We find ourselves in early June of 1953 as Rev. Herman Hoeksema addresses the members of the curatorium, candidates for the ministry, and the rest of what we assume to be a very packed audience in First Protestant Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.¹ By way of introduction Hoeksema begins his lecture by addressing the elephant in the room: the “split.” At that point in the history of 1953, there was no official split in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC).

Hoeksema is careful to say that if there is no split, there may not be a split. However, if there is a split (and Hoeksema believed there was), then it must happen—immediately. There were those at that time who accused Hoeksema of forcing the split of 1953. In fact, members in the PRC today still believe that. I can recall talking to one of my neighbors on Moelker Avenue in Walker a few years ago who told me that the split of ‘53 was a matter of personalities. In the minds of many, ‘53 never should have happened. If only Hoeksema and Ophoff were not so domineering and insistent, then we all could have stayed in the same church.

Not so for Hoeksema.

“If there is a split, it must come…And no one can ever prevent it.”

What does Hoeksema mean by “split” as he addresses the matter in his introduction? He is very clear: there is a “different sound” being heard in the churches. What was that troublesome sound in 1953? That different sound, Hoeksema says, is “expressed in many different ways, but principally [it] concentrates around a new emphasis in our churches on man rather than on GOD.”²

I can hear the unbeliever of 1953 say, “This is a very unfair and uncharitable description of what is going on in the churches. Really? Hoeksema wants to make this a matter of our ministers’ emphasizing man? Our ministers do not preach man! They preach Christ and grace and election! Perhaps they do not preach as strongly as Hoeksema, but to say that they emphasize man is just not true.”

Observe two aspects of what Hoeksema says.

First, the false doctrine of 1953 was expressed in “many different ways.” In other words, there were many buzzwords to identify the “different sound.” Those words included condition, man’s activity, what man must do, man’s responsibility, and the like. Those buzzwords are fundamentally the same ones used today in the PRC, except for the word condition, which was used explicitly and frequently back then. Man’s responsibility today is what he must do to be saved.

Second, the difference was a matter of “emphasis.”³ Do not be tricked by this. We hear today that it is okay to have preaching that places an equal emphasis upon man and upon God. We must be balanced in our preaching. Some even say that the difference between the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Reformed Protestant Churches is simply a matter of emphasis.

But the matter of emphasis for Hoeksema is the difference between the lie and the truth. Hoeksema presents two opposites: man and God. If man is preached, God cannot be preached. And if God is not preached, the people perish. That is how serious this matter of emphasis was and is.

Reverend Koole of the present PRC is a fan of giving man his due. He writes,

Something was yet required of them [those who heard the gospel], namely, a response, the proper response to the call of the gospel, which is to say, heart-felt repentance to be expressed in the one instance and faith as believing in the other (two sides of the same coin). And such a response is not a nothing, it is something…

It is the solemn responsibility to be laid by the gospel preacher upon everyone who comes under the gospel call. And until one is willing to express this faith and believing under the promiscuous call of the gospel, one cannot consider himself to be saved.⁴

The clear emphasis of Koole’s entire response, and particularly of this quotation, is man’s moral responsibility to respond with repentance and active faith to the gospel. Man is set forth as the one who must choose whether or not he will believe the gospel. Man, not God, is made to be the deciding factor in salvation. “Until one is willing to express this faith…one cannot consider himself to be saved.” This is that “different sound” that Hoeksema heard in 1953 at which he trembled.

Hoeksema connects the “different sound” heard in his day with what he remembers hearing in 1924 from the Christian Reformed Church. The charge that Hoeksema received for his repudiation of common grace and his biblical insistence on sovereign, particular grace was that he was one-sided. His theology did not give sufficient emphasis to man and what man must do. In 1924 the emphasis was on man. In 1953 the emphasis was on man. Today in the PRC the emphasis is emphatically on man. When she hears “GOD IS GOD” as proclaimed by the Reformed Protestant Churches, the PRC returns the same charges upon our doctrine. Consider the blatant fact that in all our exchanges with the PRC these past few years that whenever the PRC has heard our cry for GOD and GOD ALONE, the PRC always responds by writing and preaching about MAN. Her knee-jerk reaction to GOD is to kick and say, “NO, MAN.”

This “different sound” Hoeksema says is “connected with my lecture.” Indeed, it was not merely connected with his lecture, but the “different sound” was also fundamental to his lecture. Without this “different sound” there would be no occasion for this lecture, no need to address his audience with rebukes and warnings. Over against this “different sound,” which is also now the popular sound in the PRC today, we must hear the doctrine of God found in Hoeksema’s lecture, “The Freedom of Man and His Responsibility.”

Ironically, though Hoeksema’s title is about man, the content of the lecture is overflowing with God—to the exclusion of man.

With style, grace, and oratory excellence, Hoeksema lays out his subject most profoundly. The question answered in the first section of the lecture is simply, what is man’s responsibility in light of the sovereignty of God? Without a doubt, man is responsible. Responsibility means that it is man’s ability and obligation to respond to God’s no and God’s yes. Naturally, Hoeksema explores man in the state of rectitude, in his fallen state, and in the state of perfection.

Over against the notion that the relationship between man’s freedom and his responsibility is like two parallel lines, two tracks, where man acts on his side and God acts on his side,⁵ Hoeksema presents the Reformed view of the relationship thus:

The real and scriptural conception of the relation between man’s responsibility and man’s freedom to the sovereign counsel of God is this: that that freedom and that counsel of God and that responsibility of man are hemmed in from every side by the counsel of God.

What stands out in Hoeksema’s quotation is that the counsel of God is controlling. Man’s freedom and responsibility are completely controlled by God’s counsel. As a moral creature, man is dependent upon that counsel. Wherever man goes, whatever man does and says, the counsel of God hems man in. Therefore, man may not so much as think without that counsel. God’s counsel, therefore, is preeminent and must control whatever we say about man.

How may we then describe man’s freedom and responsibility? Thus:

Whatever God’s counsel and whatever God’s almighty providence determines with regard to man, [man] is nevertheless always the conscious and moral and willing subject of all his actions.

To demonstrate this, Hoeksema quotes from Isaiah 10:15: “Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.” Though the king of Assyria felt himself free as one who held an axe and was free to cut down any tree that he pleased, God describes the king and therefore all men as tools in his hand. The axe, the saw, the rod, and the staff are analogous to men. Man thinks himself free from God as though man may act apart from the Almighty. But it is not man who hews with the axe, cuts with the saw, or lifts up the staff. On the contrary, God holds the instruments, and man does God’s will whether willingly or unwillingly. Again, the eternal counsel of God hems man in and limits him.

Though the section of the lecture regarding man in the state of rectitude and in his fallen state is beautiful and full of profundity, I must briefly summarize. Man’s state as upright before the fall was more than what is described in Isaiah 10:15. Adam had the love of God and the willing desire to serve God freely. Adam possessed righteousness, knowledge, and holiness. In the state in which God created Adam, he always said yes to God’s yes, but Adam had the capacity to say no. He had the ability to sin. Adam’s freedom was rooted in himself and not in the higher freedom that all of God’s elect have, which freedom is rooted in the Son of God.

Man in his fallen state is responsible for his corruption, remains a conscious and willing agent in all of his actions, and has no ability or desire to love God or to believe his gospel. The whole human race is guilty before God: it remains under the law to love and to do God’s will but always refuses and is therefore liable to eternal punishment.

Throughout this section Hoeksema contrasts the Reformed faith with Pelagianism and Arminianism. Around the forty-minute mark, he summarizes what a Pelagian and an Arminian are. They are those who always put the emphasis upon man rather than upon God. Remember that earlier in Hoeksema’s lecture he has pointed out that this was precisely the “different sound” heard in the churches. This was an explicit charge to some of the ministers in Hoeksema’s own denomination that for them to emphasize man over God is to be Pelagian and Arminian. Makes no difference. And you must choose either-or: man or God. You cannot have both. Hear Hoeksema:

I always say, beloved, “Give me God.” If I must make the choice, if I must make the choice to lose man or lose God, let me lose man. All right to me. No danger. GIVE ME GOD!! THAT’S REFORMED. And that’s especially Protestant Reformed. Give me God. There’s no salvation in man.

And with this quotation we condemn the entire apostate denomination that is the PRC. The members must choke on these words. Yea, Hoeksema’s blood cries from the ground against them. But he being dead yet speaks today with the testimony that God is GOD, and man is nothing. I ask the reader to consider what is heard from Protestant Reformed pulpits and written in Protestant Reformed magazines. Are GOD and all his glory and beauty the only things about which you are hearing? One does not have to look far into Protestant Reformed preaching and writing to see how far the churches have departed from this thoroughly Reformed view that Hoeksema promotes in this quotation. And if God is not written in every article and preached in every sermon to the absolute abasement of man, then all you have is Pelagianism, Arminianism, and modernism.

Out of the backdrop of what Hoeksema calls the “problem” of man’s moral responsibility and freedom as they are bound up in God’s counsel, he begins to address the “problem” as it pertains to the Christian. For Hoeksema the “problem” is not solved when one talks about man as justified by sovereign grace. Indeed, that man who is justified by grace only is still totally depraved by nature.

Nor, beloved, is the problem solved when you simply speak of the counsel of God and the providence of God in relation to man’s freedom and responsibility. Or when you speak simply of man’s total depravity and corruption. There’s still another fact. The problem still remains when you speak of sovereign grace and responsibility and moral freedom. Also, that problem remains. Don’t you see, in all scripture and against all scripture has been raised the objection that God by sovereign grace justifies the ungodly? That’s salvation. GOD justifies the ungodly. And he gives no account.

Understand what Hoeksema is saying here. Even when you speak of man as the object of God’s favor, his elect, God does whatsoever he pleases. Man’s fallen state as totally depraved is not changed when God saves him. God justifies the ungodly. God does not justify the godly. That ungodly man has only sin. And even after being justified, man remains ungodly. God does all this by pure, sovereign grace without giving any reason or account for his verdict to declare his elect as righteous, even as he is righteous.

This position, that even the Christian is totally depraved post-justification, is explicitly denied by the PRC today. Bruinsma, McGeown, Cammenga, and many others have stated their views contrary to scripture in so many words. Why do they deny that the elect are totally depraved? Because they want to emphasize what “He, the Holy Spirit, is able to make of a man.”⁶ And they want to have man active in performing all kinds of good works that please God and which are the way unto his fellowship. If the elect are still totally depraved, then they are completely dependent upon Christ. If the elect are no longer totally depraved, then they have some ability to do the good, something with which to cooperate with God, and thus to be their own party in God’s covenant.

Hoeksema goes further. He says,

Don’t you see that justification means exactly that the justified ones are not responsible for their sin? That’s justification! I am not responsible for my sins. I AM NOT! CHRIST IS! CHRIST is responsible for my sin. I cast them all on him by faith.

And don’t you ever tell the congregation they are responsible for their sin. God forbid. You’re a bad shepherd if you do. You must tell the congregation to cast their sins upon Christ! Tell them they are no longer responsible for their sins, tell them that by all means.

You say that’s a dangerous doctrine? Of course it isn’t. Seems that way. It isn’t. Seems that way. That will always be the objection. That was always the biblical objection against justification…

What will you tell your congregation? “Yes, yes, yes, but, but, but”? God forbid! Will you tell your congregation, “Ohhhh, you’re not responsible for your sin; Christ is responsible. BUT, but, but you must do something too”? God forbid. YOU KILL ‘EM! You’ll kill the people of God by such preaching…

The Heidelberg Catechism says, does not this doctrine of absolute free justification that casts all the responsibility of my individual sins upon Christ not make me careless and profane? [The Catechism gives] this answer: it’s impossible. Why is it impossible? Because he that is justified by grace is also sanctified by grace. And, therefore, [he] says spontaneously when you tell him, “Now you can sin as you please,” “GOD FORBID! How shall I that am dead to sin live any longer therein?” That is the answer, beloved. That’s the Christian’s responsibility, if you please. The Christian is free in the highest possible sense because his freedom is no longer rooted in his own free will but is rooted in the Son of God. If the Son of God shall make you free, then you are free indeed. That is freedom!

Don’t you ever give the congregation a moral lesson. What you must have is the freedom of Jesus Christ our Lord. When you preach that gospel, the gospel of the cross, there’s no danger of leading the congregation in ways of laxity and passivity.

Included within the corrupt “different sound” of Hoeksema’s day in 1953 was a pollution of the doctrine of justification. That is why he brings up justification at the close of this lecture. No longer was it heard off the pulpits that we are not responsible for our sins. The opposite was heard. Moral lessons were preached. The clamor was to get instruction on how we must live, practical preaching. Justification was lost.

I ask the current Protestant Reformed member, “When was the last time you were told in the preaching that you are not responsible for your sins?” More than likely, you have never even heard this off the pulpit. And if you have not heard it, you have never heard the doctrine of justification. You have never heard the gospel. This beautiful doctrine that Hoeksema expounds has been buried in Protestant Reformed history. Justification cannot be heard anymore. It is not wanted anymore. The clamor again today is for practical preaching. Moral lessons. Preaching that stimulates activity. Christ is displaced, and man gets pride of place.

The then Rev. Ronald Cammenga was not only a stranger to this doctrine of Hoeksema, but Cammenga was also an ardent opponent of that doctrine. Hoeksema’s position was that justification means that the elect are not responsible for their sins.⁷ Christ is. Cammenga’s position in 1997 and still today is that the elect are responsible for their sins. Christ is not.

Unashamedly, Professor Cammenga says in his protest to the Protestant Reformed Synod of 2017, “We must confess our sins and that begins with taking responsibility for our sins…We must take responsibility for our sins…”⁸ Although Cammenga mentions in this protest that his 1997 sermon on Proverbs 28:13 was preached as a “preparatory sermon,” this is not correct. Professor Cammenga thinks he can take refuge in the imagination that it was a preparatory sermon because apparently it is okay to preach more about man’s responsibility in a preparatory sermon rather than in a Lord’s supper sermon (which his colleagues today all agree with). A loving defender of Hoeksema’s theology, especially as it is found in his lecture, recalls more accurately as a living witness to that atrocity that Reverend Cammenga’s sermon was preached as a Lord’s supper sermon. Yet his error was all the worse on the occasion of the Lord’s supper. In the preaching prior to the celebration of the sacrament, which literally screams “Christ is responsible for all my sins” (see Matt. 26:28), the congregation at Southwest Protestant Reformed Church in 1997 was told, “You are still responsible for your sins.”

Hoeksema says, “No, sir.” The Catechism says, “No, sir.” Scripture says, “No, sir.”

God’s people were slaughtered by Cammenga’s sermon. Their eyes were taken off Christ’s perfect atonement and were fastened upon themselves and their own sins. The members of the congregation went to their homes that day unjustified. And it is no wonder that the issue was raised again in 2017 in order to show that the doctrine of Hoeksema and the beautiful truth of justification were no longer the doctrine of the current ministers of the PRC.

To the lost sheep still found in the house of Israel, let Hoeksema’s lecture be a warning to you. The ancient landmarks have been removed. The truth perishes in the streets; there is no cry for the gospel. God solemnly testifies to you to get out! Join yourself to the true church where the gospel of sovereign grace is maintained and where GOD is heard to the utter abasement of man.

Soli deo gloria.