“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). You must not imagine that the fool who says this is a man of the world, the atheist of Oxford or the agnostic of Harvard. The fool says this in the church among those who profess to know the truth. The fool says this when he ignores the works and words of God that come to him.

On the one hand, folly is simple to understand. All men became fools in Adam. God made man wise. But not conforming himself to the truth that God had revealed to Adam in Eden, especially the truth regarding the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, under the just judgment of God, Adam and all his posterity became fools. Among fallen men there is no wisdom—except that which is sensual, earthly, and devilish.

On the other hand, folly can be mysterious and vexing. Folly not only afflicts the ignorant, but folly also afflicts those who are otherwise very intelligent. Folly does not have to do with a mere lack of knowledge, although that is often how we excuse folly: “If only they had this sermon to listen to or that article to read, or if only they would hear this argument.” But folly is not about a lack of knowledge. Folly afflicts the learned as well as the unlearned. Folly is a mysterious thing, so that despite every warning and all evidence, men who know the truth continue in their foolish ways.

Folly is a spiritual-ethical failure to act on the knowledge that one has. Folly, in fact, is to deny the reality that is given in the facts and the knowledge that one has and deliberately and destructively to act contrary to that knowledge. Folly is the sin of refusing to conform oneself and one’s life to the knowledge of the truth that one has.

In this there is folly in an earthly and simple sense. It is cold outside, and a man refuses to put on his coat, and he catches pneumonia and dies. The end of folly is always hurt and destruction. There is a more serious folly in the spiritual-theological sense, in which the fool does not conform himself to the knowledge of God. It is not that the fool does not know that God is, or that the fool does not know the truth, or that he needs more time to be instructed. The fool knows the truth, but he will not conform himself and his life to that truth. The fool does not deal with reality. A fool makes up his own reality. The fool denies and opposes the reality that confronts him at every turn.

The ultimate reality of all things is God. Reality is God and his providential working in the world. Reality is God’s working his eternal purpose for the coming of his kingdom in Jesus Christ in the salvation of the elect and in the damnation of the reprobate, a kingdom that comes in all of history and in every event of history and, I might add, in every event of church history.

The kingdom of Christ is coming!

The day of the Lord is coming!

This explains all the recent events that have transpired in the Protestant Reformed Churches. This explains that there is and has been a great falling away in these churches. This coming of Christ and his kingdom also explains that a new denomination has been formed. God in Christ is working for the coming of his kingdom, for the cutting off of many, and for the salvation of an elect remnant.

The fool, as it were, stands in the way of that train as it irresistibly moves down its tracks, and he attempts to halt the works of God. Or the fool, being on a collision course in his opposition to God, continues straight on to that collision and is destroyed. And when God’s kingdom comes, then God—to stick to the railroad metaphor—throws a switch for the false church, so that while God directs his own church straight on in the truth, he also causes the false church to veer off toward destruction. And the fool, instead of getting off the train at the switch, is either a frantic brakeman who runs up and down the line of cars and pulls emergency brakes, attempting to stop the train that is hurtling down a steep grade to its destruction, or he is the foolish conductor who pours on the coal to increase the train’s speed toward its destruction.

“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished” (Prov. 22:3).

Such folly is on display in the recent agenda for the January 10, 2024, meeting of Classis East of the Protestant Reformed Churches.

The first bit of folly is actually protesting to this body of men. Has no one observed their disgraceful conduct these past years? The most recent example is the October 2023 decision in the Pete VanDer Schaaf case against the consistory of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church. The classical decision is such a concoction of sophistry as to make the world blush, and the classis actually presented it to the world as wisdom from God on high. Deliberately avoiding the doctrinal issues before them, the classical delegates pronounced on some church political issues, and they could not even get those right. For instance, as wisdom from the Holy Spirit, they tell us that a man cannot be convicted purely on a synodical decision. Well, in that case throw out all doctrinal synodical decisions, and with them the Canons of Dordt, which was a synodical decision. Classis East makes silly distinctions between error, the error of the heresy, false doctrine, and heresy, all in the name of protecting false teachers and their lies. It is all laughable and foolish. And those who actually would protest to this body of men for adjudication of a dispute are foolish. They ignore the reality that Classis East, of all church bodies in the Protestant Reformed Churches, has shown itself to be unrighteous in virtually all that it does, beginning already with the Meyer case and continuing on to today. If you want worldly wisdom—sensual, earthly, and devilish—then, of course, go to Classis East; but if you want wisdom from on high, then you will have to seek it elsewhere because the men of Classis East are devoid of spiritual wisdom.

Regarding Classis East itself—the membership of it—the Lord will have his way with these men and all who are part of that reprehensible group. They hated and opposed God’s truth for years. If they did not hate it, then they faithlessly and spinelessly refused to stand up against the lie, or they cravenly went along with the crowd. I have sat in on their classical meetings, and they are dark and dingy places to sit. When they were shown by the Meyers the false doctrine that was being preached at Hope Protestant Reformed Church by her minister, Rev. David Overway, and defended tooth and nail by Hope’s consistory, then the classis called good evil, and evil the classis called good. When the 2018 Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches actually pointed out the false doctrine, then the men of Classis East did not show an ounce of sorrow but began to undermine the decision. When they were rebuked, then they all cried foul and murdered the man who rebuked them. They cast the Lord Jesus Christ out of their midst and from their pulpits, and they cannot prosper. As scripture says, they are worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

By the time this writing appears, Classis East of the Protestant Reformed Churches will have met. Some decision will have been made. If past performances are indicative of future results, then the classis will have judged that the matter is extremely complicated and cannot be completed at one sitting of classis, and so another special committee will have been appointed to examine the matter and to come up with another document full of lies. Because of the complicated nature of the matter, the classis will have to reconvene at some date in the future, probably so close to—or after—the deadline for the agenda of the 2024 Protestant Reformed synod that the matter can be put off for another year at the synodical level.

The folly of the classis is that it opposes the truth that has been so clearly brought to it. The folly of the classis is that the men think that with their wisdom—man’s wisdom, which is earthly, sensual, and devilish—they can find a way out of the predicament into which God in his judgment has led them. The folly of the protestants is that they would trust their cases to such a group of men who have shown themselves to be devoid of the Spirit and thus of wisdom, courage, and sound judgment.

An example of the unrighteousness that passes for righteousness in Classis East is Rev. Martyn McGeown’s protest to the January 10, 2024, meeting of classis. His protest can be summarized this way: Reverend Koole is not guilty of any false teaching, the Protestant Reformed Churches need more of what Reverend Koole has been teaching in the churches, and his doctrine is the doctrine of the Reformed creeds. Slippery McGeown is not so slippery any longer, but he makes clear that he intends to lead the denomination in the way of Koole’s doctrine.

What is of interest to me is that Reverend McGeown served on the classical committee that in October 2023 delivered its duplicitous advice in Peter VanDer Schaaf’s appeal. McGeown now would have us believe that he had a change of heart. He writes,

It might surprise some delegates that I bring this protest, especially since I served on the committee that brought the advice re. the Peter VanderSchaaf appeal. However, upon reflection I realize that Classis East, inadvertently, I trust, has committed an injustice against Rev. Koole which must be corrected.¹

If that is true, Reverend McGeown must have had a total change of heart between serving on the committee and his protest to the January 2024 meeting of Classis East, a space of a few weeks. But he did not have a total change of heart because he has been defending Reverend Koole’s doctrine almost from the beginning. What McGeown did was unethical. He believes Koole’s doctrine. He has defended Koole’s doctrine. The doctrine was before the classis. Obviously, the committee of which he was a part avoided the doctrinal issue. Reverend McGeown is a smart man. I am sure that he did not miss the doctrinal issue at that time. The issue that surrounded the whole agenda at the October classis was to deal with the doctrinal issue or not to deal with it.

McGeown writes in his protest,

In addition, Classis East by this decision endorsed the apology of Rev. Koole which reads in part, “My consistory pointed out that a number of Witsius’ statements, as they are worded, no matter how I read them and was convinced what Witsius meant by them, stand in contradiction to decisions of our recent synods (in particular those of 2018) and to our confessions, and thus constitute false doctrine.” “The articles,” Rev. Koole continued, “sowed confusion and, in light of Synod 2018’s decisions, promoted statements and theology that Synod judged to be erroneous” (Standard Bearer, vol. 98, issue 4 [November 15, 2021], p. 79). However, Classis East endorsed that apology without judging whether Rev. Koole actually taught false doctrine or whether the statements of Witsius cited and explained by Rev. Koole actually constituted false doctrine. In my judgment Rev. Koole taught neither heresy, nor false doctrine, nor even doctrinal error. Classis East declined even to address the doctrinal matter; yet Classis East still judged the apology both “appropriate and necessary.” It is true that Rev. Koole was convinced by Grandville PRC’s consistory that an apology was necessary, but Classis East should reassure Rev. Koole that his consistory erred in requiring an apology and that his apology was not necessary. (176)

This is not something Reverend McGeown came to after classis. This is something that he has been defending since Reverend Koole wrote the articles in question.

The ethical thing for McGeown as part of the committee was to have written a minority report. One wonders if he actually submitted one to the committee, and he was talked out of bringing it to the floor of classis. His protest to the January 10 meeting of classis is the minority report that he should have written at the October 2023 classis, and the doctrinal issue would have been before the classis. The January classis will probably take up his protest and accept his lame excuse for his lack of ethics, instead of rebuking him for his duplicity. Folly!

And those who go to Classis East for adjudication trust their cases to men like this, who either engage in or condone this kind of unethical behavior. Folly!

There is a humorous moment in the protest for those of us on the outside. I doubt that Reverend McGeown wrote it to be humorous, but it is an example of the arrogance and conceit that afflict the Protestant Reformed clergy. He writes,

The reader of the Standard Bearer must understand that when a Protestant Reformed minister writes an editorial in a Reformed periodical he writes from the perspective that justification is by faith alone to the exclusion of all works and that salvation is entirely the work of God and not the work of man. That should be understood before he reads; that does not need to be endlessly clarified. (184)

Let me translate that for you. Protestant Reformed ministers could not possibly be heretics and false teachers. After all, they tell us that they are all only teaching salvation by grace alone. Once they tell us this, we must give them a pass to teach all kinds of things that are contradictory to it. The reality is that Reverend Koole may have said that he was teaching salvation by grace alone. That was deception on his part. The proof is that he went on to teach that man’s works contribute to the possession—and ultimately to the fulfillment—of salvation and that faith and obedience are what man must do to be saved. That cannot be harmonized with the statement that salvation is all of grace. The Bible is very clear, and so are the Reformed creeds, that if salvation is of grace, then it is not of works; and if salvation is of works, then it is not of grace. Reverend Koole is a snake who speaks out of both sides of his mouth to deceive and who plays games with words to entrap. The statement by McGeown shows that he also plays the same kind of dangerous games.

McGeown’s protest is full of sophistry too. Sophistry is arguing that the lie is truth and that truth is the lie. Sophistry operates by fallacious arguments that aim to deceive. Listen to McGeown:

Second, Rev. Koole did not teach that our good works of obedience function as helps in finding and maintaining assurance of justification. “Good works … do not function as helps for finding and maintaining assurance of our justification” (Acts of Synod 2018, p. 69).

Explanation: Rev. Koole quotes Witsius, “Hence I conclude that sanctification and its effects are by no means to be slighted when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification” (Standard Bearer, vol. 97, issue 7 [January 1, 2021], p. 151). Rev. Koole’s explanation of Witsius’ statement is this: “If one has a true love for God and desires to serve him, is that not also an evidence that one has been saved and justified? ‘I must be numbered with the saved, with the justified. Why else would I have these affections?’ One is conscious, ‘aware,’ that one is saved and justified. And thus one is reassured that he is numbered with the forgiven and justified after all.” Rev. Koole continues his explanation: Witsius is “not speaking of sanctification serving as the basis of justification, but of one’s sanctification (which is worked by Christ’s Holy Spirit) serving as evidence to the soul that one is numbered with the justified, namely, with those who have received the gift of faith by the same saving Spirit” (ibid, p. 151). (179–80)

You cannot make this stuff up. McGeown says that Reverend Koole did not teach that good works of obedience function as helps in finding and maintaining assurance of justification. But Reverend Koole in the words of Witsius says, “Hence I conclude that sanctification and its effects are by no means to be slighted when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.” How much plainer can a man be? Reverend Koole removes all doubt himself when he explains again, “Witsius is ‘not speaking of sanctification serving as the basis of justification, but of one’s sanctification…serving as evidence to the soul that one is numbered with the justified.’”

Regardless of Reverend McGeown’s lack of ethics, his arrogance, and his sophistry, the value of his protest is that it is a thorough doctrinal defense of Reverend Koole, and the protest lays out clearly where the Protestant Reformed denomination is headed with her doctrine. The churches are going to ride the train of Koole’s doctrine all the way to its bitter end, and McGeown is going to help the train stay on track.

These are the kinds of men who inhabit Classis East. And a man is going to entrust such men to make a judgment on doctrine? Folly!

Predictably, in the January 10 agenda Pete VanDer Schaaf has another protest. Pete was the cause of the case coming before the September classis, which reconvened in October, because he demurred from the announcement that Reverend Koole put in the Standard Bearer, in which Koole gave a non-apology for his stubborn and persistent promotion of false doctrine through his promotion of the writings of Herman Witsius that there is that which man must do to be saved. Having exhumed the body of Herman Witsius and having been told that the body stinks, Koole buried the body again and tried to wash his hands of the stink. The classis previously told Grandville’s consistory that it must retract its condemnation of Reverend Koole and inform its congregation—not the denomination but only the Grandville congregation—of this retraction. But the classis left in place Koole’s non-apology in the Standard Bearer because classis deemed that the apology was necessary because Koole had been so ambiguous, which is a very common but troublesome and very bad trait in Protestant Reformed ministers, which the classis is trying to stamp out among the clergy. And the classis urged every minister to strive to be clear. How could this be presented with a straight face? Somebody, somewhere, is laughing. Folly!

But Pete picked up on the hypocrisy. If Koole did not teach false doctrine, then not only Grandville’s announcement to the congregation must be retracted, but also the announcement in the Standard Bearer must be retracted. Pete won in the October classical decision. The theology of Reverend Koole was exonerated of any wrongdoing. And Pete wants his victory complete: retract the Standard Bearer apology as well. Seems logical.

Curious though is the way that Pete phrases his request to classis:

That is, that Classis advise the consistory to retract the statement which it caused to be placed in the SB and inform the denomination of its error in causing it to be published. (2)

This request places all the blame for the inclusion of Koole’s non-apology in the Standard Bearer on the consistory of Grandville. Poor Reverend Koole appears to be only a passive bystander. But Pete’s request brings up questions: Where is Reverend Koole? What does he think of his apology? Does he believe his apology?

I analyzed Koole’s apology when it came out and proved from its content that it was insincere and that he did not believe a word that he wrote.² He may have been uncomfortable with some of the stir that his writings caused, but he never took full blame for the schism that was the result of his writings. Now that apology and the doctrinal judgment of Grandville over Koole’s writings are in the docket again. And again, questions arise: Where is Reverend Koole? Why does he not have a document in the agenda, perhaps an addendum to Grandville’s protest to classis, maintaining the validity of his apology in the Standard Bearer? Why does he not take up the doctrinal sword against the error for which he apologized and that now Pete and McGeown are arguing must be the doctrine of the Protestant Reformed Churches? If Reverend Koole is so sorry for bringing up that doctrine and he really believes the doctrinal judgment of Grandville, you would think that he would weigh in on this matter, especially since it involves his person and ministry.

But Reverend Koole does not. He is like that divisive person at a gathering who throws out some controversial statement and then sits back and enjoys watching the group descend into chaos. I think Pete might know something about where Reverend Koole stands on his apology and on the theology of Witsius. There is evidence that the apology was an insincere political move to appease and that the apology was not made out of conviction at all. For one, when the matter of Grandville’s judgment of Koole came up again, Reverend Koole did not rise to the defense of his own apology and of the consistory’s judgment.

So Classis East is going to take up Pete’s protest and probably treat it seriously. And will anyone ask, what does Reverend Koole believe about his apology? Folly.

And that brings up the matter of the protests to Classis East from protestants on the other side of the issue. I am not sure they are, in fact, on the other side. Some of the protestants do not argue the doctrinal issue at all. They argue about procedure. They state the obvious that classis did not take up the doctrinal issue and that classis is obligated to take up the doctrinal issue. But let us say for the sake of argument that in the agenda the protests of Pete and McGeown represent one faction, and the rest of the protests represent a faction that does not want Koole’s theology. Are those other protests foolish too?

Having read through those protests, I will say that they contain some rather revealing details. This is a section from the protest by Mr. Aric Bleyenberg:

The basis of the recommendation C is that Grandville’s consistory may not say that Rev. Koole taught false doctrine because they didn’t sufficiently prove this point from Scripture or the confessions. What is ironic is that Classis could use this as the main basis of proving that Rev. Koole did not teach false doctrine, yet Classis itself never used Scripture or the confessions to prove that there was not false doctrine taught. In fact, Classis avoided almost any discussion whatsoever relating to the doctrine at hand. Classis declared that a consistory erred in judging doctrine without ever discussing the doctrine on the floor of Classis. The only time the doctrine was brought out on the floor was when the appellant himself practically begged Classis to not only discuss the statements, but also to make his case that the statements should be considered as orthodox and ought to be used today in the PRC. Many others questioned whether or not Classis should or would get into the statements and the doctrine in question, but actual discussion of doctrine was glaringly absent throughout the deliberations. (137–38)

The other protests contain some excellent analysis. The protest of Mr. Dan Van Uffelen, probably the hardest hitting of the protests, characterizes and proves conclusively that the decision of the previous classis was “false, inconsistent, hierarchical, and negligent” (158).

But in answer to the question, are these protests folly too? I say yes. All these men and Grandville’s consistory, if they believe what they wrote, should have left the Protestant Reformed Churches a long time ago. And now the Lord is making clear that the false doctrine that caused the split in the Protestant Reformed Churches is not only present in the denomination but is also regnant there. These men ignore the reality of where the Protestant Reformed denomination actually is at this point in history. They ignore all the doctrinal development that has happened in the denomination since Koole wrote the articles in question. I had to ask myself, why do they care so much about Reverend Koole, Herman Witsius, and Standard Bearer articles that were written years ago and that none of them, save one, did anything about? Why now? The answer is folly.

It is the folly that has deliberately and consciously ignored all that has unfolded in the Protestant Reformed Churches in the past several years and that has made itself comfortable with the official explanations and excuses for what has happened. It is the folly that let the truth and those who promoted the truth be savaged, all the while remaining silent. The folly soothed itself that Reverend Koole had been dealt with. The folly contented itself that the problem had been solved. And the folly did that so that it could remain in the Protestant Reformed Churches and retain connections with the schools; keep jobs; maintain friends and acquaintances; and, probably more important than anything else, keep respectability and distance itself from those regarded as extreme and unloving. And to do that one must play along with the charade that is the Protestant Reformed broader assemblies.

Such folly writes long protests that point out the obvious: the Protestant Reformed Classis East did not take up the doctrinal issue. Does anyone think that the men of Classis East did not know that? They consciously and deliberately with malice aforethought did not take up the doctrinal issue. They did not miss the doctrinal issue. They did not make an unfortunate oversight. They did not want to take up the doctrine. That is because in Classis East, as far as I can tell, there are two kinds of men: cowards and hypocrites. The cowards wring their hands ineffectually but never stand up and get killed for the truth’s sake. And the hypocrites pretend as though they care about the truth, when they could not care less.

The folly behind the protests must pretend that it is dealing with honest and upright men, when by demonstrable fact it is dealing with unfaithful and wicked men. The decision of the October 2023 Classis East was wicked. It was an egregious, conscious, deliberate, hierarchical, and unfaithful act by unfaithful men who knew their duty, who knew the truth, and who would not do their duty because they hate the truth. And the protestants by their protests must pretend that they are dealing with honest men. Folly!

Folly also writes these protests as though a right decision by Classis East in this matter changes anything. It does not. Indeed, the protests give evidence that the protestants themselves are not seeking a right decision. They are seeking a settlement but not justice and truth. Justice and truth would require that Reverend Koole be deposed forthwith. He has shown since 2015 that he hates the truth. He has shown himself to be clever and devious. That too is evident in the agenda. Do you know what is missing in the whole agenda? It is what was missing in the last agenda: a statement by Reverend Koole about what he believes. He taught wicked theology. He gave a false apology, and now men are fighting yet about his theology, and he sits on the sidelines and says nothing. Does he believe his apology or not? He does not. I can assure you. The very form of the apology showed that it was not an apology but was itself a settlement. It was a completely false apology meant to keep an unholy peace. And that apology has served its evil purpose too. It became the occasion to rehash the whole matter. The sorrow of the world always works death, and Reverend Koole’s false apology is also working death, according to the judgment of God. The apology has ensnared and entangled many. And where is Koole? Waiting for his theology to be exonerated fully.

Let us say for the sake of argument that the Protestant Reformed Classis East, convening January 10, 2024, suddenly reverses itself and decides not only to take up the doctrinal issue before classis but also to judge Reverend Koole’s writings to be heretical. It changes nothing at all. What about all the decisions and statements in sermons and writings that have been made since Koole’s articles? Let me give an example that shows the unrighteousness of Grandville’s consistory in condemning Koole for teaching false doctrine but letting him continue to preach in the churches and an example that also shows that Reverend Koole was completely disingenuous when he made his non-apology.

On February 16, 2022, Reverend Koole preached to the congregation of Randolph Protestant Reformed Church a preparatory sermon on the text that the righteous are scarcely saved (1 Pet. 4:18). He preached,

Now it speaks here of the “righteous.” When it speaks of the “righteous,” it is not speaking primarily of the justified. There are some who have that view, and you can have that view of the text. But that is not, I’m convinced, the real view of the text. It is not speaking simply of the justified. It is speaking of those who, having been justified, walk in an upright way. And as such they are the righteous, you see, as Matthew 5 speaks of the righteous. “Blessed are you when men persecute you for righteousness’ sake.” Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and that does not have to do with justification. It has to do with uprightness, who are living in the upright way. And their righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees because the scribes and Pharisees just put on an outward show. They kept the law from a certain outward point of view, but it was only what they didn’t do. “I didn’t do this; I didn’t do that; I didn’t do the other.”

Christ says, “You didn’t do this, didn’t do…But what did you do? Did you love your neighbor as you ought in your so-called love of God? Did you do good to the neighbor? Or did you despise the widow and those who have no status? Were you like the good Samaritan, or were you not like the good Samaritan?”…

Did you have love? Were you interested in ministering to the needy in the church? Did you treat your spouse with consideration, loving your neighbor as yourself? If not, refrain from the table. Refrain from the table until you are walking in the way of love and your righteousness, your uprightness, exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, who despised others and would get rid of their wives left and right. That is why you had so many divorces and so many prostitutes—women cast off by the scribes and Pharisees in their outward righteousness, and they had no wherewithal but to sell their bodies. And Christ ministered to them, not to approve of their adultery but to call them from their adultery and fornication and to restore them to godliness.³

Does anyone who is protesting to Classis East have a problem with that doctrine? The protestants are up in arms that Reverend Koole wrote that our good works contribute to the assurance of our justification. They are up in arms that he said that our good works contribute to our possession of life and salvation. But Reverend Koole preaches the very same thing in different words. Your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees for you to be saved! Take that in the context of his text, 1 Peter 4:18. The scarce salvation of the righteous is by works! Not, mind you, by the cross of Christ and the grace of God but by your works!

Koole grounds his definition of the righteous in Christ’s word in the sermon on the mount that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, and in so doing he corrupts that text too. Reverend Koole, I understand, makes the contrast between man’s love and the Pharisees’ lack of love. But that is not what Christ said. He spoke not of the misdeeds of the Pharisees but of their righteousness. There are two types of righteousness contrasted in the text: the Pharisees’ righteousness by works and the righteousness freely given for Christ’s sake. Christ’s righteousness is the righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. That is the only meaning of the text in light of Matthew 5:19, which reads, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” There Christ makes entrance into the kingdom of heaven impossible by man’s obedience. And in verse 20 Christ gives the reason he said that: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” You must have a righteousness of works that exceeds the Pharisees’ righteousness of works to enter the kingdom. That righteousness cannot be your deeds of love, as verse 19 makes plain. Who would say that he has not broken the least of the commandments? Only a Pharisee would, chiefly because he defined the commandments in a way to make them doable. But Christ cuts off the way of entrance into the kingdom by man’s works. He makes the way of entrance into the kingdom his own righteousness received by faith alone.

Now, in light of the fact that the protestants are up in arms that Reverend Koole taught that works contribute to the possession and assurance of salvation, let me explain what entrance into the kingdom is. According to the Heidelberg Catechism, entrance into the kingdom is the certain knowledge of “all and every believer, that…all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ’s merits.” (A 84, in Confessions and Church Order, 118). Entrance into the kingdom is to have the assurance of our salvation for Christ’s sake. Reverend Koole is still teaching what the protestants claim to reject and for which he supposedly apologized. His whole apology was a complete sham. Protesting his old Witsius articles is worthless. It is folly. The protestants seem to ignore the reality that every week some new doctrinal development rolls out of the Protestant Reformed Churches. They seem to ignore that the denomination has progressed in her error. Proof of that is that men are openly contending that the denomination needs more of Koole’s theology that there is that which man must do to be saved. What are the protestants going to do with the Protestant Reformed doctrines that there is that which man must do to be saved; that faith is man’s act not God’s; that there are things that God requires from man before God gives the things that he has promised in his word—a form of Reformed conditions; that the regenerated sinner is not totally depraved; that God’s relationship with his people is a responsive and mutual interplay between grace, reward, and obedience? And I could go on and on. The Protestant Reformed denomination has set her course. That much is plain reality, and all the protests ignore that reality and are foolish.

And more folly. I have it on good report that there are a young minister or two in the Protestant Reformed Churches who are planning to jump off the train and go to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church if things keep going the way that they are. Leaping from one runaway train to another.

The Lord has left the Protestant Reformed Churches. That is clear with every decision and with every protest.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, “Get out!”

If someone truly believes that there is nothing that man must do to be saved, then there is a denomination that teaches that. The denomination is despised. It is slandered. Her ministers are schismatics. Her organization is but a group. If you join the denomination, you will not keep your friends, your place in the schools, and your standing in the community. But from her pulpits come the glorious gospel of the finished and completed work of Jesus Christ, to which man can add nothing and which is the only work that is necessary for salvation, and of which work man’s good works are fruits of thankfulness. This gospel gives the peace that passes all understanding and in the light of which all the persecution causes us to rejoice.

May the Lord open the eyes of his people. Otherwise, their eyes remain closed by folly.