Dear Editor,

I thank you for your articles, “Our Present Controversy.” I wholeheartedly agree with your definition of the controversy: “Specifically, the conflict has been whether a grace principle or a works principle governs man’s conscious experience of the covenant and salvation” (Sword & Shield, Issue 3, p6).

In your second article on the subject, you distinguish between the fact of man’s salvation and man’s experience of his salvation. I agree with this distinction. You then claim that “there is no controversy regarding the fact of man’s salvation. All are agreed and have always been agreed that the grace principle governs the fact of man’s salvation” (Issue3, p8). And again, “No one applied a works principle to the fact of man’s salvation, but many applied a works principle to man’s conscious experience of his salvation.” I would like to comment on that claim.

First, while it is correct to distinguish between salvation objectively and salvation subjectively (man’s experience of his salvation), it remains that both are salvation. Therefore, when we speak of assurance, or our experience of covenant fellowship with God, we speak of salvation. The teaching that our experience of salvation is something other than salvation (be it a fruit of salvation or whatever) is wrong. I acknowledge you do not teach this in your articles. I mention it because I have come across this thinking in our PR circles as a way of minimizing the controversy. The argument goes this way: since the error condemned by Synod 2018 was only about our experience of salvation it was not a salvation issue.

Second, I believe that to apply a works principle to man’s conscious experience of his salvation is in fact to apply a works principle to the fact of man’s salvation. The sermons condemned by Synod 2018 taught that the assurance of justification was partly by works, although they purported to teach that justification itself was without works. But in its condemnation of the sermons synod did not merely say they compromise subjective justification—man’s assurance of justification; synod said they compromised the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Acts of Synod 2018, 70). Similarly, the sermons taught that our experience of fellowship with God was partly by works, although they purported to teach that the covenant itself was unconditional. But in its condemnation of the sermons synod did not merely say they compromise our experience of the covenant; synod said they compromised the doctrine of the unconditional covenant (70).

The controversy in the PRC is a salvation issue. That ought to be clear from Synod 2018 when it condemned the sermons in question declaring they compromised the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And if there is one doctrine that is a salvation issue it is justification by faith alone. For this reason, I much prefer the way you stated the issue in your first article: “The controversy [in the PRC] is whether man is saved by man’s work or whether man is saved by God’s grace. The issue is the grace principle of salvation versus the works principle of salvation. The issue is whether God saves man or man saves man” (7).

In Christ,