Good Morning Rev. Lanning,

I’ve been struggling with a few things related to the controversy in our churches. It would be helpful if you could address the below topics in an upcoming issue. You do not need to publish the below as a letter, but you may if you see fit. Also, if you would like to talk about this input more, I would be delighted to do so. My number is mobile is xxx-xxx-xxxx.

I believe there are two areas lacking in your offense against the error exposed by the decisions of Synod 2018.

First, there ought to be a complete evaluation of the error from the perspective of corporate responsibility. From my various conversations with fellow saints, it appears to be little understood that we as a denomination are corporately responsible for error as it arises in our denomination. This is true regardless of whether it is actively being embraced (Dan. 9:5ff). Our proper response to our guilt over this error is described by Professor Hanko in the book When You Pray: “We must confess our own responsibility for [corporate] sins, keep ourselves from them…” (70).

Second, turning the sword deeper inward, we must individually see how this error finds its way into our heart. It is easy for all of us to point to error outside of us. However, we have heard in the preaching that we will and must struggle all our lives against the inner Pelagian and the inner Arminian—how much more must we fight the error that creeps into our heart far more subtly and tells us that we, by our work, can achieve greater assurance of our salvation? What are the implications of this error as it distorts our relationship with God, fellow saints, spouse and children?

In Christ,

Mike Vermeer

REPLY

Although this letter was addressed to Reverend Lanning, I have been tasked with answering the letter. Michael is correct regarding the issue of corporate responsibility. If denominational unity means anything at all, it means that the error exposed in sermons and a doctrinal statement is a problem for all the churches. The fact that it took a synodical decision to settle the matter especially makes it a denominational issue. We as a denomination went in a certain way, and the way that we went was erroneous. We went a certain way according to certain, definite doctrinal convictions.

I think it is a fair question to ask, what became of those convictions and of that theology? Were they simply abandoned? Does everyone agree that the faith of the synod is their faith? Does everyone reject those doctrinal convictions as seriously false and erroneous?

I am especially interested in the question, do we all agree that the protestants in this case were not antinomian in their criticisms of the doctrinal error? When the sermon on John 14:6 was preached and an elder, according to his calling and vow of subscription, rightly criticized that sermon as wrong, he was charged as an antinomian and unjustly lost his office. Is the gospel of grace in its critique of the particular form of the false doctrine that appeared in our churches antinomian?

We went through a doctrinal controversy, and at the end of it almost no one can explain what actually happened or what synod decided. It seems to be assumed by some that everyone just reads through a 300-page Acts of Synod (and there were multiple 300-page Acts of Synod). Why was there no attempt to explain the doctrinal decisions for the benefit of the people, many of whom will never read the Acts of Synod? How can we take responsibility for something we do not even know about?

And should there not be a pretty serious level of denominational reflection and humility in light of the fact that for several years we as a denomination got it wrong about the covenant (!) and justification (!)? Covenant and justification are Protestant Reformed “bread and butter,” and we got it wrong. That should humble us deeply and make us think and make us ask, “Why did we get it wrong?” Should not there be some honest and candid reflection and discussion as members and officebearers of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) about what happened, what actually was decided, what we believe, and what we reject as false?

In this regard, I would also add that the synod of the PRC has settled the matter. The issue, then, is not to settle the matter as if it could still be an open question in the PRC. Rather, the issue is whether we are going to receive that decision or not, whether we are going to accept the conclusions or not, and whether we are going to live by that decision or not, or whether we are going to undermine the decision by twisting its conclusions, castigating those who persisted in their protests to the end, minimizing the seriousness of the errors involved, or putting an editorial spin on the words of the decision.

To Michael’s second admonition, I give a hearty amen and amen. I am of the conviction that the doctrinal error that was exposed in sermons and a doctrinal statement has widespread effects upon all relationships in the church. The logic is clear: if one’s relationship with the holy God is such that his good works gain and obtain God’s favor and grace—that is, he is favorable to that person and hears his prayers because he is a holy or a more holy person by means of his works—then such a proud individual will demand payment of what is owed him and beat his fellow servants. He does not understand and, therefore, does not live out of the reality that a mountain of debt has been forgiven him, and thus does not live graciously in the church either. Is that not the point of Christ’s words to Simon?

44. And he [Jesus] turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

45. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

47. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

48. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

49. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

50. And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Luke 7:44–50)

True love, which is the essence of the Christian life, arises inexorably out of justifying faith and the consciousness of the free forgiveness of sins. But he who loves little—which is to say not at all—knows nothing of the free forgiveness of sins. Faithlessly, the same person also consequently lives by works in marriage, home, office, church, and school. The truth—of sovereign and particular grace concentrating on the gracious pardon of sins—is essential for right living in the church. Wrong doctrine inevitably leads to and is to blame for destructive relationships in the church. Our relationship with God is one of grace and unconditional love, and our relationship with one another is one of grace and unconditional love.