Dear Editors:

The Sword and Shield has welcomed letters from readers…for publication, even critical letters. This letter is written to express disagreement with your explanation of this controversary. We would be grateful if you would print it to show your readers how others look at and understand this important issue, especially because it is affecting the lives of the members of the PRC, along with our witness to the church world and the world.

You call the heart of the controversy a matter of grace or works, and go on to describe it as the antithesis between a grace principle and a works principle; the question of who saves a man, God or man; the teaching that man’s experience of covenant fellowship with God depends upon man’s obedient good works, or the teaching that man’s experience of covenant fellowship with God is entirely a free gift of God’s grace; and therefore, a controversy between an error out of hell and God’s own truth from heaven. You write that you believe there is a ‘certain group’ of people who, in your estimation, hold to this ‘works principle’ which comes out of hell.

It has become very wearying to hear over and over the words: ‘when you say this, then you must believe this’. It appears that this is what your magazine is doing again, and it is causing many sorrows between family members and congregations.

You appear to have separated our denomination into ‘groups of people’ and ‘sides’, and without giving any proof, you write that in one group, fellowship with God depends upon the believer’s obedient good works, and that they have fellowship with God on the condition of their good works. Has any member now (after the settled case in Synod 2018) ever used those exact words in your hearing, or are you deceiving your readers with false accusations – once again saying in effect—‘when you say this, then you must believe this’.

In order for you to place people in a certain ‘group’ or ‘side’, you must ask them what they believe. The following is what we believe and what our family and friends have always confessed to believe in the past, being taught by ministers and professors who faithfully preached and wrote on how we experience fellowship with our Holy God, and the assurance of our salvation.

“Of Him, and through Him, and unto Him is all our salvation!…When you are working out your salvation you are occupied with the work of God. It is of the great and glorious Lord of heaven and earth that your salvation comes. His work it is.” (H. Hoeksema, The Wonder of Grace).

Psalm 32 expresses beautifully (by the Spirit’s inspiration to David) the way in which we experience fellowship with God and the assurance of our faith. David had sinned grossly and was living spiritually far from God. In His grace, God brought Nathan to David, through whose message He worked conviction and repentance in David’s heart—God working in David the willing and the doing—and David working that out by faith.

We read David’s experience of that work of God, in his inspired words in Psalm 32. He begins with the wonderful confession of experiencing and knowing God’s blessing upon him. Then in verses 3 and 4 he records the misery he had when living in sin and outside of the experience of fellowship with God. In verse 5 by inspiration he shows us that when he acknowledged and confessed his sin, he experienced forgiveness. In verse 7 David gives us the beautiful end of his God-worked repentance—God is his hiding place, his preserver, and his surrounding joy. This is how we understand the truth that can be so beautifully expressed in the words ‘in the way of’. David’s fellowship with God did not depend on his good work of repentance, nor did God’s fellowship come on the condition of his good works. It was all of grace by faith.

Does this fit your principle of works? Do we fit into your ‘certain group’? If so, please explain how. If not, do you know, personally, others in our denomination who believe differently than this? And how would they then explain Psalm 32?

You and your readers are strongly urged to read a Standard Bearer article on this topic: Sanctification And Assurance By Hoeksema H.C. Volume 64/1988 Issue 12, 3/15/1988.

The article begins: “First of all, saving faith itself is assurance.” It continues “Why is assurance possible only in the way of sanctification”, it shows from article 10 of the Fifth Head of the Canons of Dordt how the one way of assurance is three-fold (from, from, from), and concludes with the exclusive way of assurance:

Nevertheless, the exclusive way of assurance is the way of sanctification. Outside of the latter there is no assurance possible. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord! And without holiness, therefore, no man can be sure that he shall see the Lord!

Every day he (the believer) has need to live close to the Word of God in the Scriptures, to fight the battle of faith that he may walk as a child of light in the midst of a world of sin, in order that in that way he may be conscious of the testimony of God’s Spirit assuring him of his personal salvation. Only in that way, but in that way surely, can he walk in the glad assurance that he is Christ’s, and that nothing can ever separate him from the love of God!” (H. Hoeksema in The Wonder of Grace)

Cordially,

—Phil and Barb Dykstra

REPLY

We gladly print your letter “to show [our] readers how others look at and understand this important issue.” I think you are correct that your letter gives voice to what others—perhaps many others—think about the controversy. 

Your letter shows that there is still a fundamental question facing the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) in this controversy. That fundamental question is this: What is the controversy? We do not yet agree on the answer to this question. I maintain that the controversy is between two opposite and irreconcilable principles—the grace principle and the works principle—applied to the believer’s experience of covenant fellowship with God. You disagree with my explanation of the controversy. Our disagreement shows that this question is still facing us as churches: What is the controversy?

This question is fundamental. If we do not know what the controversy is, then we cannot learn from it. Worse, if we do not know what the controversy is, then we are going to fall into the same errors that led to the controversy. In order for the church to profit spiritually from the controversy and in order for the church to repudiate the errors in the controversy, the church must know what the controversy is. What is the controversy?

A few observations about this question. First, the controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches is strictly doctrinal, not personal. I have no interest in putting people into a “certain group.” I have no interest in separating the denomination into “groups of people.” You put those terms in quotes in your letter as though they were my terms, but to my knowledge, those are not quotations from the editorials. You write as though I am keeping a tally of who believes what and instruct me: “In order for you to place people in a certain ‘group’ or ‘side’, you must ask them what they believe.” I suppose that would be good advice if it were my goal to place people in groups, but that is not my goal and not what I have been writing about.

My interest in the controversy is strictly doctrinal. I see two contrary theologies vying for dominance in the Protestant Reformed Churches. When I speak of “sides,” I am not writing about who is on each side, but what is on each side. I maintain that the teaching on one side is divine truth—the grace principle—and that the teaching on the other side is a hellish lie—the works principle. It is worth noting that the works principle was taught, tolerated, and defended by a significant segment of the PRC in the lead-up to Synod 2018. It was not an isolated error, but a pervasive error. Even so, the purpose of pointing this out is not to divvy us up into groups but to underscore how dangerous the doctrinal error of the works principle is to us in the PRC. The controversy is doctrinal, strictly doctrinal.

Second, it is perfectly legitimate to draw out the implications of a doctrine in order to understand and evaluate that doctrine. You lament, “It has become very wearying to hear over and over the words: ‘when you say this, then you must believe this.’” You say that Sword and Shield is taking up this wearying argument, and you imply that I have used this reasoning to deceive the readers with false accusations about what people believe.

This is simply incorrect. For one thing, I am not judging what people believe. My argument, and the argument of Synod 2018, has not been, “When you say this, then you must believe this.” Rather, the argument is, “When you say this, that means this.” Not: “Here is what is in your heart.” Not: “Here is what you intended.” But: “Here is the meaning and implication of your teaching.” For example, no sermon that came to Synod 2018 said in so many words, “Justification is by faith and works, and the covenant is conditional.” Nevertheless, synod rightly looked at the implications of what the sermons did say in so many words, and synod ruled:

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)

Therefore, it is no false accusation or deception to say that the controversy in the PRC is whether a grace principle or a works principle governs the believer’s experience of covenant fellowship with God. I maintain that that is a fair, accurate assessment of the controversy. And I maintain that I have Synod 2018 on my side when I say this.

However, if you demand that I produce an instance of the exact words “fellowship with God on the condition of their good works” spoken after Synod 2018, that can be done too. As I write this, there is a protest coming to Classis East in September against a sermon that taught that Christ “is establishing a condition that deals with communion. Not union, that’s grace, it’s all grace, only grace, but communion, fellowship.” At the time of this writing, the consistory has not sustained the protest. Although the minister and the consistory acknowledge that the statement should not have been said, the consistory does not acknowledge that the statement as such is heretical. “This is a case of mis-speaking, not a statement of heresy” (Agenda of Classis East, September 8, 121, 123).

No, I do not agree that I have made false applications or false accusations when I say the controversy in the PRC is between the grace principle and the works principle applied to man’s experience of covenant fellowship with God. In fact, I contend that this must be our explanation of the controversy. If it is not, we will commit the same error again and again without ever being able to condemn it as the lie.

Third, the controversy in the PRC is not over the many statements of Protestant Reformed ministers and writers who speak of fellowship with God in the way of obedience. You quote several passages from Herman Hoeksema and Homer Hoeksema. You give your own beautiful exegesis of Psalm 32. I especially appreciated your conclusion: “This is how we understand the truth that can be so beautifully expressed in the words ‘in the way of.’ David’s fellowship with God did not depend on his good work of repentance, nor did God’s fellowship come on the condition of his good works. It was all of grace by faith.” Of grace by faith! Amen!

There are scores more quotations, if not hundreds more quotations, that could be added to yours from many Protestant Reformed worthies. But this is not the controversy. From Synod 2018:

d) The [Consistory] Addendum contains pages of quotations teaching the “necessary way of the covenant.” However, there is no controversy between [the consistory] and [the appellant] on whether or not there is such a “necessary way of the covenant.”

(1) [The consistory] states, “As Scripture, the confessions, and Reformed men of the past have taught, God is pleased that we should experience the blessings of salvation in the way of obedience…” (Mar. 22, 2017 Letter).

(2) [The appellant] states, “I agree that I enjoy the fellowship of God as I live a life of sanctified good works. These will and must go together. There is no enjoyment in a life of debauchery” (Nov. 28, 2017 Letter). (Acts of Synod 2018, 74)

After all of this, this fundamental question stands before us yet in the PRC: What is the controversy? That question demands an answer. What is the controversy? Will we in the Protestant Reformed Churches be able to agree on an answer?