Dear brethren in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am writing this article from a different perspective, then some of the saints, that have already written.

I am writing because of a concern I have with regards to Article 21 of the church order. No one appears to be troubled by this, but I believe that this is a serious error. We have just come out of the Protestant Reformed Churches, because of their conditional stand on the Word of God and the covenant. Now it would seem that we are returning to a conditional covenant with Article 21. It states that the parents must train their children in christian schools, as a demand of the covenant. I was taught that the covenant stood alone and the demands of the covenant, (the commandments from God or ten commandments) were fulfilled through the perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ. He came to this earth in our nature, and died on the cross to satisfy God’s justice for our sake. We have many references to this fulfillment in the Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, Belgic confession and Scripture etc. Yet here we have a demand or condition placed in the covenant that requires our fulfilling in order for us to receive the benefits of the covenant and it’s promises by the establishment of a christian school. Here, again we have something man must do first before he receives covenant blessings.

The reason I have become more concerned, is statements Rev Lanning made in his editorial regarding Christian education as a demand of the covenant. I quote: “Although the form of a Christian school may vary according to circumstances, God’s covenant demands that there be a Christian school.” There he states that the demand is in or part of the covenant, which says that the work of Christ in the covenant is not complete. It requires Christian schools to fulfill the covenant conditions. Further in the article he states, “Inasmuch as the covenant of God requires a Christian school, the covenant also forbids independentism in the rearing of the covenant seed.” Again “Covenant fellowship and fulfillment requires Christian schools”. This is one of the statements in the controversy, that in order to have the Covenant fellowship of God, man has to do something first, which in this case is have a christian school. The Covenant is independent of works, as I said earlier. The education of our children through schools is the fruit of the Covenant rather then a fulfillment of the Covenant. The catechism in the same way, shows in so many ways that the law of God is now done in gratitude not to fulfill the law for our justification, but to serve God in love. Schooling of our children should be done out of gratitude and love. The Catechism in Art 38 does not state it as a demand of the covenant, but more like our forefathers stated, that the consistories are to see to it that the Christian Schools be maintained. This is a calling on the part of the office-bearers to oversee schools. Also when you see where our forefathers placed this question, you can see that it is placed under the heading of Thankfulness or Gratitude. The passage that Rev Lanning uses to prove a demand of the covenant Deut 6:4-9, begins with a commandment which, calls Gods people to love God with all their heart, soul and might. Jesus also takes this up in Matt 22:37-40 “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” The Lord shows that the commandments are about the love of God, which, then shows itself, in our loving our neighbour, as part of the second table of the law. Our neighbours then, are our children who God calls us to train out of love. So because our covenant relationship with God, is through our Lord Jesus Christ’s work, we as parents have a calling to train our children with what ever tools God provides at that time. These tools do not make the Covenant conditional to our salvation as a demand of the covenant, but are used as tools of gratitude for that purpose.

The original article of the Church Order in the 1600’s never had this statement: Quote “All consistories shall see to it that there be good school masters who not only teach the children reading, writing, languages and liberal arts but also train them in godliness and the catechism.” I realize that this was in state run schools, when the state still had some semblance of Christianity, so there was no need for schools run by christian parents. As society evolved the state run schools became corrupted so the article needed to evolve to include the parents, school masters and schools. After that it didn’t change much more until 1914 or around that time, when the Christian Reformed Church Synod decided to add this statement to the church order. They had no trouble with this because they were already on the road to a conditional doctrine. It troubled me when I joined the Protestant Reformed Churches in 1975, that the churches accepted this statement in the church order when it was so conditional, because they claimed to be unconditional in their doctrine. But we had other difficulties with the PRC at that time and didn’t pursue it. Now we have joined the RPC and they have taken this statement and used it to explain the need for Christian Schools. Now don’t get me wrong, I agree the Christian School is a good tool for Christian parents to use and should be used, just as home schooling and the use of the internet is, and for me, it is a tool that we are blessed to use at this time, but not conditional to my salvation or my covenant fellowship with God. Also Christian Schools in themselves cannot fulfill the covenant demand, because they are only buildings that are filled with sinful teachers and children and not the perfect work of Christ.

We as parents, have raised eight children and sent them to a Christian School, as well as home schooled some of them, due to some difficulties in the Christian School. When I look at how sinful our attempts at training our children were, we can never say we fulfilled the demand of the covenant. And if we didn’t rest in Christs fulfillment of the covenant, we would lose the assurance of our salvation. Also, we trust in God’s election from before the foundation of the world that he will save the seed of his covenant people through the preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit. We took our responsibility very serious, but still see our many failures, as weak sinful parents and therefore need that assurance that Christ is our Saviour and has fulfilled the covenant demands for us. He has made us righteous, not the act of having a Christian school. We could only do this work to the best of our ability and leave the rest in Gods hands. The results have brought joy to our lives, because we see the wonderful work of God and  his Holy Spirit, in the faith of many of our children despite our failings.

As the time of Antichrist draws closer, we will not be able to have Christian Schools available to us. There are signs today, where governments are attempting to change current Christian curriculum to to their own sinful agenda. But teachers and schools here in Canada, have so far been able to circumvent these false doctrines without incurring the government’s wrath. Jesus himself stated in Matt 24:16-20 that the church would be persecuted and would have to flee to the mountains, leaving behind all their worldly goods. You may say O yes, but those are exceptions, but if you study the history of the world, you will see many, many occasions when this did happen. At the time of the apostles the Christians had to flee Jerusalem, leaving behind all their schools and worldly goods. In Europe the Christians were persecuted and imprisoned and either fled to America or were sent there as prisoners. These Christians made churches and preaching a priority, and many of the women taught their children reading and writing etc, but the parents together taught the Word of God to their children. They did this through personal instruction and example as well as catechism by the preachers.  There are many more examples of Christians fleeing. Even today many Christians are fleeing and being persecuted.  Did all of these parents then fail to fulfill the demands of the covenant by not establishing a christian school. Were they not saved or receive the assurance of covenant blessings? No of course not! We have been spoiled with wealth and riches, so it is easy to say that the school is required as part of the covenant, making it a conditional covenant, but it was not always so. As society changes again, we also need to remove that statement from article 21, to meet the needs of the parents. They will still have the responsibility of training their children in the Word of God no matter where they are and with what tools are available to them. So again the child of God would be a failure in training, because there would be no schools to send them to, resulting in the breaking of the covenant and  no salvation or covenant fellowship for them.

As you can see this is very troubling for me. I have studied some church orders from other reformed churches, and none of them have accepted this statement in their church order. I will quote three of these here.

United Reformed Church: The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practised. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the ministers and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centred schooling, visit the members  of the congregation according to their needs, etc.

Free Reformed Church, Art 54: The Consistories shall see to it that the parents, in harmony with the promises made at the baptism of their children, have them taught at schools where the instruction is in accordance with the Word of God and the Three Forms of Unity.

Canadian Reformed Church, Art 58: The consistory shall ensure that the parents, to the best of their ability, have their children attend a school where the instruction given is in harmony with the Word of God as the church has summarized it in her confessions.

I can quote more of them, but will limit it to three. The CRC of Australia has removed this statement as well, and the Free Reformed of Australia also does not use it. Also as you can see the Canadian Reformed Church doesn’t have the demand in their church order. The schools are well attended, the buildings have expanded, and more teachers hired, to handle the new students that attend. When the CRC began to ignore the demand of the covenant, it was not the cause of the lack of school attendance. The CRC by 2005 had failed to maintain the truth of the Word of God, so that many of the saints of God had fled the church. The preaching no longer called the people of God to bring forth the covenant seed, so the people used birth control which resulted in a large loss of the number of children. Couples would also delay having children until they were financially established. This is my experience in Canada.

If the churches stay true to preaching the truth of Gods Word, the guiding of the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of Gods people the love of God and their children, to move them to send their children to a Christian School.

The baptismal form is correct when it states that the parents make a promise before God to raise their children in the truth of Gods Word. This promise does not make their covenant relationship with God conditional, but comes out of that covenant relationship of fellowship and friendship in the work of our Saviour, which blessings they have received. I think Rev Lanning describes the Covenant very nicely. They realize that when making this promise, it is in sin and weakness, but to the best of their ability, through the work of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise they could never make such a promise. The parents also will train their children, because first they love their children dearly and wish them to have the joy that we as parents have in salvation. Secondly they love God dearly as the Holy Spirit guides them to know Gods love and grace, which results in the blessed work of raising these children in his name, using Christian Schools as they are available. As Gods says, our weakness manifests Gods grace, wisdom and power.

I am writing this so that the ministers, elders and deacons and the saints in our church may think on this and discuss it. Some may not agree with me but I am convicted that this is a conditional statement and should be studied, looked at and even removed.

So I believe that the article in the church order should be changed so that it does not reflect a conditional covenant, thereby attempting to  mislead Gods people to think that training their children in a Christian school, is a good work that will fulfill the covenant or that it may take away their hope of salvation because they recognize, how sinful and with what frailty, they preformed their calling before their God.

Your brother in Christ Art Tolsma.

From the First PRC of Edmonton.

REPLY

An Advance

As Mr. Tolsma’s letter indicates, the Reformed Protestant Churches are in the midst of controversy regarding the Reformed doctrine of the Christian school. The Reformed doctrine of the Christian school, as stated in article 21 of the Church Order, is that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant. The Reformed doctrine of the Christian school, as stated in Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism, is that the fourth commandment requires that the Christian schools be maintained. Some members of the Reformed Protestant Churches deny that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant and that the Christian school is required by God. In this denial they stand opposed to their own confession and to their own Church Order. Their denial of the Reformed doctrine of the Christian school has erupted in controversy in the Reformed Protestant Churches.

Mr. Tolsma’s letter marks an advance in the controversy. For this reason I am very thankful for his letter. I heartily disagree with his letter, but I am grateful that he has advanced the controversy. The controversy over the Reformed doctrine of the Christian school has been good for the Reformed Protestant Churches. God uses controversy to sharpen his church and to reform his church. The reform is either that the church stands upon sound doctrine, to the exclusion of those who oppose the sound doctrine; or that a church institute apostatizes from sound doctrine, so that a new church institute must be formed. Mr. Tolsma’s advance of the controversy will also be good for the Reformed Protestant Churches, under God’s blessing.

Mr. Tolsma advances the controversy by bringing to the pages of Sword and Shield an issue that has been mentioned in the magazine in principle but that has not been explicitly addressed in the magazine. Mr. Tolsma recognizes this:

I am writing this article from a different perspective, then some of the saints, that have already written.

I am writing because of a concern I have with regards to Article 21 of the church order. No one appears to be troubled by this, but I believe that this is a serious error.

To this point the debate on the pages of Sword and Shield has been whether the word “schools” in the confessions and Church Order actually means schools or whether the word “schools” can also mean homeschools or something other than schools. The debate has also been whether the phrase “demands of the covenant” and the word “require” apply to the school or only to covenantal instruction. That is, is the school the demand of the covenant, or is the demand of the covenant only Christian upbringing, whether that happens in a school or not? The debate has also been whether or not scripture teaches that the school is the demand of the covenant.

Mr. Tolsma’s letter now advances the controversy by alleging that a demand of the covenant is a condition of the covenant. For him the debate is not what “schools” mean but what “demands of the covenant” mean. For Mr. Tolsma “demands of the covenant” mean “conditions of the covenant.” Therefore, he rejects article 21 of the Church Order with its language of “the demands of the covenant” because he is convicted that the article teaches a conditional covenant. This marks an advance in the controversy. The question that Mr. Tolsma now puts to the Reformed Protestant Churches is, “Article 21, Conditional?” The answer that he proposes to the Reformed Protestant Churches is that “demands of the covenant” in article 21 “is a conditional statement and should be studied, looked at and even removed.” The end of the matter for Mr. Tolsma, and he hopes for the Reformed Protestant Churches, is “that the article in the church order should be changed so that it does not reflect a conditional covenant.”

An Understanding…

Mr. Tolsma is an opponent of article 21, but he is one of the few opponents of article 21 who reads right. He correctly understands that “demands of the covenant” in article 21 refer to “schools” and not only to Christian instruction: “[Article 21] states that the parents must train their children in christian schools, as a demand of the covenant.”

Mr. Tolsma is correct in his understanding that article 21 identifies the school as the demand of the covenant. In this understanding he breaks ranks with his fellow opponents of article 21. Opposition to article 21 usually takes the form of an opponent’s denying that the phrase “the demands of the covenant” refers to “schools.” The opponent of article 21 insists that “the demands of the covenant” refer only to Christian parental instruction but not to schools. For the opponent of article 21, the good Christian school is not a demand of the covenant.

This is the Protestant Reformed opposition to article 21 by its reinterpretation of the article at its 2009 synod.

The phrase “according to the demands of the covenant” in Article 21 modifies “instructed” and not “the good Christian schools.” Thus, according to Article 21, what the covenant demands is Christian instruction; but the covenant does not demand the particular form this instruction takes, namely, the Christian day schools.¹

Within the Reformed Protestant Churches, this is the opposition to article 21 by Rev. Martin VanderWal.

But does this Article state that “good Christian schools” are “the demands of the covenant”? Cutting out the middle part of the article is it proper to read it this way: “The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools according to the demands of the covenant.”

Should one read the Article this way, he cannot reach the conclusion that good Christian schools are the demand of the covenant…

If “the demands of the covenant” were meant to apply to Christian schools themselves, it would not have been written in its form in the Church Order.²

This interpretation of article 21 is opposition to the article because it guts the article of its plain force and meaning. Article 21 reads, “The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant” (Confessions and Church Order, 387).

The plain subject of article 21 is the “good Christian schools.” The article says nothing about other forms of child-rearing, such as parental instruction in the home or catechetical instruction in the church. Article 21 is strictly about the “good Christian schools.” The requirement of article 21 is that “the consistories shall see to it.” Consistories shall see to it that there are schools, and consistories shall see to it that parents have their children instructed in those schools. Though there are many other things that parents also ought to be doing in the rearing of their children, article 21 says nothing about those other things. The one subject of article 21 is the good Christian schools. Therefore, when article 21 brings up “the demands of the covenant,” it brings up those demands as the reason consistories shall see to the good Christian schools. The schools are “according to the demands of the covenant.” Consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools because good Christian schools are the demand of the covenant. Consistories shall see to it that parents have their children instructed in these schools because good Christian schools are the demand of the covenant.

I suppose that we could wrangle forever over the grammar of article 21 and never come to an agreement about which phrase modifies which. But all of this wrangling is put to rest by Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Lord’s Day 38 explains the fourth commandment of God’s law. God’s law is a covenant law. It is the law of “the Lord thy God” (Ex. 20:2). “The Lord thy God” is God’s covenant formula. The law is God’s demand for his covenant people, teaching them how to live in gratitude to their covenant God. To borrow the language of Church Order article 21, we could say that the ten commandments are “the demands of the covenant.” Lord’s Day 38 teaches that in the fourth commandment, “God require[s]…that…the schools be maintained” (Confessions and Church Order, 128). In the fourth commandment the demand of the covenant is the school.

It is so simple! Our covenant God requires the school.

Why, then, all of the angst and wrangling over article 21? Why all of the endless prattle to prove that “the demands of the covenant” cannot possibly modify “good Christian schools”? It is the plain teaching of the Reformed confession that God’s covenant law for his people requires that they maintain Christian schools. It is not a strange new thing for a Reformed denomination to teach that the school is the demand of the covenant. The Christian school as demand of the covenant is the old paths.

It is here where I appreciate Mr. Tolsma’s honesty in dealing with article 21. He is an opponent of article 21, but he is one of the few opponents of article 21 who correctly understands that the demand of the covenant in article 21 is the school itself.

…And a Misunderstanding

However, Mr. Tolsma is gravely mistaken in his explanation of how the demand of the covenant functions. For Mr. Tolsma a demand of the covenant can only function as a condition in the covenant. For Mr. Tolsma a demand of the covenant can only mean something that man does first in the covenant in order to receive what God will do second in the covenant.

Yet here we have a demand or condition placed in the covenant that requires our fulfilling in order for us to receive the benefits of the covenant and it’s promises by the establishment of a christian school. Here, again we have something man must do first before he receives covenant blessings.

Mr. Tolsma’s understanding of demands is wrong in two respects. First, Mr. Tolsma wrongly understands the phrase “demands of the covenant” to mean “demands unto the covenant.” That is, he assumes that if God demands anything in his covenant with man, then man must fulfill that covenant demand before man can obtain covenant fellowship with God. The demands, then, are the conditions, prerequisites, and contingencies upon which God’s fellowship with man depends.

With this misunderstanding Mr. Tolsma reads every reference to a demand of the covenant to mean a condition unto the covenant. For example, he takes statements such as “Although the form of a Christian school may vary according to circumstances, God’s covenant demands that there be a Christian school” to mean “There he states that the demand is in or part of the covenant, which says that the work of Christ in the covenant is not complete. It requires Christian schools to fulfill the covenant conditions.”

Mr. Tolsma’s error is his assumption that a demand of the covenant is a demand unto the covenant. The reality is that a demand of the covenant means a demand because of the covenant. God has established his covenant of grace with elect believers and their seed in Christ. God has graciously made his people members of his family and taken them into his fellowship. God graciously maintains that covenant, perfects that covenant, and gives his people all of the blessed joy of that covenant. There is nothing that God’s people are required to do in order to remain in the covenant or in order to prosper in the covenant.

Now, God gives demands to his people because of that covenant that he has established and maintains. Not unto the covenant but because of the covenant. They are to love him. They are to love their neighbors. They are to have no idols. They are to go to church. They are to maintain schools. And they are to do all of this not in order that they may have a covenant with God but because they already have a covenant with God by his gracious establishment of that covenant with them in Christ.

Another way to say this is that the why of the demand is all-important. The difference between a conditional covenant and an unconditional covenant is not whether there are demands in the covenant. It is not the case that a conditional covenant says that there are demands in the covenant and an unconditional covenant says that there are no demands in the covenant. Rather, the difference between a conditional covenant and an unconditional covenant is the reason for the demands. In conditional covenant doctrine the reason for the demand is so that man may obtain something from God by his obedience to the demand. In unconditional covenant doctrine the reason for the demand is because God has already given man everything by his grace.

You can test this by asking the question, why? about the demands.

Love God. Why? So that God will love you. That is conditional.

Love God. Why? Because God already loves you. That is unconditional.

Love your neighbor. Why? So that God will be merciful to you. That is conditional.

Love your neighbor. Why? Because God has already been merciful to you. That is unconditional.

So also with the Christian school as a demand of the covenant, the all-important question is, why?

Establish a Christian school as a demand of the covenant. Why? So that God will make his covenant with you and your children. That is conditional.

Establish a Christian school as a demand of the covenant. Why? Because God has already made his covenant with you and your children. That is unconditional.

When the Reformed confessions and Church Order speak of the Christian school as a requirement and as the demand of the covenant, they are speaking of an unconditional demand. They are not speaking of prerequisites, but they are speaking of demands of gratitude that we owe to God as thanksgiving for what he has already done.

The second respect in which Mr. Tolsma’s understanding is wrong is with regard to the work of Christ. Mr. Tolsma refers several times to Christ’s fulfillment of the law for his people. For example:

I was taught that the covenant stood alone and the demands of the covenant, (the commandments from God or ten commandments) were fulfilled through the perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ. He came to this earth in our nature, and died on the cross to satisfy God’s justice for our sake.

Mr. Tolsma’s error is that he understands Christ’s fulfillment of the law in the place of his people to be the abrogation of the law in every respect for God’s people. Mr. Tolsma writes in several places about Christ’s fulfilling the demands and that we can never fulfill the demands, and thus that we do not ever have to fulfill the demands. Mr. Tolsma is absolutely correct that Christ fulfilled the entire demand of the law and that we cannot fulfill the demand and that we do not ever have to fulfill the demand. This is the good news of the gospel.

Where Mr. Tolsma goes wrong is his assumption that the law, now fulfilled by Christ, has no place in the life of the believer. The truth of the matter is that the law is the rule and standard of the believer’s life of gratitude. Our relationship to the law is not that we must fulfill it. Christ did that. He was under the law, so that we are not under the law but under grace. The law is now the light upon the believer’s feet to show him how he is to walk in this world to God’s glory. There are law, commandment, and demand for the child of God, but he is not under any law. There are law, commandment, and demand for the child of God, but Christ has already fulfilled all of them. The child of God is not saved by his obedience to law, commandment, and demand. The child of God is saved by Christ in order that he may obey law, commandment, and demand in gratitude.

A Grave Error

Mr. Tolsma’s misunderstanding is a grave error. His error would abolish any commands, requirements, and demands from the covenant. According to Mr. Tolsma, a demand of the covenant is a condition of the covenant. Therefore, there may be no demands of the covenant. With this understanding we would have to remove not only article 21 of the Church Order but also the Reformed creeds and liturgical forms. We may no longer have the baptism form (“Therefore are we by God, through baptism, admonished of and obliged unto new obedience”) or the Catechism’s explanation of the law (“What doth God require?”).

I write in general now and not specifically regarding Mr. Tolsma. Let not only Mr. Tolsma, but also me and all of God’s people hear this. The error of the letter is so grave that it must be rejected out of hand as a corruption of the Reformed faith. One who holds such a position is guilty of unbelief. One who holds such a position maintains doctrines inconsistent with Christianity. Such an one must be put out of the kingdom of heaven by Christian discipline, except he repent (Lord’s Day 31, in Confessions and Church Order, 119).

The position advocated in the letter marks a significant advance in the school controversy for the Reformed Protestant Churches. The advance is that those who attempt to make the demand of gratitude into a condition will be excluded from the churches by discipline. The false doctrine of turning the demand of gratitude into a condition in order to reject the demand will be exposed for the unbelief that it is. The churches will have peace in the gospel and will live together with God and with each other in the life of his gracious covenant, not troubled by false brethren.

Let all who are entangled in the erroneous thinking repent toward God and believe in Jesus Christ. And may God preserve the Reformed Protestant Churches in the doctrine and the blessing of his covenant.