July 8, 2020

 

To the editor of Sword and Shield.

I am submitting the following letter with the desire that it be published in your August edition of SWORD and SHIELD. Thank you.

Rebuttal to “Our present controversy
(July 2020 editorial)

The editorial of July 2020 contained serious misrepresentations that I want to address.

First, I point out that in paragraph # 2, “grace principle” and “works principle” are new concepts or new phraseology to me. I suppose if this is a new concept that you are introducing, then it follows that you should have the right to introduce the applications of the truths, propositions, beliefs, and theories of those principles as well. You say that these two concepts stand opposed to each other as if they are mutually exclusive. Let’s see if this bold statement is scripturally true. Does this statement arise out of Scripture? Or are you making an assertion, then trying to prove this assertion using your new phraseology?

You say that “…a grace principle or a works principle governs the believer’s experience of covenant fellowship with God”. You imply that only one of your newly coined principles can be applied to experiencing covenant fellowship with God. Well that certainly is not Scriptural, and certainly not true. Just look at David as a case in point. Wasn’t David’s fellowship with God reduced or taken away when he sinned (Psalms 32:3 “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. 4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me”), and tried to cover up his sin? Didn’t David experience (Psalms 32:10 “Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about.”) a renewed or restored experience of fellowship after he confessed his sin and returned to a way or walk of obedience? Did God’s grace bring him back? Certainly. Did God bring him back to experience covenant fellowship before(?), or after(?) David did something? After David did something. What was that physical and mental activity (the definition of work) that David did? He confessed his sin and returned to a walk of obedience, he trusted in God. I don’t see how your newly coined principles are mutually exclusive in David’s case.

As far as applying your principles to experiencing fellowship with God they are not mutually exclusive at all. The terminology you use are not a scriptural terms. Hebrews chapter 6 is one place in the Bible where the principles of doctrine and the works of man are spoken of in the same chapter. Hebrews 6 verse 1 speaks, “the principles of the doctrine of Christ”. Verse 10 of the same chapter speaks, “For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love”. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive in this chapter, unless you add the word “principle” and give it your own definition, and apply these terms to working salvation.

Grace principle, works principle? You say, “At its heart the controversy is as simple as could be: grace or works?” I Peter 1 speaks of “election…salvation…believing…grace…obedience… be ye holy…foreordained before the foundation of the world…obeying the truth,” and these phrases are not mutually exclusive in this chapter at all. By this very erroneous statement you are saying that grace and works are mutually exclusive. Where in Scripture is this proven to be true? It is true if you apply your principles to salvation, but not when you apply your principles to experiencing fellowship with God. Ephesians 1:4 says that God saved the elect before time by his grace and in the same verse gives the goal: “…that we should be holy and without blame…” (Eph. 1:4). This is God’s Word, and clearly grace and works are not mutually exclusive here. God foreordained that the elect should do good works. Ephesians 2:10 says “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained {or, prepared} that we should walk in them.” This is God’s Word. Now you assert that one of these truths is not the truth of God’s Word. Throw out your false assertions of this second paragraph and the whole controversy goes away. The controversy only exists in your mind. Has God said grace and works are mutually exclusive? Has anyone in this controversy said that man is saved by grace? Yes, indeed, all make this confession. Has anyone said that man is saved by his own works? No! They have not, unless of course one puts words into others’ mouths and writings. Oh yes, herein lies a problem. Some assert that they know what others mean when they say things. They interject into another man’s words and writings what they think others meant when they said certain things. So the problem is not what God says in His Word. The problem is what men say and write about what they think God’s Word should say and mean, or what another man really meant when he preached or wrote something. Some have repeatedly taken the liberty and gone to great lengths to restate what a brother has said or written. If what man says about a doctrine or concept does not fit what one thinks God’s word says then does anybody have a license to make up new highfalutin jargon to replace God’s Word? 

So I ask again, did God say grace and works are mutually exclusive? No! Are we saved by grace? Yes! Are we saved by works? No! Do I do any work, or help or contribute to my own salvation? No! No one in this controversy makes this assertion. Do works exist? Yes. God said the elect were foreordained to do works. So who is stoking the fires of controversy here?

I’m not claiming to know what every minister preaches in every one of our churches, and I haven’t read or studied all the material that went to classis or synod, but I know that God has put good elders in the churches for a good reason. One of these reasons is so they can discern the truth from the lie and then to stop the lie and promote the truth in the pulpit. It is shameful that a number of our ministers have targets on their backs. Shameful that some people go to church with a goal and purpose in mind to catch a minister in a misstatement or what they mistakenly believed to be a misstatement. All too often a statement is taken out of context or given the worst possible interpretation, and then condemned.

In paragraph 4 you state either salvation is by grace or salvation is by works. Who, pray tell, is saying salvation is by works? No one is saying that. Who, pray tell, is disputing the Scriptures you put forth? No one as far as I can see. I think you are building a case against fictitious people that don’t exist.

In paragraphs five six and seven again you put forth a good doctrinal dissertation but where is the controversy in our PRC over this?

Paragraph nine states that “the controversy in the PRC…is whether man is saved by man’s work or whether man is saved by God’s grace…Whether God saves man or man saves man.” That is not the controversy in the PRC. I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting the controversy here, without any proof.

Paragraph 11 states that the works principle is a lie, false doctrine, heresy. I agree as long as you apply this “works principle” phrase of yours to any work of man that contributes to the salvation of man. But It appears to me that there are works that are ordained by God that we should walk in them, and that is God’s Word. Are there are works of man that contribute to our salvation? Certainly not. I don’t know of anyone in the PRC who is making this false claim.

Paragraph 12 tries to clarify what the controversy is in the PRC. But wait a minute let’s back up the bus here. The previous seven or eight paragraphs speak of the “works principle” as it applies to a man’s salvation. But now in paragraph 12 you change your application of your “works principle” phrase from man working to save himself, to man’s experience of fellowship with God. Seven or eight paragraphs on salvation by grace without works. Then you change your application from salvation of one’s soul to experiencing covenant fellowship with God. Why? Be honest here. So, the new question is not salvation by grace or salvation by works? But the new question is does your experience of fellowship with God have nothing to do with your life of good works? Certainly fellowship with God is only by His grace. But is the experience of that fellowship completely unrelated to obedience? Synod 2018 stated: “We do not experience covenant fellowship as we continue in disobedience. We experience covenant fellowship in the way of obedience, or in the sphere of holiness.” And again, “Properly expressing the relationship between obedience as the necessary way of the covenant and the experience of covenant fellowship is: We experience fellowship with God through faith (instrument), on the basis of what Christ has done (ground), and in the way of our obedience (way of conduct or manner of living).”

This whole idea of grace principle and work principle is a new concept to me. If you invented this concept or dreamt it up, then I suppose you can define the terms, but you should apply these principles fairly and honestly and where they can be applied. It is wrong to apply a principle to experiential fellowship with God, experiential well-being when you did not have experiential well being in your own definition. In your 4th paragraph you state either salvation is by grace or salvation is by works. Let’s not change paddles in the middle of the stream here by changing your premise and your definition to include experiential fellowship with God. Is experiential fellowship by works or by grace? I don’ think grace and works are mutually exclusive here. Are you trying to trick people by twisting your own definition? You explicitly call it “the works principle of salvation” in your last two paragraphs.

In paragraph 13 you state unequivocally, and with no proof, that the controversy in the PRC has been the irreconcilable conflict between the works principle and the grace principle, between an error out of hell and God’s truth from heaven. Two principles that you say cannot exist at the same time. But I say God is a God of grace, and at the same time we can and must walk in the works that God foreordained that we should walk in them.

Your last paragraph shows the contradiction. The believer’s experience of fellowship with God is not, I repeat, not to be equated with man’s working or contributing to his own salvation. In a sense one could say that salvation happened in God’s council before time. I was saved before I was born, before the foundation of the world. After I was born I was saved entirely by sovereign grace. And before I die, I must do the works that God foreordained for me to do. And God’s grace is not excluded from these works. My works do not exclude God’s grace, but rather depend entirely upon God’s grace.

It appears to me that things didn’t go the way you wanted at Classis or Synod. So you start a magazine where you can say what you want. You present a new phrase and define its use and application. Then you claim that any who do not follow your use and application of these phrases are on the side of Satan by promoting an “error out of hell.”

Sincerely,

—Ron Kooienga

 

---

 

 

REPLY

I appreciate your letter very much. It is a thoroughly doctrinal letter that takes hold of the essential doctrinal issue of the grace principle and the works principle presented in the July editorial. It is also a thoroughly polemical letter that is willing to climb into the ring in order to give the July editorial a good thumping. As you deliver your jabs and uppercuts against the editorial, you also state your doctrinal position very clearly. This is all for the good. Through such a sharp doctrinal exchange, as Protestant Reformed Churches we can know exactly where we stand in our present controversy. In my judgment your letter goes a long way to advance the controversy, so that as churches we can profit spiritually from this controversy.

 

Round One

Your letter contends that the terms grace principle and works principle are invented and are unbiblical. You call them “new phraseology,” you say that they are “not…scriptural terms,” and you say that I “present a new phrase and define its use and application.” More importantly, you contend that the concept of a grace principle and a works principle is my own invention that is contrary to scripture. You call them “new concepts” and “newly coined principles.” In especially memorable language you ask,

If what man says about a doctrine or concept does not fit what one thinks God’s word says then does anybody have a license to make up new highfalutin jargon to replace God’s Word?

The terms grace principle and works principle are not unbiblical, invented terms. Rather, these terms faithfully use the very language of the Bible. Scripture often uses the terms grace and works in connection with salvation to teach that salvation is of grace and not of works. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:5–6). Adding the word principle to the words grace and works is hardly highfalutin jargon.

More importantly, these terms faithfully express the very truth that the Bible teaches about salvation. Grace principle simply means that salvation is “of grace,” exactly as the Bible describes it. Works principle simply means that salvation is “of works,” something the Bible everywhere condemns. Whether one likes the terms grace principle and works principle or not, the doctrine expressed by these terms is at the heart of Reformed soteriology. The Reformed faith teaches that salvation is by God’s grace in Christ—the grace principle—not by the sinner’s works—the works principle. The July editorial did not invent or coin new principles, but faithfully described the antithesis between salvation by grace and salvation by works that is basic to the Reformed faith.

 

Round Two

Here things become more serious. In this round we are not dealing merely with terms but with the doctrine and theology of salvation. You contend that a grace principle and a works principle are not mutually exclusive in the experience of salvation. That is, you contend that man obtains the experience of fellowship with God by grace and by man’s works. When I contend that only the grace principle “can be applied to experiencing covenant fellowship with God,” you respond, “Well that certainly is not Scriptural, and certainly not true.” You ask and answer the question: “Is experiential fellowship by works or by grace? I don’t think grace and works are mutually exclusive here.” Your doctrine of the experience of salvation is that man’s experiential fellowship with God is by grace and by works.

There are especially three ways that you establish your theology that experiential fellowship with God is by grace and by works. First, you appeal to David’s experience in Psalm 32. You observe: “Wasn’t David’s fellowship with God reduced or taken away when he sinned…and tried to cover up his sin?” You then maintain:

Did God bring him back to experience covenant fellowship before(?), or after(?) David did something? After David did something. What was that physical and mental activity (the definition of work) that David did? He confessed his sin and returned to a walk of obedience, he trusted in God. I don’t see how your newly coined principles are mutually exclusive in David’s case.

Here your theology of man’s obtaining conscious fellowship with God by works is crystal clear: David worked, and by his work his experience of fellowship with God was restored. Just as David’s evil works reduced his fellowship with God, so David’s good works restored his fellowship with God. One may not point only to grace as that which restored David’s experience, but one must point also to David’s works as that which restored David’s experience. Your theology is that a works principle governed David’s experience of fellowship with God.

The error of your theology is that it gives to good works the place and function that only faith can have. The child of God receives all of the blessings of salvation, including the experience of salvation, only by faith in Jesus Christ. This is because all of the blessings of salvation, including the experience of salvation, are in Jesus Christ and belong to Jesus Christ as that which he purchased for us by his atonement. If we are to have these blessings, they must come from him alone through the only instrument that can receive him and his blessings: faith alone.

But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins (Belgic Confession 22).

Faith—not works—is the instrument of receiving Christ. Faith—not works—is the instrument by which a man experiences fellowship with God. Because faith is not work, the experience of salvation is not by works. The works principle cannot be applied to the experience of salvation.

If you maintain your position that David’s experience of salvation was restored by his obedient working, then you must also maintain that David was justified by his obedient working, that is, that David was justified by works. Psalm 32, after all, is about the forgiveness of transgressions (v. 1) and Jehovah’s not imputing iniquity (v. 2), which is justification. David says about this justification, “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (v. 5). If David’s experience of salvation came by his works, so also did his justification.

The truth is that Psalm 32 teaches justification by faith alone and the experience of salvation by faith alone. David’s evil works interrupted his experience of fellowship with God, but his good works did not restore his experience of fellowship with God. What restored his experience was entirely God’s mercy, received by faith alone. David himself says this: “Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about” (v. 10). “Trusteth in the Lord”! That is not working but believing. That is not works but grace. It is the grace principle of salvation and the grace principle alone. Or, if you prefer, it is by grace and by grace alone.

What of David’s working and obedience? Good works are the fruit of faith. Good works always accompany faith. But man’s salvation and man’s experience of salvation do not come by those works, are not obtained by those works, do not depend on those works. Salvation and the experience of salvation are by faith alone in Christ alone because of grace alone.

Your appeal to other passages, such as Hebrews 6, 1 Peter 1, and Ephesians 1–2, must all be taken in the same light as your appeal to Psalm 32.

Second, you establish your theology that experiential fellowship with God is by grace and by works by making a sharp contrast between how God gives salvation, on the one hand, and how God gives the experience of salvation, on the other hand. That is, you not only acknowledge a distinction between salvation and the experience of salvation, but you also make a contrast and even a conflict between the two. About the antithesis between the grace principle and the works principle, you write,

By this very erroneous statement you are saying that grace and works are mutually exclusive. Where in Scripture is this proven to be true? It is true if you apply your principles to salvation, but not when you apply your principles to experiencing fellowship with God.

By this you teach that God gives salvation one way, but he gives the experience of salvation another way. Your position is that God saves man by grace and not by works. Amen. But you go on to say that this does not apply to man’s experience of salvation. God gives man the experience of salvation partly by man’s works. Your position is that salvation is by grace alone; the experience of salvation is by grace and works.

The problem with this contrast is that man’s experience of salvation is part of his salvation. All the things he experiences—his peace with God, his joy, his contentment, his knowledge and confidence of God’s nearness and love, his longing for God, his hungering and thirsting for God, his walking with God, his humility and sorrow over his sin, his desire to serve God, his praying, his obeying—are gifts of his salvation. All of these come from God through Jesus Christ. Whether we are talking about the more internal and emotional side of man’s experience—such as man’s mourning being replaced with joy (Isa. 61:3)—or the more outward and active side of man’s experience—such as man’s walking in good works (Eph. 2:10)—these are all gifts from God. These are all part of the salvation that God bestows upon man. As gifts of his salvation, they come by grace through faith, not by works.

The danger of your contrast is that when you say one part of salvation is by grace alone but another part of salvation is not by grace alone, you have thrown out grace altogether. If any part of salvation is by works, then no part of salvation can be by grace. Works have become the decisive component of salvation. Throughout your letter you repeatedly acknowledge that salvation is by grace. However, the moment you make the experience of salvation to be by works, you have overthrown all of your confession of grace. Salvation by grace and salvation by works are mutually exclusive principles—always and forever, and in any context whatsoever. Where you have one, you cannot have the other. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6).

Third, you establish your theology that experiential fellowship with God is by grace and by works by appealing to Synod 2018’s use of “in the way of obedience.” You write:

So, the new question is not salvation by grace or salvation by works? But the new question is does your experience of fellowship with God have nothing to do with your life of good works? Certainly fellowship with God is only by His grace. But is the experience of that fellowship completely unrelated to obedience? Synod 2018 stated: “We do not experience covenant fellowship as we continue in disobedience. We experience covenant fellowship in the way of obedience, or in the sphere of holiness.” And again, “Properly expressing the relationship between obedience as the necessary way of the covenant and the experience of covenant fellowship is: We experience fellowship with God through faith (instrument), on the basis of what Christ has done (ground), and in the way of our obedience (way of conduct or manner of living).”

You quote synod in defense of your theology that the experience of fellowship is by works. You put it in these terms: “Does your experience of fellowship with God have nothing to do with your life of good works?” And in these terms: “But is the experience of that fellowship completely unrelated to obedience?” You show that you mean by these terms: “Is experiential fellowship by works or by grace? I don’t think grace and works are mutually exclusive here.”

Your contention, then, is that synod also maintained that experiential fellowship is by grace and by works.

The truth is that synod was not at all saying that the experience of fellowship is by works. Synod explicitly said that faith is the instrument of experiencing covenant fellowship, and not works.

As to the instrument: When we experience covenant fellowship in the way of our obedience, we do not experience covenant fellowship through our obedience, but through the instrument of faith. (Acts of Synod 2018, 72) 

Synod 2018 may not be quoted in defense of your theology that the experience of fellowship is by works. Synod’s use of the phrase “in the way of obedience” may not be used in defense of your theology that the experience of fellowship is by works. Synod made clear that good works are not the instrument of experience, that is, that a works principle cannot be applied to the experience of salvation.

 

Round Three

You contend that there is no real doctrinal controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches. You maintain that I have invented the controversy, that I am stoking the fires of a controversy that does not exist, that I am doing so by trickery and dishonesty, and that this is some kind of temper tantrum on my part. You write: “The controversy only exists in your mind.” And: “So who is stoking the fires of controversy here?” And: “I think you are building a case against fictitious people that don’t exist.” And: “I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting the controversy here, without any proof.” And: “Are you trying to trick people by twisting your own definition?” And: “It appears to me that things didn’t go the way you wanted at Classis or Synod. So you start a magazine where you can say what you want. You present a new phrase and define its use and application. Then you claim that any who do not follow your use and application of these phrases are on the side of Satan by promoting an ‘error out of hell.’”

This is precisely where your letter is such a help in our present controversy. I believe that you are giving voice to what many people in the Protestant Reformed Churches are wondering: Is there really a controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches? If there is a controversy, is it really a controversy between the truth and the lie? And even if there were a controversy, and even if it were between the truth and the lie, isn’t that finished now? Why does Sword and Shield maintain that this is our present controversy, and why does Sword and Shield come picking at old wounds with such sharp words?

Your letter is the answer to those questions. Your letter demonstrates that there very much is a controversy, that it is very much ongoing, and that it very much is between the truth and the lie. Very clearly, and with conviction, you have laid out your theology that man’s experience of fellowship with God is by grace and by works. Very clearly, and with conviction, you have opposed my theology that man’s experience of fellowship with God is by grace alone without the contribution of man’s works. These two theologies are irreconcilable. These two theologies are antithetical and cannot both be true. These two theologies are deadlocked in controversy to the death. One theology must survive; the other theology must die. Which theology will it be? As your letter demonstrates, these two theologies are still vying for the right to be the theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches.

Your letter goes a long way in advancing the controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches. This is good and necessary for us as churches. It is time that we know where we stand as churches. Will our theology be that of the grace principle in man’s experience of salvation? Or will our theology be that of the works principle in man’s experience of salvation?

Synod ruled in favor of the grace principle. Synod ruled that the works principle in man’s experience of salvation is “doctrinal error” and that “the doctrinal error is that the believer’s good works are given a place and function that is out of harmony with the Reformed confessions.” Synod ruled that this doctrinal error

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, 61, 70)

And yet, these years after synod, there is not only confusion about what synod actually decided, but there are also even vigorous defenses such as yours of the works principle. The controversy is real. The controversy is current. The controversy is the truth against the lie. 

My saying so is no temper tantrum against the assemblies. I am calm. But I also am in dead earnest. I mean it when I say that the doctrinal error of the works principle of salvation is an error out of hell. I mean it when I say that the Protestant Reformed Churches have been in the clutch of this error out of hell and must yet break that clutch. I mean all these things in dead earnest, not because I or my word is anything, but because God is in dead earnest about this. God says that the works principle is “another gospel” than the true gospel of Jesus Christ. And God says through Christ’s apostle: 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6, 8–9)

This is a season for sharp words. And it will be a season for sharp words until we as believers are no longer offended by them but are pierced by them.

Yes, I appreciate your letter very much. It is theological, and it is polemical. It shows us where we stand. May our gracious God now deliver such a thumping to the works principle that it is banished from our hearts for good.