance of forgiveness.

That repentance is a gift has no bearing on the question of its relationship to forgiveness. Repentance is a gift. It is Spirit-wrought. It is a wonder of grace. But repentance still is not the way unto the blessing of forgiveness. Repentance is not the way unto forgiveness for the simple reason that repentance is a fruit of faith. Repentance is not a means unto forgiveness. Repentance is not an aspect of faith. Repentance is the fruit of faith. We are forgiven by faith alone. That faith by which alone we are forgiven bears the fruit of repentance. When faith does that is frankly immaterial to me. Repentance is not the way unto forgiveness because repentance is not faith! Faith alone! Faith alone! Leave repentance out of it! Whatever you might call repentance, it is not faith! Faith is the only instrument of forgiveness because of what faith is. Faith is not repentance! Faith is the union of the elect sinner with Christ. Faith justifies because it joins the elect sinner with Christ and receives his perfection, which when it becomes the sinner’s is more than sufficient to forgive all his sins now and forever.

No Support in Hoeksema

In support of his doctrine, Professor Engelsma makes a feeble appeal to Hoeksema’s commentary on Lord’s Day 51 concerning the fifth petition of the Lord’s prayer. But in the portion of the commentary that Engelsma quotes in his speech, Hoeksema wrote not a word about forgiveness in the way of repentance. I know that Hoeksema used the phrase in the way of, and so I must say that there is not a word in his commentary about repentance as an aspect of faith, repentance as a means unto forgiveness, and repenting so that God may forgive the sinner.

I will quote the section from Hoeksema that Engelsma cites in his speech because the section is edifying:

This fifth petition…simply [prays] for the application of this atonement in the forgiveness of sins to the heart of the believer that lives in the midst of the world…We are aware that God is terribly displeased with all sin. But we ask Him [in the fifth petition—DJE] to dismiss our sins from His mind that He will never be angry with us…For all this we ask in this fifth petition: We desire to have the forgiveness of sins. We desire to possess it, to be assured of it in our deepest heart. We long to know and be assured that God has so forgiven, dismissed, cancelled my debts…We want to have that blessing of the forgiveness of sins now, at once, in this world, while we are still in the flesh (The Triple Knowledge, vol. 3, pp. 582–605).

Where is forgiveness in the way of repentance here? And even more, where is repent that you may be forgiven, or repent in order that God may forgive you, or repentance as an aspect of faith and a means unto your forgiveness? They are not here.

Engelsma should know though that Hoeksema also wrote the following in his commentary on the fifth petition regarding what he calls “a serious limiting clause”:

But now comes the test. If he really tasted the depth of sin, of sorrow after God, if he really experienced the riches of mercy and of remission of sin, that servant is inevitably merciful and must show mercy to his brethren. If he is not merciful, there is the proof that he never tasted the grace of God, and that, though outwardly it was proclaimed to him that his sins are forgiven, yet the Spirit never witnessed of this unspeakable grace in his heart.¹⁰

Engelsma says that God will “forgive us when we forgive each other and in the way of our forgiving each other.” Hoeksema taught that when a man tastes the grace of forgiveness, he will forgive. That is what Hoeksema taught. And I believe that goes a long way to explaining what he meant by in the way of as well. There is an inevitability to repentance. Still more, Hoeksema taught that the forgiveness of the neighbor is not a way unto forgiveness of sins but is a test, a proof, that the sinner has been forgiven. So much for the PRC not having changed her doctrine.

The Creeds Stand with Us

By appeals to scripture and the creeds, Engelsma defends his doctrine and criticizes the Reformed Protestant doctrine. What of his appeals?

He appeals to Lord’s Day 51 of the Heidelberg Catechism, the fifth petition. The creed reads,

Q. 126. Which is the fifth petition?

A.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; that is, be pleased for the sake of Christ’s blood, not to impute to us poor sinners our transgressions, nor that depravity which always cleaves to us; even as we feel this evidence of Thy grace in us, that it is our firm resolution from the heart to forgive our neighbor. (Confessions and Church Order, 139)

Engelsma says that the creed teaches “the sorrow over sin that motivates the fifth petition, that is, repentance, is the way to receive and experience forgiveness.” But the creed does not mention a way at all. Certainly, the Catechism does not teach that repentance is a way unto the blessing of forgiveness. That is not even in the words. There is sorrow expressed. But the way unto forgiveness that is presented in the Catechism is Christ and his blood. He is the only way to forgiveness and to peace. The sorrowing sinner is a believing sinner. By the sorrow he shows his faith. By his faith he is forgiven. This is the teaching of the creed on the fifth petition. The Lord’s Day stands on our side.

Engelsma also appeals to Canons 5.7. He says that this is “clear and conclusive” against the Reformed Protestants. He says that the article is “decisive in the controversy.” He says,

Repentance is…the urgent desire and ardent request for forgiveness that is lacking and needed. Sinners repent “that” they may receive and experience forgiveness.

His reference to “that” is to the language of the article, which I quote from our received version:

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

Now, Professor Engelsma should know better than I do that our received translation is not good. Expressed in the article is a cause-and-effect relationship between the renewing work of the Spirit and what follows. So the article should read as follows:

By his Word and Spirit, he certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, in order that they should sincerely sorrow after God over the sins committed, that they should through faith, with a contrite heart, desire and obtain forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator…

There is an emphasis in the article on two things that are effects of the Spirit’s work of renewal. First is repentance. Second is faith. It is through faith that elect sinners seek and obtain forgiveness. That repentance is present is natural, for the Spirit who works faith also grants repentance. But in the article and on the language of the article, faith is how sinners receive forgiveness. Repentance is the accompanying grace that gives evidence of the faith. Besides, even on the face of it, the article does not speak of repentance as a “‘way’ to a desired end.” The article is stating a fact about the Spirit’s renewal of the sinner, and that is why the article includes repentance. The believing sinner is likewise the repentant sinner. But faith and repentance are two different things. Faith is that by which the sinner is justified. Repentance is faith’s evidence and characterizes faith’s whole approach unto God. I might add, yet again, that Engelsma has previously defined “in the way of repentance” to mean that we repent first that God may forgive us, that we repent in order to be forgiven, and that repentance is an aspect of faith. And there is absolutely nothing about that in Canons 5.7. The article stands on our side.

Scripture Is on Our Side

Engelsma cites Luke 24:47: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Engelsma says, “Jesus taught not only that as the way to remission of sins repentance precedes remission…” Where do you find in this verse that repentance precedes remission, unless one is arguing from the mere order of the words? Christ said that two things were to be taught: repentance and remission. In the verse Jesus, in fact, posits no relationship between repentance and remission. The explanation of the passage is that repentance is to be preached as the evidence and fruit of the faith by which alone one receives remission of sins.

Engelsma cites 2 Corinthians 7:10 against us: “That repentance is the way to forgiveness is the clear teaching of II Corinthians 7:10: ‘For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of.’”

I will use John Calvin, not a radical Reformed Protestant, to answer him:

Paul seems to make repentance the ground of salvation. Were it so, it would follow, that we are justified by works. I answer, that we must observe what Paul here treats of, for he is not inquiring as to the ground of salvation, but simply commending repentance from the fruit which it produces, he says that it is like a way by which we arrive at salvation. Nor is it without good reason; for Christ calls us by way of free favour, but it is to repentance. (Matt ix.13.) God by way of free favour pardons our sins, but only when we renounce them. Nay more, God accomplishes in us at one and the same time two things: being renewed by repentance, we are delivered from the bondage of our sins; and, being justified by faith, we are delivered also from the curse of our sins. They are, therefore, inseparable fruits of grace, and, in consequence of their invariable connection, repentance may with fitness and propriety be represented as an introduction to salvation, but in this way of speaking of it, it is represented as an effect rather than as a cause. ¹¹

Calvin mentions repentance as a kind of way and then goes on to explain what he means. Faith and repentance are inseparable, but each has its own function. Faith brings justification. Repentance delivers from the bondage of sin. Repentance is not a way unto the forgiveness of sins, although it is always present in the believer who is forgiven by faith alone. Now I add again that “in the way of repentance” for Professor Engelsma means not what Calvin describes but that we repent first that God may forgive us, that repentance is an aspect of faith and a means unto forgiveness. And for Calvin there is nothing of that in the passage at all. The passage stands on our side.

I also note for Professor Engelsma’s sake and for the reader’s sake Calvin’s commentary regarding Hosea 14:8, “Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found.” Calvin writes,

Some so explain this, as though God promised to be propitious to Israel after they had manifested their repentance. But they pervert the sense of the Prophet; for, on the contrary, he says, that after the Israelites shall perceive, and find even by the effect, that God is propitious to them, they will then say, “How foolish and mad we were, while we followed idols? It is now then time that our souls should recumb on God.” Why? “Because we see that there is nothing better for us than to live under his safeguard and protection; for he hears us, he regards us, he is to us like a shady tree, so that he protects us under his shadow.” We now perceive how these two clauses are connected together; for God shows the reason why Ephraim will renounce his idols, because he will perceive that he was miserably deceived as long as he wandered after his idols. How will he perceive this? Because he will see that he is now favoured by the Lord, and that he was before destitute of his help. When God then shall give such a proof to his people, he will at the same time produce this effect, that they will cast away all false confidences, and confess that they were miserable and wretched while they were attached to idols. He therefore says, I have heard and favoured him. What is then later in the words of the Prophet goes before; it precedes in the order of things, this clause, Ephraim shall say, What have I to do with idols? ¹²

Here Calvin says that the order of the passage as it appears needs to be inverted. It appears in the verse that Ephraim repents first, and then God forgives or hears Ephraim. Calvin says that to explain the passage according to this apparent order is to “pervert the sense of the Prophet.” The Israelites first understand that God is propitious to them, that God is favorable to them. So Calvin says that the reason that Ephraim renounces his idols—repents—is that he will see that he is now favored by the Lord. What is remarkable here in this passage is that Calvin teaches the very doctrine that Engelsma ridicules as being outside the pale of the Reformed faith and of Christianity itself and in the very words that Engelsma ridicules. Israel first perceives that God is favorable. Then Israel repents. Calvin stands on our side.

Engelsma has a very odd explanation of Acts 3:19. The passage reads, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” The literal language of the passage is “Repent…in order that your sins may be blotted out.” This should be one of Engelsma’s most potent passages to teach that sinners repent in order to be forgiven. He taught that previously as the meaning of forgiveness in the way of repentance. The passage also speaks of repentance in order that you may be forgiven. And he said earlier that we repent in order that God may forgive us. You would think that, as he has done previously, he would tell us idiots, who cannot understand the plain English grammar of the literal words of the text, that we have a contention with the Holy Spirit if we cannot see that Acts 3:19 teaches that we repent in order that we may be forgiven. But he does not. The only thing germane to the subject at hand that he says is, “Repentance, which is the way to this blotting out, precedes the blotting out, that is, forgiveness.” This is a bit of a letdown. What about the literal wording of the text? Is Peter teaching the poor people only that they must first repent? Really?

For one, let the PRC be bold. If the PRC will hang her doctrinal hat on Acts 3:19, then be bold and say that we repent in order to be forgiven by God; we repent in order that God may forgive us—the obvious implication being that repentance is the condition of forgiveness— and if we do not repent, then notwithstanding that God wants to forgive us and that Christ died for us, there is no forgiveness.

But that would expose the PRC. And so Engelsma lamely avoids actually interpreting Acts 3:19 and preaches to the Protestant Reformed choir—which already believes that repentance is the way to forgiveness and could not really care less what the actual meaning of the text is but just wants another proof text.

The meaning of Acts 3:19 is that Peter is demanding of the people that they show some evidence of faith. They had shown the evidence of their unbelief when they crucified Christ. The evidence of repentance is the evidence of the faith that justifies and thus grants to them the blotting out of sins. The passage stands on our side.

I note only in passing two more points that Professor Engelsma makes. He ridicules the idea that repentance is a work and that repentance belongs to thankfulness. He says,

Hoeksema taught that repentance is the way to forgiveness and as such is the desire for forgiveness, not the expression of gratitude for forgiveness already granted apart from repentance.

Again:

Repentance is not the spiritual expression of gratitude for a remission of sins already received, but the urgent desire and ardent request for forgiveness that is lacking and needed.

And Engelsma adds this:

Repentance is not the same as a “good work” of obedience to the law of God, as good works are described in Q. 91 of the Heidelberg Catechism. It is essential to the theology of the RPC and RRP [sic] that it describes repentance as a good work. Then it can charge the doctrine that teaches forgiveness in the way of repentance as a doctrine that makes forgiveness dependent upon the good work of the believer. Repentance is, of course, a good spiritual activity—a wonderfully good activity, for it is an aspect of the saving work of God of forgiving sins. But it is not a good work.

Here Engelsma runs afoul of the creed. First, the Heidelberg Catechism treats repentance in the third section on thankfulness. He must deal with that and explain it. Second, the Heidelberg Catechism treats the fifth petition, which includes sorrow for sin, in the third section and in the section on the chief part of our thankfulness, which is prayer. He must deal with that and explain it. In his criticism he has a problem with the creed.

An Old Saw

Engelsma notes that the Reformed Protestant doctrine makes men careless and profane. He says,

Denial of the truth that repentance is the way of the forgiveness of sins is serious error. It encourages carelessness of life and a continuing in sin.

Ah, yes, the old saw that the apostle Paul’s enemies leveled against him. I thank Professor Engelsma for the badge of honor. Over against that I note that no one would ever object that his doctrine would make men careless and profane. No one! Right along with that I note that no Reformed denomination, save the RPC, would object to his doctrine. Protestant Reformed ministers are hobnobbing with ministers from all the Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. Relations are warm and cozy. Why? Because there is no fundamental difference in doctrine. Ministers from the Reformed and Presbyterian denominations will let the PRC have her traditional hobbyhorses to ride. Only grant those other denominations that man does have a certain, vital role to play in his salvation, and they can be good friends. The PRC, like the rest of the denominations, has also given man a place in his salvation. The PRC too is very careful that no one charges her doctrine with being careless and profane. No wonder the Protestant Reformed people who are leaving the denomination have no problem going to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) or to the United Reformed Churches. Engelsma wrote a letter a while back about the errors of the OPC and that taking membership there is wrong for a Protestant Reformed person. I think the people can see through that hypocrisy. The Protestant Reformed doctrine and the Orthodox Presbyterian doctrine of repentance and forgiveness are the same: it is Norman Shepherd’s doctrine, which is the doctrine of the 1953 majority report to Classis East, which is the doctrine of Hubert De Wolf.

Engelsma claims that the Reformed Protestants cannot do discipline with their doctrine. He says,

By rejecting the truth that the way to forgiveness is repentance, the RPC and RRC make discipline impossible. What do elders now say to impenitent sinners? What do parents now say to sinning children? What do members of the congregation now say to fellow members who are living in sin? Now, none may call on any of them to repent for the forgiveness of sins.

I have been involved in a lot of discipline work over the years, and I do not remember ever telling someone to repent for the forgiveness of his sins. I have told sinners to repent because their way of life is displeasing to God, that God hates sin. I have told sinners that Jesus Christ forgives sinners who show repentance. I have said a lot of things along those lines. What is wrong with telling sinners that they must repent because their sins are displeasing to God? What about telling sinners to repent because they stand in danger of hellfire? What about telling sinners to repent because they are breaking the law of God, destroying their own souls, and injuring the name of God? What about telling sinners to repent for repentance’s sake because living in sin is displeasing to God, and a contrite heart God does not despise? So Engelsma’s charge is just rhetoric that stems from his false view of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness.

I also note that Engelsma’s view of the Christian experience is wrong. He says,

Finally, the doctrine of the schismatics is spiritually devastating to believers. How can we live without forgiveness of sins and, therefore, without repenting? We need repentance as the way to the forgiveness of our sins. Like the psalmist in Psalm 32, so long as we remain impenitent, God’s hand is heavy upon us. Only when we repent is His hand lifted, and He lifts His hand by forgiving our sins.

Is that really the daily experience of the believer? Professor Engelsma sounds like the ministers in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. God’s hand is not heavy on the believer every day. This is not the normal experience of the Christian at all. David’s fall is cited in the creeds as an example of a deep and melancholy fall. When the Belgic Confession in articles 23 and 24 treats repentance or mentions it in connection with justification, the Belgic does not teach that repentance is a way unto the end, justification. The Belgic treats repentance as a fruit of faith, by which we are justified. When the Belgic mentions our prayers—including our prayers for forgiveness—the creed does so as the prayers of those who have the righteousness of Christ. Scripture teaches that we draw near to God in the full assurance of faith, and to draw near in any other way—let us say in the full assurance of our repentance—is unbelief (article 26). The Heidelberg Catechism places our prayers for forgiveness in the section on thankfulness. The prayer for forgiveness is part of the chief part of our thankfulness. We are assured that what we ask in Christ’s name will be granted us. That is my daily and normal experience as a Christian. I live and walk at liberty as the forgiven sinner, and as such I also sorrow daily for my sins. That is a proper Reformed and Christian experience.

What happened to David happened in God’s providence so that we might have the doctrine of justification by faith alone clearly illustrated for us, as Paul says that David teaches in Psalm 32 about the blessedness of the man to whom God does not impute iniquity and whose sins God forgives. It is exactly that doctrine of justification by faith alone that Professor Engelsma corrupts with his doctrine of repentance for forgiveness. Is justification the same as forgiveness? Is the doctrine of the two the same? In his speech he does not address the issue directly— another failure on his part to define terms properly.

The question is a vital one. Is forgiveness exactly the same as justification? Many Protestant Reformed ministers say no. Their no is both anti-creedal and telling. Their no is telling because it shows that they want to say things about the forgiveness of sins that they know they cannot say about justification. The creedal answer, of course, is that forgiveness is exactly the same as justification (Belgic Confession 23). Forgiveness is often in scripture just a shorthand way of saying justification. In justification God imputes righteousness and forgives sins. Scripture takes the part for the whole. Whenever scripture mentions forgiveness, then the doctrine of justification by faith alone is being discussed. So then, are we justified in the way of our repentance? And then where is that in Romans chapters 3 through 5? Where is that at all in these chapters? There is no repentance in these chapters because we are not justified in the way of repentance. Neither then are we forgiven in the way of repentance. That is not because repentance is unnecessary or not important or not demanded, but it is because repentance is not faith. We are justified by faith alone. Repentance is the inevitable fruit of faith. Knowing God by faith and being justified by faith alone apart from repentance, in repentance we love that God and hate our sins. We are justified and we are forgiven by faith alone without works, including repentance. The Protestant formula about justification by faith alone without works applies also to repentance. As all works are excluded from justification, so all repentance must be excluded too.

A Simple Explanation

I conclude with a simple explanation of faith, forgiveness, and repentance.

Faith is the bond of the elect sinner with Christ. In that bond the elect sinner holds for truth all that God has revealed in his word and has the assured confidence that everlasting righteousness and eternal life are freely granted him for Christ’s sake.

Forgiveness is one aspect of justification, and so forgiveness is also a shorthand way of speaking about justification. We are forgiven by faith alone without works and deeds, including the work and deed of repentance.

Repentance is the fruit of faith. Repentance is the inevitable fruit of faith. What the Reformed creeds say about the impossibility of the justified believer not performing works applies to the truth of repentance. It is impossible that the justified believer not repent. Repentance is not faith. Repentance is not an aspect of faith. Repentance is the fruit of faith.

The Reformed churches that hold these things call sinners to repentance as that repentance is the clear and unmistakable evidence of the faith by which alone one is justified, as that which is pleasing to God, as that which is the calling of the one who loves God, and with the warning that all who continue in their wicked and ungrateful lives are not saved. When sinners repent, they are not received again into the favor of God, the favor of the church, and the favor of the family in the way of their repentance but by faith in Jesus Christ, their only savior. The evidence of that is their repentance.

Why does a sinner repent? God elected him. Christ died for him and took away his sins at the tree of the cross. The Holy Spirit works in the elect sinner’s heart. Repentance is not to get something. If a sinner repents to get something, then that repentance is corrupt and amounts to worldly sorrow. He is forgiven by faith alone that comes absolutely empty, empty even of the sinner’s own repentance.

I frankly do not know why the doctrine of faith, forgiveness, and repentance is so hard to grasp or why it is so hated. I have an idea of why it is hated. It is hated for the very reason that the Jews hated Jesus. It gives man no part in his salvation.

I have an analysis of the speech, not a doctrinal analysis. Why this speech and why now? I have it on good authority that there was a question-and-answer period after the speech and that during that question-andanswer period Professor Engelsma did a lot of dodging and weaving in his answers or conceded certain crucial points in this controversy about faith and about repentance. He published the text of the speech that he gave, and he tells us that he did this after the fact because he only changed a few things from the spoken version. Was there a recording that he used? Was there a recording of the questions and answers? Why did he conveniently not publish the question-and-answer section? At least publish the questions that were asked; and even if he could not remember the answers word for word, give a written response.

Professor Engelsma is talking to someone. He says that he is talking to

people in the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) and in the Remnant Reformed Church (RRC) who will still listen to me, some of whom I have reason to believe will be present at this class.

If there are those—also in the RPC—who are enamored of Engelsma’s theology on repentance, they can have it. It is rot. It teaches justification by faith and by works of faith, or justification by faith and by the fruits of faith.

The Protestant Reformed Classis East, which met February 8, 2024, made an abysmal decision. In that decision the ministers and elders approved theology that teaches that there is that which man must do—many holy and pious exercises—to obtain the possession of his salvation. The men of the classis approved the theology that man looks to his works for the assurance of his justification. Professor Engelsma with his statement that the PRC has not changed in her doctrine is deluded there too. He is not even living in the reality of where his own denomination is. Let us say that by “in the way of repentance” Engelsma does mean whatever Hoeksema meant by in the way of. Engelsma’s denomination by official decision showed that it has moved far away from Hoeksema. Can you imagine Hoeksema writing that you look to your works for the assurance of your justification or that there is that which man must do to obtain the possession of his salvation? Good time then for Engelsma to make sure everyone knows that the RPC is a bunch of lunatics and to shore up the view for the nervous Protestant Reformed members that the PRC has not changed. There was even an opportunity to address Reformed Protestant members, who are dissatisfied with the churches, who really are still Protestant Reformed, who like Israel want to go back to Egypt, and who might be nervous about where their own crackpot leaders are going next. Engelsma offers to the anxious the delusional stability of the PRC. This is pure speculation on my part, but I do not think that I am far off.

For my part I do not believe and I am not going to teach forgiveness in the way of repentance. I certainly do not intend to teach that man must first repent, and then God may forgive him; or that man must first repent in order that God forgive him; or that repentance is an aspect of faith. No, faith is one thing. By faith we are forgiven and that without works. Repentance is another thing. Repentance is the fruit of faith. Repentance is an aspect of the sinner’s love of God, and so repentance also involves the sinner’s hatred of sin. By faith alone without works (repentance), we are forgiven. The evidence of that faith is repentance. Faith and repentance are to be distinguished, never confused, and not separated.

God has sent to the Protestant Reformed Churches, with her doctrine of repentance for forgiveness, a strong delusion and many strong deluders to strengthen the members in that delusion so that they might believe a lie.

May God graciously deliver his own, bring them to repentance, and forgive all their sins, by faith alone.