For the long time spent breathing in the smog of philosophy and vain deceit, the traditions of men, and the rudiments of the world, it is necessary to spend time breathing in the clear air of Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. It must become evident how much the child of God has been spoiled during that time of breathing in the smog of philosophy and vain deceit, robbed in his heart and soul of the riches of Christ Jesus and the blessedness of full confidence and assurance in him. How much there is to gain back in newfound freedom in the simplicity of the gospel of Christ. How much the churches of Colossae, of Galatia, and of Corinth must have delighted to breathe the fresh air brought by Paul’s letters to them after being stifled with the errors of those whom the apostle to the Gentiles called “false apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13).

In time it becomes easier to see through the smog of so much needless controversy, controversy created because of dissatisfaction with Christ alone.

Two outstanding features or patterns of language, which were confusing in the middle of controversy, become far clearer in the light of God’s word.

The first is the crucial division regarding the description of faith. One side of this division is the description of faith as “doing.” All the qualifications and negations make absolutely no difference. One simply cannot have faith as “doing” without having faith also as a deed, an act, or a work of man. Some professor or minister may claim that he can affirm that faith is a “doing” and then deny strenuously that such an affirmation makes faith into a deed or a work, but the denial is vain.

It cannot but be noted that such confusing language about faith, confusing because of these vain distinctions between faith as a “doing” and faith as a deed or work, stands in stark contrast to the simple testimony of faith on the other side, which simply states that faith is the gift of God worked by the Holy Spirit, with the result that the believer himself does actually believe on Jesus Christ.

The Canons of Dordt give simple, clear instruction. “Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received” (Canons 3–4.12, emphasizing “that grace” as described earlier in the article; Confessions and Church Order, 169).

The manner of this operation cannot be fully comprehended by believers in this life. Notwithstanding which, they rest satisfied with knowing and experiencing that by this grace of God they are enabled to believe with the heart, and love their Savior. (Canons 3–4.13, in Confessions and Church Order, 169)

If any dissatisfied soul should raise a quibble or storm about the word “enabled,” he must be silenced with what is so clearly stated in the following article, with its application of Philippians 2:13: “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” (Canons 3–4.14, in Confessions and Church Order, 169).

The second prominent feature or pattern of language is the reduction of faith to a mere label: believer. This is a strange feature in the context of the above division, so strange as to be outstanding when it is first noticed. When it is noticed, the feature becomes obnoxious to the point of causing grief. In the broader context of the controversy that recently took place in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), a distinction was forged. This distinction was supposed to cover concerns about legalistic sermons: obtaining assurance of justification by good works, doing good works to have prayers answered, and the like. When it was pointed out that such sermons indicated a conditional covenant theology, the response was given that such was impossible. The sermons could not possibly be teaching conditions because the sermons were about elect and regenerated believers. The doctrine could not be conditional because the subjects of the doctrine were already believers!

As it turns out, this strange feature means that a minister or seminary professor can speak and write about all kinds of things that believers are supposed to do. Believers must fulfill certain obligations and callings imposed on them. When they do these things, they obtain blessings and benefits from God. They have done their part, so that God can then do his promised part. They fulfilled the conditions of the promises. God can then fulfill his end and show his faithfulness by supplying subsequent grace and blessings. But, of course, none of this is conditional because the people are already believers, already in a state of grace.

Both of these features are significant for a proper understanding of the doctrinal controversy at its core.

First, these features reveal what is most abhorrent about the whole controversy. The controversy truly turns on the nature of the covenant of grace. Is the covenant of grace a means to an end, or is the covenant the end itself? Does the covenant of grace continue to describe man as a party over against God, or is the covenant of grace God’s redeeming man back to himself to be forever in spiritual fellowship and unity with him in Christ, the head of the covenant?

Both features or patterns of language used in the doctrinal controversy demand that the covenant of grace be a means to an end and not the end itself. Both features demand that man be a party over against God. With respect to Christ both features signify that Christ is not the glorious head of the covenant but only acts as a mediator. Christ indeed graciously restores man to a position where he is in God’s favor. But in this new position man remains his own creature, to one degree or another independent of God. In this new position man is supplied with available grace, but it is in his power to do or not to do. And dependent on what he will do or not do are all subsequent blessings from God. In other words, man is restored by means of the new covenant of grace to a new covenant of works.

The PRC have been insistent that the above is not at all the theology of Andrew Cammenga and Hubert De Wolf that led to the schism of 1953. How could it possibly be? There are no conditions unto salvation, only conditions after salvation. The subject matter is no longer “all of you,” as De Wolf infamously stated, but only elect, regenerated believers. Even when it comes to faith as “doing,” members of the PRC are assured that this “doing” of faith belongs only to the elect and regenerated. The subject matter is limited to the elect, regenerated believer’s believing. It certainly cannot be an elect unbeliever’s believing, much less a reprobate believer’s believing. What logic! No, the conditional covenant theology of today is not exactly the same as that of the 1950s. But it is still the same. No matter the persons speaking it, no matter the synodical or classical approval, no matter the history of faithful orthodoxy, the theology is the same. It is still conditional theology, which partakes of the same error of Arminianism. Available grace, two tracks, conditional fellowship, obedience to receive blessings—all the same theology: conditional theology.

Debate and controversy must therefore cease in the PRC. Those insistent on debate and controversy have been labeled as slanderous and schismatic and accordingly shown the door. No longer may it be debated whether faith is man’s “doing” or faith is the gift of God’s grace. Faith can only be the “doing,” the deed, and the work of man. Neither may it be debated whether faith is passive or active. It can only be active and never passive. Neither may it be debated whether man is redeemed to constant dependence on Christ, his Lord, or whether man must stand in some respect independent, on his own before God. Man must be independent, a party over against God. Faith must be man’s own, his own action. If faith is merely passive, merely receptive of Christ, faith has no validity whatever in the conditional covenant.

Consistent with this, any teaching of faith as passive must be condemned as heresy. The truth about faith as passive must be condemned before that truth can condemn the teaching of the conditional covenant. If faith is merely passive, then how can it possibly count for anything before God? How can it count for salvation? How can faith count for following blessings and prosperity from God? If good works are like faith, only God’s gifts and only God’s gifts as the fruit of faith, how can God possibly reward good works?

Yes, that is exactly the point. It is the point on which the entire doctrinal controversy must collapse on itself. The glad, glorious news of the gospel is that faith is truly, really nothing by itself. Faith is nothing of itself. Just as God must be all in all and man nothing at all, so must faith be nothing at all for the sake of Christ and the fullness of Christ, the complete savior.

This faith that is nothing for the sake of Christ, its everything, must carry its point of Christ alone through the entire life of the child of God and all his way to the glory of eternal life. Faith can never bring the believer to say, “My faith” but always, “God’s gift.” Faith can never bring the believer to say, “My good works” but always, “The grace of God.” Faith can never bring the believer to say, “My perseverance” but always, “God’s preservation.”

Why must faith speak that way? Why must faith ascribe nothing to the believer but ascribe all to God? Not because of rigorous debate and discussion. Not because of greater force or threat of force exercised by a majority against a minority. Not because of the overwhelming power of logic or reason. Not by force of rhetoric or by appeal to history. Not because of correct doctrinal formulations that demonstrate clear grounds in scripture.

In fact, there is only one way to settle the controversy. The truth about faith is that it is all about Christ alone, the only savior.

I think an illustration is helpful. I have heard people talk about how they have gotten through difficult circumstances. I have heard many of them say something that has stopped me in my tracks, words to the effect of, “My faith got me through.” Yes, it seems like a nice thing to say. It even suggests a deep spirituality. So often it is taken for such. But what good is it really? To whom does that statement really point: to the believer’s believing or to Christ the savior? To whom does it really give glory: to the person saying the words or to Christ, the object of faith?

So must we see the controversy over faith as passive or active. As long as faith by itself is in view, or as long as the believer’s believing is in view, faith must be active. Faith must be a “doing,” a deed, or an act. However, where the truth of Jesus Christ as a complete savior is in view, faith must be passive. Its character as receptive is the simple consequence of Christ’s being the complete savior. Faith must be regarded as the bond that places the believer in spiritual union with Christ. Faith must make the believer one with his savior, the branch with the vine, the member with the head. Faith must be the instrument of apprehending the person and work of Christ. To speak more broadly, a proper Reformed theology must make for a proper Reformed Christology, and a proper Reformed Christology must make for a proper Reformed soteriology.

Similar to the above illustration is my experience in being exposed to many sermons and many theological writings. What is prominent among so many of them is an emphasis on Christians and Christianity, what Christians are like, and what Christians do. Some are descriptive, teachings and doctrines. Others are prescriptive, demonstrating and showing how Christians ought to be and how they ought to behave themselves. Studying these sermons and writings, I go along happily, seeing where the speakers and authors are going. But I am suddenly interrupted by a thought. Where is Christ in all this? Going back over what I have heard and reviewing what I have read, I realize that Christ is missing. He was never there. The speaker was speaking and the writer was writing about Christless Christians, about what is truly impossible. The sermon or speech, the book or article, was a meal without food, a worthless, vain pretension.

So must any controversy about faith be: a worthless, vain pretension without Christ.

It must be and always continue to be such a worthless, vain pretension without the living reality of faith in Christ. Can the member be anything without the head? The branch without the vine? The believer without Christ?

There must come a point where debate in controversy shows itself to be dangerous and vain: when Christ is so far removed from the debate that he is simply gone. Then heresy must rule because the truth is gone with Christ. With Christ removed from the debate, faith can only be regarded as the work of man rather than the work of the Spirit of Christ. Faith must become all about a psychological or moral effort of the heart.

Discussion about faith is impossible without faith in Christ.

Such is the powerful testimony of scripture. In Paul’s epistles there is often recorded the apostle’s desire for the churches, a desire which is often expressed as his prayer.

I…cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers…that ye may know…what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places. (Eph. 1:15–20; see also Col. 1:9; 2:2–3; 2 Thess. 1:11–12)

The apostle’s desire is that the saints in those churches would grow in their knowledge of Christ, being filled with the incomprehensible riches of the grace of Christ and the love of God so immeasurably shown in the gift of his Son. According to this prayer, the churches are to busy themselves with exploring the glorious, wondrous abundance of their savior.

Why this Spirit-inspired desire and prayer? Scripture gives ever-growing knowledge of Christ to be not only the everlasting praise of Jesus Christ, the only savior; but also to be a powerful safeguard against the destruction of the church, its removal from Christ, her only foundation, to anything less than Christ alone. Ever-growing knowledge of Christ is to be the safeguard against moving from Christ to merit, to good works, to man’s will, or to faith as a good work of man’s willing and doing. Ever-growing knowledge of Christ is also to be the safeguard against moving from Christ to mere words that pretend to honor him but must leave room for man in one way or another. Colossians 2 in particular leads the church to the fullness of Christ in order to leave no room for doctrines of works taught by men in their unbelieving opposition to Christ.

Similarly, scripture gives other formulations about faith that demand the completeness and fullness of Christ to the exclusion of faith as “doing.”

There is the expression that is presented in the context of the rejection of man’s works for salvation: “the faith of Christ” (Phil. 3:9; see also Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:22). Observe in these passages the connection between “the faith of Christ” and justification. This is not only the justification that brings the believer into living fellowship with God, but it is also all of the believer’s assurance of his salvation from God. As the sole foundation for a life of gratitude in good works, the faith of Christ never forsakes the fullness of Christ to add faith itself, much less faith’s fruits of good works.

Also powerful are the expressions of Christ to various individuals: “Thy faith hath saved thee” (Luke 7:50; 18:42). Christ spoke those words. He worked the deliverance. Those individuals came to Jesus knowing that what they so desperately needed was in him and not in themselves.

Then there is the simple expression of faith that is so easily overlooked because of its prominence: “in Christ.” In Christ as the branches incorporated into the vine; as members into the head; as hungering and thirsting; as eating and drinking Christ, who is their life and nourishment. In Christ to live, no longer of self, no longer according to what is old. Each time “in Christ” is used in scripture, it must be a powerful reminder of what faith truly is: in Christ. In Christ always and forever, in Christ to have salvation as comfort and all assurance, in Christ to be fruitful in good works always from him and by him.

The overwhelming truth of scripture means that these truths cannot be debated merely intellectually. These truths cannot be reduced to mere concepts or ideas pitted against one another.

Faith, true faith in Christ alone, triumphs gloriously in the controversy. Having Christ in the heart through faith is the end of the controversy. Christ is the conviction that faith must be passive, the sole wondrous instrument to apprehend him who is the complete savior. Christ is the fullness that must make true faith marvel and wonder at his incomparable riches and rejoice to be nothing for faith’s object, Christ, to be everything.