Dear Editor,
I really appreciated the special letters edition of Sword and Shield. I found both the letters and the responses to be instructive. I am thankful the Sword and Shield has provided this opportunity for us as fellow members of the body of Christ to discuss the truths of God’s Word. May God grant that, through these endeavors to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” we may together grow up into Christ our head (Ephesians 4:3, 15). After reading the letters issue, I have just a few follow-up questions:
—David repented by faith.
—God did not give David the experience of the forgiveness of his sins until God brought David to repentance.
I appreciate your help in understanding these truths and thank you for your labors of love for God’s people in explaining the controversy in our churches and distinguishing the truth from the lie. May God use these labors for the strengthening of our faith, so that it grows deeper and deeper into Jesus Christ, who is our firm foundation, that we as churches may not be moved.
Respectfully in Christ,
Sara Doezema
It may be helpful to give the quotation of H. C. Hoeksema in Voice of our Fathers in light of its context:
His [the Holy Spirit’s] work is such that its inevitable fruit is the production of a sanctified and holy child of God, a saint. And now His work and His testimony, His sanctification and His assurance, cannot be separated. He does not assure children of the devil, who are and remain children of the devil, that they are children of God. But He changes children of the devil into children of the living God; and to those children of the living God, and to them only, He gives the assurance that they are God’s children and heirs. Hence, it is not because sanctification is the condition of assurance, but because sanctification is the sure fruit of the operation of the Spirit of adoption, that assurance springs from an earnest and holy exercise of a good conscience and of good works. The child of God who by faith clears his conscience of the accusation of guilt by fleeing to God for forgiveness, the child of God who fights against and forsakes sin and has an earnest desire to walk in all good works—that child of God, under the preaching of the promise, and by the testimony of the Holy Spirit with his spirit, has the assurance of certain perseverance.1
Worthy of notice and heartfelt reflection is the sentence that follows this paragraph and closes the chapter on Canons 5.10: “Hence, it is the old and ever wonderful gospel: all of God, nothing of us! Soli Deo gloria!”
The narrow question the sister asks is to clear up confusion about “how godliness is the fruit of assurance and yet assurance springs from godliness.”
The best way to clear up confusion is to distinguish these two propositions by the mode of each. First, then, “how godliness is the fruit of assurance.” The mode of this proposition is gratitude. Assurance is the gracious application by the Holy Spirit of the testimony of the gospel to the believer’s heart. This work of the Holy Spirit is the gift of assurance in the consciousness of the believer. This assurance results in the further work of the Spirit giving gratitude in the believer’s heart, the gratitude that supplies the motivation for a life of good works, namely, godliness. In this organic way, faith as assurance produces godliness.
The second proposition, “assurance springs from godliness,” is a different mode than gratitude. Godliness is not a motive. Neither is godliness the work of the believer. If godliness is the work of the believer, it must revert back to the condition that Professor Hoeksema wholeheartedly rejects in the above quotation. The reason godliness as the work of the believer must be rejected is because it could not possibly in that case produce any assurance. Since godliness is the work of the Holy Spirit, assurance can and does spring from it as a fruit. The mode therefore is organic, the gracious development of grace for grace (John 1:16–17).
Hoeksema’s rejection that the second proposition expresses a condition cannot be overemphasized. Neither may the line be blurred or confused to suppose that there is a third possibility. No, we will not have a condition. All terms such as dependence or cause will be rejected. But neither may we allow merely or only fruit of the Holy Spirit or only fruit of the operation of grace. Suppose we are told we must have the activity of man or his deed in addition to the operation of the Holy Spirit. Then this activity or deed of the believer is somehow related to assurance as a subsequent or a consequent following. Grace may be said to be fundamental or even necessary for man’s activity or deed, but the real point is the activity or deed as accomplished by the believer. There must be something for him to do and not only what is the result of the Spirit’s work.
This third possibility must be rejected just as sharply and strenuously as if it carried the label condition. Stripping away the label does not make the proposition unconditional any less than taking the label off a can of beans means it is no longer a can of beans. The result is exactly the same. Only God’s gifts as God’s gifts, and only fruits of the Spirit’s operations as fruits of the Spirit’s operations, can produce assurance. If I look at my godliness, either my good works or the desire to do good works, I see it as polluted by my sins and depravity. My assurance is subsequently torn to shreds and must be carried away with the wind. However, when I am made to understand by the word of God that all my holiness is only by the work of the Holy Spirit and my good works are only the fruit of grace working in me, then assurance is the fruit.
Now to the sister’s broad question about Canons 5.10: “Are all three elements mentioned in Article 10 related to our assurance of salvation in the same way?”
The main answer to this question, setting aside the great differences in each of the elements in their operations, is that they are related in the same way.
Certainly their relationship to assurance is clear from the way the article reads, especially in the Latin original, which is different from the English translation from the Dutch found in our psalters. The three elements are governed by the same words that define the relationship to assurance. It may be helpful to elide some of the words so that we can read the article this way: “This assurance…springs from faith…from the testimony of the Holy Spirit…and lastly, from a serious and holy desire.” To hew more closely to the original Latin, we can read, “Therefore this assurance…out of faith…out of the testimony of the Holy Spirit…and finally out of a serious and holy desire of a good conscience and of good works.” These are three different elements. They are listed as they are found in scripture: independently of one another.
Article 10 emphasizes that all of these sources of assurance are related by “the Word of God.” Their source in God’s word makes them sources of assurance. That is the point of this article when it establishes the word of God as the source of all assurance of perseverance and explicitly rejects everything that is not found in the word of God. Moreover, in that same word of God, all of these sources of assurance are declared to be gifts of God. They are his promises. He is the one who gives faith in his promises (Eph. 2:8). He has promised to give the gift of the Holy Spirit to his elect, the Spirit who bears witness with their spirits that they are the children of God (Rom. 8:16; see also vv. 11, 26). He has promised to give this serious and earnest zeal of a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:5) and of good works (Eph. 2:10). All three are of grace alone. They are the free gifts of God, based on the merits of Jesus Christ alone.
It is worth repeating: If our believing the promises of God’s word becomes our activity rather than the free gift of God by the Holy Spirit, assurance cannot spring out of it. If the Spirit’s bearing witness with our spirits that we are the children of God becomes ours when we do good works, or becomes greater in us when we do more good works, assurance cannot spring out of it. If our zeal for a good conscience and for good works is by our efforts or labors, assurance cannot spring out of it. That assurance is broken altogether by our weaknesses and infirmities.
How important that we preserve the gospel as exclaimed by Prof. H. C. Hoeksema: “Hence, it is the old and ever wonderful gospel: all of God, nothing of us! Soli Deo gloria!”
The sister brings up three different exegeses of Psalm 32 that were expressed in the last Letters Edition of Sword and Shield. The first instance is on page 5:
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.
The second instance is on page 9:
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.
The third instance is on page 20:
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?
The sister’s first question is for an explanation of the difference between the first and the third exegeses of Psalm 32. I confess I need to make an assumption about the connection made by the first letter writer, namely, that he intends to make a wholly affirmative connection between his questions and his answers. He makes three things that David did—confession of his sin, return to a walk of obedience, and trusting in God—“work.” That “work” was David’s mental and physical activity. The third exegesis did not identify those things as David’s work. It spoke deliberately of David’s “God-worked repentance.”
One other point of difference between the first and the third is that the first emphasizes a time relationship between David’s “work” of confessing, returning, and trusting and “a renewed or restored experience of fellowship.” That relationship is that the latter came after the former. Although the third exegesis directly identifies a time relationship to support the use of the phrase “in the way of,” it denies a relationship of dependence or conditionality, affirming instead, “It was all of grace by faith.”
However, the above difference between these two exegeses of Psalm 32 exists in a historical connection. Exegesis, both in general principles as a science and in application of those principles to particular texts, such as Psalm 32, follows a pattern of distinction between doctrinal systems. Let it suffice to say that there is an Arminian exegesis of Romans 7 and a Reformed exegesis. There is a federal vision exegesis of Romans 2:6–10 and a Reformed exegesis. Applied to Psalm 32 the question is, who will agree with what exegesis? Why would some agree with the first but not the third? Why would a Pelagian agree with the first exegesis but not the third? Why would a conditional covenant theologian agree with the first but not the third?
The second question is why the third exegesis is the same as the second. They are the same in affirming grace by faith, the second going farther with the addition of the word “alone.” They are the same in bringing grace to bear on David’s repentance. Again, from a broader historical perspective, they present a distinctively Reformed exegesis of Psalm 32.
The sister then asks an additional, related question. She inquires whether these two statements are mutually exclusive: “David repented by faith” and “God did not give David the experience of the forgiveness of his sins until God brought David to repentance.”
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. So far from being mutually exclusive, they are coordinate. Repentance and faith, while each is to be distinguished in its own character and nature, may not be so separated as to become independent from each other, let alone exclusive to each other. Faith and repentance can be distinguished in that repentance has respect to sin and self as sinful, while faith has respect to God, his word, and Christ, the proper object of faith as the Son of God and him in whom all the promises of God are yea and amen to his glory. But faith must also be present in the heart for the heart’s repentance to be true repentance.
One aspect of the Holy Spirit’s working true repentance is his gift of faith in the heart and mind of the believer. By faith alone is all access to God, including the access of coming before God in true repentance (see Heb. 11:6). For the sake of true repentance, faith must first apprehend the mercy of God in Jesus Christ as a reason for coming to God in sorrow or shame. Faith must rely on the promise of God to forgive sin in order to come to him seeking that forgiveness. Without that faith one can only bitterly oppose God in lawlessness, deny sin and try to appease God with the fig-leaves of self-righteousness, or make repentance into a token work of self-righteousness in order to obtain favor from God. Godly repentance needs faith for it to be godly.
The role of faith is present in Canons 5.7.
In these falls He [God] preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing, or being totally lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.
I cannot conceive of this certain and effectual renewal to repentance worked by God “by His Word and Spirit” without faith being present in its willing and activity, worked by the Holy Spirit as well.
The character of faith is receptive, receptive to the grace of God in all the workings of that grace, including the gracious gift of repentance. It is impossible to believe that repentance is something that proceeds from the believer himself. Repentance is the repentance of a sinner, who can claim nothing good of himself! Repentance cannot say, “I did this good work of repenting and believing, and now God will have respect to the good thing I did and restore me to his fellowship.” Repentance must say, “I am not worthy.” We might well then suppose that the prodigal son should think in his heart, “This I will say to my father, ‘I am not worthy,’ so then my father will make me his son again.” Faith is eager to find all good from God, denying repentance as being of self and giving all glory to God.
Proper Reformed, biblical exegesis recognizes the authority of such creeds and confessions as our three forms of unity. In subscription to these three forms (via the Formula of Subscription), the Reformed preacher will submit to these creeds and confessions in his exegesis and in his preaching. As he has vowed to maintain and defend the doctrines of these creeds, he will exegete the scriptures accordingly. He will not allow himself to go only so deep in the exegesis of Psalm 32 as to secure agreement with the doctrines of Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Unitarianism. He will not go in his exegesis of that psalm only so far that the only conclusion he will draw is that David did his work of repentance and confession and then God did his following work of restoring to David the consciousness of his favor and grace. The Reformed exegete must go farther to demonstrate from the passage the truth of grace for grace. He will show how Psalm 32 in its particulars does demonstrate the truth of scripture explained in the fifth head of doctrine, especially articles 7 and 10.
Let us suppose a Reformed preacher is going to preach a sermon on Psalm 32, presenting and applying the exegesis of that psalm. What will make that sermon a Reformed sermon? Will it be a Reformed sermon because he has been trained in a Reformed seminary or because he has been ordained in a Reformed church or because he is preaching in a Reformed church? Will it be a Reformed sermon because the preacher says somewhere, “It is all by grace”? Will it be a Reformed sermon because the preacher will say, “God restored David to his fellowship and friendship by grace alone after David did his work of repenting, obeying, and trusting”? Will it be a Reformed sermon because the preacher will say, “Only after David did his work of repentance would God and did God show him grace by restoring him to his fellowship”? It might still be a Roman Catholic homily or an Arminian sermon for all that. For a Reformed sermon to be a Reformed sermon, it must emphasize that David’s repentance was not his work but God’s gift. A Reformed sermon will demonstrate through Psalm 32 the wonder of grace for grace. Scripture must be interpreted in the light of scripture.
Share on
Footnotes:
Reformed Believers Publishing
325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315
