Introduction

This editorial is intended for those readers of Sword and Shield who remain honestly skeptical that there has been a real doctrinal controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) and that this doctrinal controversy is what divides the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) from the PRC. Over the last year, when Sword and Shield laid out the doctrinal controversy in the PRC, one common response was, “I don’t see it.” This year, when the respective Acts of Separation of First and Second Reformed Protestant churches stated that the PRC were apostatizing from the truth of unconditional theology, a popular response was also to say, “I don’t see it.” In conversations with friends and family, those who do see it have often received this response from their loved ones: “I don’t see it.”

I take those readers at their word that they don’t see the false doctrine that has been taught, tolerated, and defended by the PRC. I must admit that I am puzzled how someone still does not see it in light of the multitude of protests, appeals, sermons, articles, lectures, letters, ecclesiastical decisions, and conversations that have been at pains to point out the controversy and to lay out the doctrinal issues in the controversy. But false doctrine is deceptive. False doctrine does not advertise itself as false or call attention to itself as false. False doctrine does not want to be detected as false but wants to be received as true. So false doctrine is always camouflaged and cloaked as the truth to escape being exposed as false. False doctrine is sneaky and tricky because it is the lie and comes from the devil, who is the father of the lie. “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). False doctrine is devilish not because it is so obvious but because it is so subtle. It whisssspers like a serpent. Satan is transformed into an angel of light, and his false apostles transform themselves into the apostles of Christ. They seem to preach Jesus (though he is another Jesus). They seem to bring the gospel (though it is another gospel). Their listeners seem to receive the Spirit (though it is another spirit). This is the danger of the lie! It is beguiling and deceptive and so hard to detect, and it is meant to be. The serpent beguiled Eve through subtlety, and I fear, lest by any means of the devil’s subtlety today, that your minds would be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3–4, 13–14).

Therefore, for the sake of those readers who have not yet been able to see the false doctrine in this controversy, this editorial will point out what the error has been from the beginning and will provide several examples of how this error continues yet today within the PRC. This list is not exhaustive by any means, and examples could be multiplied. Just before this issue of Sword and Shield went to press, the council of what was formerly Wingham Protestant Reformed Church signed an Act of Separation and Reformation, along with a forty-page document that lays out the doctrinal controversy clearly and compellingly. The council of First Protestant Reformed Church of Edmonton also took a decision to withdraw from the PRC and provided its own account of the doctrinal issues in the controversy. I did not know that those documents were coming as I worked on this editorial, and I was greatly edified, encouraged, and convicted when those documents landed on my desk. I find them to be more comprehensive than this editorial. However, rather than scrap this editorial, which was originally intended as a stand-alone article, I now offer it to the reader as a companion to those more thorough and authoritative documents.

The Doctrinal Issue

The doctrinal issue in the controversy is God’s covenant fellowship with the believer. God’s covenant fellowship with man is a matter of a man’s experience. Man experiences and enjoys friendship and communion with God. Man consciously experiences the favor of God upon him. He knows and enjoys the gracious forgiveness of his sins, peace with God, the shining of the light of God’s countenance upon him, and the mercy of God to him. The controversy is whether the experience of covenant fellowship is conditional or unconditional. Does man obtain the experience of covenant fellowship with God by man’s good works and his keeping of the law? If so, then there are prerequisites and conditions to man’s covenant fellowship with God. Or does man obtain and receive the experience of covenant fellowship with God entirely graciously by faith alone in Christ alone? If so, then God’s covenant fellowship with man is gracious and unconditional. From the beginning of the controversy, the Protestant Reformed Churches have taught, tolerated, and defended the position that man obtains the experience of covenant fellowship with God by his obedient keeping of the law. This is the doctrine of prerequisites for covenant fellowship. It is the doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship, though the PRC have usually (but not always) been shrewd enough not to use the word prerequisite or condition. Over against this, Sword and Shield and the Reformed Protestant Churches maintain unconditional covenant fellowship with God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

The false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship first surfaced in this controversy in 2015 with then Rev. David Overway’s sermon on John 14:6 in Hope (Walker; hereafter Hope) Protestant Reformed Church, entitled “The Way to the Father.” John 14:6 reads, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” In the sermon Rev. Overway called attention to man’s conscious experience of covenant fellowship with God: “It becomes evident that Jesus is saying, ‘I am the way unto the Father that you can consciously enter into communion with the Father’…especially his focus is, ‘You need to come into the Father’s presence consciously…I am the way so that you can come unto the Father and know him and rejoice in his fellowship consciously and with awareness’ ” (Acts of Synod 2017, 312). Rev. Overway then introduced the obedience of man, man’s holy life, and man’s godly life as the way to that conscious experience of fellowship. “The way unto the Father includes obedience.” “The way of a holy life matters. It is the way unto the Father.” “…He is the way, your way unto Me, through the truth which He works in your hearts, through a godly life…” (Acts of Synod 2016, 45).

In John 14:6, Christ alone is the way to the Father. Man’s coming to the Father on that way is by faith alone. But the sermon made man’s obedience the way to the Father. And the sermon made obedience the way to the Father in man’s conscious experience of covenant communion with the Father.

Elder Neil Meyer protested this preaching as the preaching of a conditional covenant. “The preaching of Rev. Overway is the preaching of a conditional theology, and more specifically, that of a conditional covenant…By teaching that the way unto covenant communion with God is man’s obedience and holiness, the covenant is made conditional” (Acts of Synod 2016, 73).

In response, Hope church defended the sermon as thoroughly Reformed and as the right explanation of the relationship between Christ’s work and man’s obedience. Hope, along with Grandville Protestant Reformed Church, countercharged that Elder Meyer held the heresy of antinomianism because of his opposition to the sermon and deposed him from office. 

Mr. Meyer appealed to Classis East in January 2016 and stated once again the issue at stake.

My judgment on these statements is that because they make the way of salvation and covenant communion with God include our obedience, and be our holy life and godly life, that we then no longer need rely on Jesus Christ and His obedience alone as the way of salvation and communion with God and that this therefore teaches conditional covenant theology. (Acts of Synod 2016, 92–93)

Classis East did not sustain Mr. Meyer’s appeal but defended the false doctrine of the sermon. “A fair reading of the sermon shows that the statements Mr. Meyer finds objectionable do not teach that man’s obedience is necessary to merit salvation but rather they teach that man’s obedience is the way to experience fellowship with the Father” (minutes of Classis East January 13, 2016, article 24). Classis’ position, stated clearly, was that man’s obedience is the way to experience fellowship with the Father. 

Mr. Meyer appealed to Synod 2016.

At issue is the experience of our covenant communion with God. Do we come to the Father in the way of our obedience and holy, godly life, or do we come to the Father in the way of faith alone in Christ alone apart from any of our works?

To teach that our obedience is the way [to experience fellowship with the Father], I believe, is to add to the work of Christ, which addition can only be a condition to our experience of the covenant. Rather, I believe our obedience is the sure fruit, the fruit of gratitude as it comes forth from the covenant bond and fellowship that God has established and maintains in Jesus Christ alone with all His own. (Acts of Synod 2016, 109, 122)

Synod did not sustain Mr. Meyer’s appeal but defended the sermon against the charge of conditions. “The sermon does not teach a conditional covenant” (Acts of Synod 2016, 48).

Several protests against synod’s failure to condemn the sermon came to Synod 2017. If I may be allowed a quotation from my own protest: 

I believe that this case introduces a new threat to the Protestant Reformed doctrine of the covenant. The new threat is to make man’s conscious experience of covenant fellowship conditional upon man’s obedience. The question in this case is not merely how man obtains the covenant objectively, but how he obtains the covenant subjectively. Does man obtain the right to covenant fellowship with God through Christ, but the experience of covenant fellowship through works? The truth is that, both objectively and subjectively, man obtains the covenant by Christ alone, not by man’s works. I believe the sermon taught that works are the subjective way unto the Father, that works gain for man the experience of Father’s fellowship. (Agenda for Synod 2017, 220)

The decision of Synod 2017 in response to the several protests was finally to rule against Rev. Overway’s sermon on John 14:6. Synod did this by sustaining several protests against the sermon. Nevertheless, synod’s decision was weak and would prove to be insufficient to rid the churches of the conditional theology that had set in and that had been defended to that point by so many ecclesiastical assemblies, ministers, elders, and professors.

Synod’s glaring weakness was that it failed to identify the doctrinal error of the sermon. Mr. Meyer had laid out the doctrinal issue with crystal clarity: “At issue is the experience of our covenant communion with God. Do we come to the Father in the way of our obedience and holy, godly life, or do we come to the Father in the way of faith alone in Christ alone apart from any of our works?” (Acts of Synod 2016, 109). Mr. Meyer had also expressed the truth of the experience of covenant fellowship with crystal clarity. “To teach that our obedience is the way, I believe, is to add to the work of Christ, which addition can only be a condition to our experience. Rather, I believe our obedience is the sure fruit, the fruit of gratitude as it comes forth from the covenant bond and fellowship that God has established and maintains in Jesus Christ alone with all His own” (Acts of Synod 2016, 122).

But synod never said whether this was really the issue. Synod never agreed with Mr. Meyer’s theology of unconditional covenant experience. In fact, synod took the opportunity to condemn certain godly statements of Mr. Meyer as unbiblical and unreformed. Failing to identify the false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship in the sermon and condemning Mr. Meyer as erroneous instead, synod and the denomination would be unable to eradicate the error. The denomination would be left helpless against that false doctrine when it would continue rolling through the PRC like an evil tide.

The point of this section has been to establish that the doctrinal issue in the whole controversy has been clear and well-defined from the beginning. The doctrinal issue has been man’s experience of covenant fellowship with God. The controversy has been whether man obtains the experience of covenant fellowship by his good works or whether he obtains the experience of covenant fellowship by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from his works. Is covenant fellowship conditioned on man’s work as a prerequisite? Or is covenant fellowship entirely unconditional as the gift of God’s grace through faith in Christ?

The Next Round

Even while Synod 2017 was taking place, the false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship continued to be preached and defended at Hope church. For the better part of a year before Synod 2017, seventeen more sermons of Rev. Overway had been protested by a mother in Israel, Mrs. Connie Meyer.

The false doctrine was exactly the same as it had been from the beginning: conditional covenant fellowship. Mrs. Meyer’s very first letter of protest to her consistory described the issue as clearly as possible: “The main teaching of Rev. Overway that I object to is the concept that our obedience is a condition that we must perform in order to experience the fellowship of God. I consider this theology to be that of a conditional covenant” (Acts of Synod 2018, 103).

Here are samples of the conditional covenant theology that Mrs. Meyer protested.

Our good works are God’s gift to us, Jesus’ gift to us, which He works within us as part of our salvation. Not an aftereffect of salvation. Not a result of salvation. As part of our salvation. (Acts of Synod 2018, 118)

We must pray—must pray. It’s required in order for us to enjoy God’s grace, in order for us to enjoy His Spirit, His blessing. (119)

We do good works. We can look at them. We see them. They’re obvious. They’re evident, much more so than faith is. And we can say: I see these good works. That’s proof to me that I have faith. And one only has faith who is atoned for by Jesus Christ and one only is atoned for if he is elected in eternity. I am an elect child of God. I see that by my good works. I’m assured. An important reason to do good works. (120)

We do good works so that we can have our prayers answered. (120)

We do good works so that we can receive God’s grace and Holy Spirit in our consciousness. So that we can consciously and with awareness receive the grace and Holy Spirit of God…

Someone says, I don’t feel the love of God? I don’t experience that love of God in my heart? Feels that God is far away from me. There may be different reasons for that. But very, very wise on the basis of Scripture to begin questioning ourselves: Am I really walking in good works? Am I truly repentant? Am I truly humble? Do I really believe that all my righteousness before God is found in Jesus Christ alone? And do I live out of that faith—love for God in all good works? (121)

They would enter into that rest in the land of Canaan through activity. Through activity. They would enjoy the, the finished work of their activity. They would find peace in the land of Canaan through the activity of following God, obeying His Word, believing in Him, fighting the battles of faith that He called them to. And then He assured them that He would, through their fighting, give them the victory. But through that activity they would find their peace and rest. (121–22)

When the Catechism mentions requisites or requirements, it’s talking about obedience. I must obey. It’s required of God. God requires it of me. God requires a certain obedience from me. Obedience is required here, obedience that I must perform in order to enjoy fellowship with God.

There’s requisites to fellowship, as we said, for the child of God, to the one who’s justified in Jesus Christ, the one for whom Jesus has died and atoned and satisfied for his sins. There are requirements for him to fellowship, to approaching unto God, coming to the Father.

Godliness, on the other hand, is the requirement according to Scripture for our prayers to be heard by God. I John 3:22: “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him.” Whatever we pray for, we receive. “Because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” We have true fellowship with God. We truly ask and are heard, and God receives our prayer and gives us—because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.

I’ve elected you. And I’ve done everything in you so that you walk in godliness. Why? So that when you pray as a godly person walking in godliness—when you pray, God will hear and God will answer.

What do the creeds say about the relationship between obedience and fellowship? That there are requirements. That there is obedience required in order that we may have that fellowship, prayerful fellowship with God…

The Catechism says: Come to God that way, meeting those requirements, meeting those demands of God for a proper prayer, and you can be assured you will enjoy the fellowship of God. (123–24)

Yet perhaps one would say, “Well, how much, how little ought I meet these requirements? Do I need to meet these requirements perfectly before God will hear? Do I meet these requirements somewhat, or but a little, just a tiny bit and then God will hear my prayer?” The answer really is very simple. Very simple. If we but meet these requirements a little bit, by the grace of God, of course, and by God’s grace working them in us—if we meet these requirements but a little, then we will enjoy a little of God’s fellowship. That’s the truth. If we meet these requirements a lot, then we will enjoy much of God’s fellowship.

And don’t come to God with a little bit of humility. If you have a little bit of humility in your heart and a little bit of the knowledge of a little bit of your sins, you’ll have but a little the enjoyment [sic] of God’s fellowship. (124)

Are we assured of the forgiveness of our sins without good works? Do good works do nothing to assure me of forgiveness, that I’m justified? Of course, they do. Jesus says it in plain English in the passage before us. And for one to hold otherwise simply contradicts the plain words of Jesus Christ our Savior.

Forgive others. Live in that obedience. Live out of those good works. And only in that way will you be assured that you’re forgiven, that you are justified by Jesus Christ your Savior. (124–25)

We must place those commandments before, not despise them, not say: Jesus Christ has accomplished all the law of God, so I can put away the law, I can ignore the law. But rather, we hold up that law as the guide for thankfulness, as that code of good conduct, and thereby the way in which we can enjoy good fellowship with our Savior. (128)

So it is between God and His bride, Christ and His bride. So it is between Jesus Christ and His people. How then can we know His love? How can we continue to see His love displayed? How can we continue to enjoy that love and be assured of that love for us? It’s by keeping His commandments. That’s what He says. If ye keep My commandments, you walk in obedience to Me, you walk the way that a human friend ought to walk with Me, your Savior and God. If you keep My commandments, then you will know My unbreakable love for you. (131)

But there is, of course, that other courtroom, isn’t there. We talked about it earlier when we talked about the subjective side of justification. There’s that courtroom that exists within our hearts, within our, within our mind. And that’s what James is speaking of. Abraham was justified, that is, in his heart. He became aware, he became more conscious of the justifying work, of God’s declaring him righteous. He became more aware of it in his heart—how?

By looking at his works and giving a proper evaluation of those works…

So it is for us. We see. We look at our good works in the same way. Never of any value to make me be declared righteous before God, but always of help in finding and maintaining assurance that God has justified me through Christ and Christ alone. (143)

Almost unbelievably, the response of Rev. Overway, the consistory, and other ministers who became involved was to defend these sermons for nearly two full years against the protest. The consistory maintained that the theology of these sermons was sound Reformed doctrine.

In the meantime, a special committee of four leading ministers had been appointed by classis to assist Hope in the controversy. The four ministers—Rev. Garry Eriks, Rev. Carl Haak, Rev. James Slopsema, and Rev. Ronald Van Overloop—wrote a doctrinal statement as their proposed answer to the controversy, which statement the consistory of Hope adopted as its answer to Mrs. Meyer. The full title of the doctrinal statement shows that the ministers and consistory understood the doctrinal issue at stake to be the experience of covenant fellowship: “Doctrinal Statement Re Experiencing Fellowship with the Father.” However, the doctrinal statement continued the same error of making man’s obedient good works the means to man’s experience of covenant fellowship, thus making the experience of covenant fellowship conditional.

It is by the exercise of faith that this covenant life of friendship and fellowship is experienced and enjoyed…

The elect believer comes to experience and enjoy covenant fellowship with the Father as he exercises his faith…

Scripture and the confessions also emphasize the necessity of the exercise of faith in a holy life of obedience to enjoy the intimacy of the Father’s fellowship.

…Scripture and the confessions emphasize the need for holiness to enjoy God’s fellowship…

This need for a holy life of obedience to enjoy the Father’s fellowship does not stand independent of faith but must be seen as the exercise of faith. It is only by a living, sanctifying faith which exercises itself in obedience that we can experience and enjoy God’s fellowship (Eph. 2:8; Acts 26:18)…

When the Scriptures, therefore, emphasize the need for a holy life of obedience to experience the fellowship of God, it does so to emphasize the necessity of a living, sanctifying faith for such fellowship. One can have fellowship with the holy God only through a sanctifying faith. (Acts of Synod 2018, 195–99)

Mrs. Meyer appealed all of this to Classis East in January 2018. Classis East rejected her appeal, thus defending the doctrine of the sermons. Even though classis also made some negative comments about certain statements in the sermons, classis did not condemn those sermons as false doctrine. The statements were merely “ambiguous” or “forced,” according to classis (Acts of Synod 2018, 223–24), but whatever they were, they were definitely not the false doctrine of conditions. Classis rejected Mrs. Meyer’s appeal for the explicit reason that classis did not believe the sermons contained conditional theology. “Mrs. Meyer errs in her understanding of what constitutes a condition in the covenant. This error largely explains why Mrs. Meyer impugns many statements as conditions that are in fact not conditions at all” (225). And classis instructed Hope’s consistory “to require that Mrs. Meyer retract her accusation against her consistory ‘that the teaching of Hope Consistory is the teaching of a conditional covenant and justification by faith and works’ and do so in writing both to her consistory, pastor, and congregation” (226).

Mrs. Meyer appealed to Synod 2018. Oh, how I have trumpeted Synod 2018! Synod upheld Mrs. Meyer’s appeal. Synod 2018 said that there was doctrinal error in the sermons. Synod 2018 even condemned the doctrinal error in resounding terms. 

The doctrinal error of the sermons then compromises the gospel of Jesus Christ, for when our good works are given a place and function they do not have, the perfect work of Christ is displaced. Necessarily then, the doctrines of the unconditional covenant (fellowship with God) and justification by faith alone are compromised by this error. (Acts of Synod 2018, 70)

I love those specific decisions of Synod 2018. I agree with them. Oh, how I wished—and believed!—that Synod 2018 was a victory of the truth over the lie. And it could have been, if only the denomination had embraced the rejection of the sermons and had run with that rejection! But there was dreadful weakness in the decisions of Synod 2018. As so often before, I have had to learn this from the office of believer, as God’s people bring the word of God and the confessions for my instruction (see Miss Sara Doezema’s letter in Sword and Shield 2, no. 2 [June 15, 2021]: 19–23). Synod 2018, for all its condemnation of the error of the sermons, faltered at the critical point of condemning the conditional covenant fellowship theology that was rampant in the sermons. Synod would not alert the churches to the wicked theology of conditional covenant fellowship that had blown up in her midst. Synod refused to call the error false doctrine or heresy. The most synod was willing to do was allow Mrs. Meyer her conscience in using those terms, but synod itself declared them to be “extreme characterizations” (Acts of Synod 2018, 86).

Not only was there dreadful weakness in synod’s decisions, but there was dreadful weakness in the denomination that somehow adopted the decisions of Synod 2018. Within only a few months of Synod 2018, the same false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship was being taught and defended again, as if Synod 2018 had never happened.

The point of this section has been to establish that the false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship was blatant and obvious by the time of Synod 2018. And yet the false doctrine had been heard, studied, tolerated, defended, and excused at all levels of the denomination by all of her leading men. Even the ecclesiastical assembly that condemned the sermons as doctrinal error failed to identify the doctrinal issue head-on, failed to condemn it as heresy, and thus failed to protect the churches from the error, which now multiplies in the PRC.

False Doctrine Continued

Since Synod 2018, the false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship continues unchecked in the PRC. Contrary to those who maintain that the whole controversy was settled in 2018, these examples are provided to show that the false doctrine has continued. They are given in chronological order after Synod 2018.

———

There is something very important here because at stake here is not just what you bring to your earthly family. Of greater importance is what you bring to the household of faith, the broader family of God, and to God your Father in heaven. There are times when God is ashamed to be called our God…

Abraham didn’t have his one child yet, and his wife was too old to conceive, and he didn’t own one square foot in the land of Canaan, but he believed and he had his vision set beyond that to the Christ and to the heavenly Canaan, and in godliness and in hope; and God was not ashamed to be called his God. But there are times when God’s people make God ashamed to be called their God. Abraham’s nephew, Lot—remember Lot? He was a troublemaker. He thought of himself…

His godliness was at a very low ebb through all of his life, and many times God was ashamed to be called his God. He did not bring honor and glory to the family of God. God forbid that be true of you or me…

Now look at Job, and this is where I’m going to finish this morning—Job…In all these things, Job sinned not with his lips, remaining faithful. “Do you see my servant Job?” God says to Satan. “Do you see him? He’s a crown of glory to me. Look at him. Do you see my servant Job?” In the day of judgment, we’re going to stand before Christ. Our works, our lives are all going to be exposed. What’s the Lord going to say of you? “Do you see my servant? Do you see my servant?” Let’s live in godliness, grow in godliness, to be a crown of honor and glory to our family but above all to the family of God and to our heavenly Father, who has saved the likes of you and me. Amen. (Rev. James Slopsema, sermon in Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church on Proverbs 17:6, “Being a Crown of Glory to Our Family” [July 22, 2018])

———

It is true that, when it comes to things spiritual, there is that which one is called to do, indeed, is required to do. But is it altogether improper for preachers so much as to suggest that there is that which one can do (is able to do)? And then, in the end, to go so far as to declare that if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do? Surely, that is altogether unbiblical and unreformed, it is sometimes argued.

Such, the Arminians alleged, was the logical conclusion of the “hyper-Reformed.”

This allegation the Canons reject and condemn…

That the writers of the Canons insisted that the gospel preached was a necessary means of grace (cf. the opening sentence of Art. 17) means they confessed and taught that if a man with his household was to be saved and consciously enter into the kingdom, placing himself with his family under the rule of Christ as his Lord and Savior, he was called, he was required, to respond obediently to the call and command of the gospel—“Repent and believe, that thou mightiest [sic] be saved with thy house”…

There was something they were called to do [for salvation]. And they did it. (Kenneth Koole, “What Must I Do…?” Standard Bearer 95, no. 1 [October 1, 2018]: 7–8)

———

There can be no equality there. We do little. God rewards greatly and yet there is a correlation so that we understand the less of a good work, or the less good that a good work is, the less or smaller the reward. The less number of works, the less of a reward one receives. So too with regard to the more. The more that one walks in good works, the more of a reward is received. The greater the suffering for Christ’s sake, for example, the greater the reward that is given according to that obedience or that good work…

Granted, we must speak very carefully about the reward of grace and we ought be very clear as we speak of the reward of grace, but we must speak of the reward of grace and without the fear of the justification template being laid over what we are speaking of. We speak not of justification, not of justification by faith alone when we speak of the reward of grace, but of the reward of grace as taught in the word of God and in the creeds…

That’s an answer spoken out of faith. That’s an answer spoken out of a faith that believes in justification on the basis of Jesus Christ alone and as appropriated by faith alone, and as justified, the believing one is justified or justified by faith, believing then also in the experience of the child of God on the basis of Christ, as appropriated by faith, in the way of good works and obedience, according to good works and obedience, rewarded in grace. (Rev. David Overway, sermon in Hope Protestant Reformed Church on Lord’s Day 24, “The Reward of Grace” [December 23, 2018])

[After Hope’s consistory defended this sermon for a full year, Classis East was willing to criticize some of the statements in this sermon. However, both classis and synod maintained that these statements had nothing to do with the previous errors that were condemned by Synod 2018.]

———

You make reference to a sermon by H. Hoeksema on Acts 16:30, 31 dealing with the conversion of the Philippian jailer, an incident in which the jailer, having witnessed the great earthquake that he correctly connected to the unjust punishment and imprisonment of Paul and Silas, cries out “Sirs, what must I do?” In that sermon HH makes plain that he is convinced that this was really an improper question, the jailer with his heathen background thinking that there was something he had yet to do or could do (some good work or sacrifice to be made) to placate God and be spared wrath. To which question, according to HH, Paul should (or could) have replied, “Nothing! There is nothing you should do, nothing you can do.” Meaning, of course, that when Paul responds by saying “Believe,” he is really saying there is nothing you are called to do (or required to do), and that even faith itself is not a doing, an act of obedience, to the call of the gospel. In response to the call of the gospel, the command to repent and believe, there is nothing that one must (is required) to do. One must simply cling.

Although, in the interest of consistency, HH would not, really could not say, “One must cling.” In this sermon he wants nothing to do with the word “must,” not even “must believe.” Rather, faith is a clinging to, and that is all that may be said.

I was well aware of the sermon prior to writing the October 1 editorial. I have had that sermon (typed out by C. Hanko) for some time.

Simply put, there are aspects of HH’s explanation with which I do not agree. HH is mistaken when he views the question of the jailer as a wrong-headed question, claiming there was nothing that the Philippian jailer was called to do and that, when to that question Paul responds “Believe, and thou shalt be saved and thy house,” Paul was in essence saying, “There is nothing you are called to do, nothing you must do.”

Quite frankly, if it were anyone else than HH, at this point I would say, Nonsense! So all I will say is, I disagree. (Kenneth Koole, “Response,” Standard Bearer 95, no. 12 [March 15, 2019]: 279)

———

“If any man will hear my voice.” He’s not establishing, of course, a condition. There are none. But he is talking about—not the condition to establish a union—but he is establishing a condition that deals with communion. Not union. That’s grace, it’s all grace, only grace. But communion, fellowship”…

In the way of that repentance and daily constant turning conversion, that’s when we enjoy or are aware of that blessed fellowship, that consciousness that God is with us and he will never forsake us. (Rev. Ronald Van Overloop, sermon in Faith Protestant Reformed Church on Revelation 3:14–22, “The Church of Christ at Laodicea” [June 23, 2019])

[After Grace’s consistory defended this sermon for a full year and a half, classis finally made the meaningless decision that this sermon taught the error of the heresy of a conditional covenant. Whatever “error of the heresy” means, it does not mean that the sermon was heresy. And whatever “error of the heresy” means, it certainly protected Rev. Van Overloop from being identified as a heretic. Though he taught the “error of the heresy” of a conditional covenant, classis specifically noted that Rev. Van Overloop did not sin and that classis did not question his orthodoxy. (See minutes of Classis East January 13, 2021, articles 41, 45.)]

———

We’re asking ourselves in the third part of the Catechism, not only how can I say thanks to God for salvation, but actually, how can I walk hand in hand with God? How can I walk in a way in which I enjoy the smiling face of God upon me in my life? How can I, if I can put it that way, embrace God and hug him? And you can’t do that physically. The Heidelberg Catechism is saying you can walk in love with God, embrace him and hug him, by living a life of good works. And that’s why we can also say, beloved, that the more you live a life of conversion, the more that you walk in good works, the more you will experience God’s love and fellowship, the more you will experience the blessing of salvation. And that does not mean at all that the more you do good works, the more you earn or make yourself worthy of God’s love and the experience of salvation. Not at all.

Let me try to explain it this way: think of a small child who delights in loving his mother. He delights in loving his mother and enjoying her love by embracing and hugging her, and that’s a wonderful thing. And now some of the older young people in the congregation might think, “I’ve outgrown that”; but let’s all agree that that’s a beautiful thing—a little child sitting on his mother’s lap, hugging her and enjoying that. That little child doesn’t think to himself, “Now, the more that I embrace my mother and hug her, the more I’ll earn this fellowship with her.” But he understands it’s in hugging her that I’m enjoying fellowship with her, and he understands: the more I do this—the more I hug and embrace her—the more I will enjoy her embrace and fellowship as well. Well, so it is with the life of conversion and good works. If the life of good works is the life of living in joy and fellowship with God, then you understand, the more you do that, the more that joy and fellowship you will have. It really is something like this: the more you fellowship with God, the more you enjoy fellowship with God. And because the life of turning from sin and living in obedience to God is the life of fellowship with him, the more you do that, the more you will enjoy the love of God your Father for Jesus’ sake. (Rev. Clayton Spronk, sermon in Faith Protestant Reformed Church on Lord’s Day 33, “Christian Conversion” [September 13, 2020])

———

In fact, the more faithful the saints are to God’s law in the grace of Jesus Christ, the more they prosper in the great blessings of the covenant. They prosper in their marriages, in their family life, and in their church life. Above all, they prosper in the enjoyment of God’s covenant fellowship. (James Slopsema, “Treasure in the House of the Righteous,” Standard Bearer 97, no. 2 [October 15, 2020]: 28)

———

Beloved, the question is: Are you seeking the grace that is available? Now that may sound a bit strange from PR pulpits: seeking the grace that is available? But it is proper. I am not talking about regenerating grace. That’s sovereign grace that renews a man. I’m talking about the grace of which the Heidelberg Catechism speaks: He will give his grace and Holy Spirit to those only who ask them in sincerity for them. That’s the grace and Holy Spirit, beloved, to withstand temptation. And we don’t have that automatically! We receive that grace, that Holy Spirit, to withstand temptation as we seek; and seeking by prayer in Christ’s name, we receive. And then! we can make progress in our spiritual life in this life’s pilgrimage. (Rev. Kenneth Koole, sermon in Hope Protestant Reformed Church on Exodus 16:1–31, “Manna Sent from Heaven” [November 29, 2020])

———

God’s sovereignty, man’s responsibility. God’s gifts and Christ’s merits does not exclude God’s use of means, does not exclude God’s gift of the use of the means of our obedience. One more time: God’s gifts and Christ’s merits does not exclude God’s sovereign use of the means of our obedience. So as the inspired word in Hebrews 4:11 says, “Labour…to enter into the rest, lest [ye] fall…[in] unbelief.” Labor to enter into the rest, lest ye fall in unbelief, Hebrews 4:11. And that labor is what we identified in Deuteronomy 10:12: keep his commandments.

God’s sovereignty never removes responsibility because responsibility is determined by God’s commandments. What doth God require of thee? Circumcise the foreskin of your heart. And that, beloved, is not something you do once and you got ‘er done. A physical foreskin being cut off in circumcision: once, it’s finished. The calling to circumcise the foreskin of our hearts never stops. How many times every day?…

And yet God commanded; I performed a duty. Two rails. They go side by side. In the wisdom of God—his sovereignty, our responsibility. And it’s all grace, and nothing but grace. 

And that’s where our gratitude grows and our desire to be obedient unto his commandments arises—the way God works. (Rev. Ronald Van Overloop, sermon in Grace Protestant Reformed Church on Joshua 13:1–6, “Calling toward the Canaanites” [November 29, 2020])

———

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.

Even one who is “mentally challenged” can understand James [4:8] to be teaching that it is our solemn, serious calling to draw nigh to God; that in a certain sense our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us; and that it is not Christian orthodoxy to deny our serious calling or that in a certain sense our drawing nigh to God precedes His drawing nigh to us…

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. Let even the “idiot” Christians among us take note that the text plainly says so. Second, this sense has to do with our experience of salvation, which is not an unimportant aspect of our salvation. When we draw nigh to God, by faith including faith’s repentance, God draws nigh to us in our experience. We have the consciousness that God is our near-by friend and that we are close to Him, in His bosom, which is Jesus, so to say.

Presenting my thought as man’s preceding God is sheer falsehood. The truth is, as I also made plain, that our drawing nigh to God, by His effectual call, precedes God’s drawing nigh to us in our experience. (Prof. David Engelsma, public emails to family forum and Terry Dykstra [June 14, 16–17, 2021])

The purpose of this section has been to show that the false doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship continues to be taught in the PRC to this day. The error is crafty and subtle, as the lie always intends to be, but the error has been well-defined from the beginning, so that there is no excuse for not knowing what the error is.

May the Lord use this editorial as a companion to the documents mentioned above as a help to those who continue to say, “I don’t see it.”