August 13, 2022

Dear Editor,

I am writing to ask a question of any editor, office-bearer, or even vocal member of the RPC who cares to answer. From the beginning, the Sword and Shield generally, and Rev. Lanning in particular, have rejected the following statement of Rev. Koole, as heretical:

If a man with his household was to be saved and consciously enter into the kingdom, placing himself with his family under the rule of Christ as his Lord and Savior, he was called, he was required, to respond obediently to the call and command of the gospel—“Repent and believe, that thou mightest be saved with thy house.” (“What Must I Do…?” Standard Bearer 95, no. 1 [October 2018]: 7–8)

If the testimony of scripture is true, and Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then it must also be maintained that believing that point of doctrine is an organic necessity. Assuming that Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, then even those who died in faith in the Old Testament and infants who die before they are born, can be brought to believe that, though they might never see the world. The example of the Apostle Paul, who was called by Jesus Christ in such a manner that he heard the call, while those travelling with him did not, is an example of just such a calling. The repeated testimony of scripture is that believing that point of doctrine is the primary sign of true faith. In fact, part of the error of De Wolf’s statement, “our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of Heaven,” is that the statement ignores the truth that someone who repents in the way of faith, already has the kingdom of heaven in his consciousness, because he already believes the resurrection. Not only do regeneration and calling include spiritual gifts that belong to the resurrection, but one who truly places his trust in the crucifixion, repents, prays, etc. does so, because he already believes the resurrection. The teaching that faith is an instrument rather than a condition does not eliminate the truth that there is a certain absolute minimum believing that is necessary for conscious salvation. The truth that faith is an instrument rather than a condition is what makes the whole system of doctrine taught in the confessions important, because it confirms the basic premise, but the whole system is useless if you aren’t at least open minded to the basic premise. The Heidelberg Catechism assumes that believing in LD 1 before it ever gets to the system of doctrine.

So, now I ask you, any one of you, how is it possible for anyone to pass through the final judgement and enter into the New Heavens and Earth without believing the resurrection of Jesus Christ? That, after all, is the minimum obedient response to the command and call of the gospel. Although believing the resurrection does not fulfill a condition, believing that, and holding onto that, is an organic necessity, both in the sense that God effectually works it in the hearts and minds of his elect by regeneration and calling, and in the sense that a human being needs to know that in order to experience salvation in the end. Tell me, how is it possible to be consciously saved without believing that? Even supposing that the statement has to do with the Church as it exists in this world, how is it possible for someone to genuinely place himself under the rule of a man who he believes to be dead? How is it possible to consciously “enter into the kingdom,” without believing, when the external organization manifestly has no visible King? One who does not believe simply does not genuinely place himself under the rule of anyone. Even if we assume the Church of Rome or the Church of England, which can be said to have a visible ruler, that earthly ruler is still not Christ. In addition, placing one’s self under the rule of Christ is a doing, as is “entering.” Rev. Koole’s statement is almost a tautology, because even if the resurrection is a lie, the statement would still be true. He might as well have said, if A then A. For a man to experience the Church, or even this present world, as a kingdom with Christ as the ruler, he must necessarily believe the resurrection, whether it be the truth or the lie. Do those in the RPC reject both scripture and logic? How is it even possible for Rev. Koole’s statement to be false? How is it possible to be consciously saved without believing?

Now, as this pertains to repentance preceding forgiveness, that also is a universal principle. Virtually all religion teaches that. In fact, even the rationalist philosopher Spinoza teaches that. Even Pharaoh and Ahab recognized that. In fact, even animals can be trained to have some sense of it. The issue is that God’s long-suffering and forbearance, our repentance, and God’s forgiveness are not final salvation. What’s more, I literally experience a sense of forgiveness in the way of repentance. Even worldly psychology recognizes that there can be a sense of catharsis associated with it. Any man who experiences any sexual emissions (Lev. 15:16-18) and who so much as washes his hands (James 4:8) goes through the motions of repentance and experiences a sense of forgiveness.

In fact, let us suppose that someone merely believes that Jesus was an idealized rabbi and a good example. Let us suppose that the ten commandments were just a human observation of natural wisdom, that the Lord’s Prayer is a safe response to that, because it does not use God’s name directly, and that Acts 15 is a realistic expectation for religious law that recognizes basic health and safety. I certainly have heard people who professed to be unbelievers, but recognized that. Even someone who is simply convicted that they should say the Lord’s Prayer once in a while, whether one is a Jew or Christian, and who finds some relief in that, though they certainly should not go to the Lord’s Supper without more evidence of faith, should still be able to recognize that there is some benefit in it for this life. In fact, even the people who want to believe that Jesus was a mere man without actual sin, and therefore only a good example, should be able to recognize that he humbled himself in washing his disciple’s feet before exercising his authority in instituting the Lord’s Supper.

In fact, even such things as the scientific method, continuous improvement in software development, and other technological developments are all based on seeing errors, changing one’s mind, and attempted improvement. All of these things can be tied to the cycle of repentance, forgiveness, and renewed positive work. That’s not grace to the reprobate personally, but particular grace does overflow into the creation organically (Prov. 12:10), so that even the reprobate take advantage of that power.

About the only people who don’t recognize that repentance precedes forgiveness are criminals who are convinced they can get away with their crimes and narcissistic dictators.

For the above reasons, I’m primarily concerned that repentance is worked by the power of the resurrection, given through the bond of faith. In other words, that repentance must be a sign of faith in its operation. However, you still can’t get away from the fact that repentance precedes forgiveness. Even when repentance and forgiveness are the issue, it still boils down to the question of the resurrection. If the sins of the elect are also forgiven in the world to come (Matt. 12:32), if God first forgives even the sin that stains our good works (Matt. 25:36-40), then any repentance in this life necessarily precedes forgiveness. So, in the end, your position implies the self-righteous legalism associated with the Federal Vision.

As far as I can tell, your position involves a rejection of scripture, the Reformed creeds, historic positions of the PRCA, rational philosophy, and empirical science. How can you possibly get around that?

Sincerely,

Christopher Miersma

REPLY

An Army of an Unholy Alliance

Your last paragraph contains the answer to your final question: “How can you possibly get around that?” You provide before this question a summary statement of your letter’s content: “As far as I can tell, your position involves a rejection of scripture, the Reformed creeds, historic positions of the PRCA, rational philosophy, and empirical science.”

What an army you have mustered before this position you attribute to the Reformed Protestant Churches! You propose an organized army, operating in unity under one command. You propose that its divisions are clearly aimed at one common enemy and that its weapons are alike powerful and intimidating with their destructive powers. You propose that there must be only one reaction to this powerful alliance: surrender. You ask, “How can you possibly get around that?”

What are the divisions of this army that is so unified? What an unholy alliance!

It is bad enough that you join together the first three members with the last two. You join scripture, the Reformed creeds, and the historical positions of the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA) with rational philosophy and empirical science. What does scripture say about this union that you have made? Scripture rejects this union.

14. Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 

16. And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor. 6:14–16)

What do the Reformed creeds that you make a part of this union say about this union? Will they allow your unholy alliance between the word of God and the musings of rational philosophy and empirical science?

Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees, or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars and more vain than vanity itself. (Belgic Confession 7, in Confessions and Church Order, 27–28)

Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God. (Canons of Dordt 3–4.4, in Confessions and Church Order, 167)

What do the “historic positions of the PRCA” show about your army and its ability to cooperate and intimidate? In accordance with the above quotation from the Canons of Dordt, the historical position of the PRCA has been against common grace. The false teaching of common grace is that rational philosophy and empirical science, in addition to scripture, have much to contribute to the body of truth received and used by Christians. Your denomination’s rejection of common grace must break apart this union that you have made. That rejection of common grace gives to rational philosophy and empirical science no place on the battlefield but sends them away. The man of God commanded King Amaziah to send away the army of Israel (2 Chron. 25:5–10). Even the Philistines sent away David and his men, understanding that they would be only a liability on the field of battle.

Even your union of the scriptures, the Reformed creeds, and the historical positions of the PRCA is not strength but severe weakness. With this union you deny the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. Scripture will not stand on the battlefield either with the Reformed creeds or with the historical positions of the PRCA. Scripture claims all authority for itself. It excludes the authority of men. Scripture will not suffer equality with any creed or with the historical position of any church. Scripture alone must rule in the church of Christ. The only authority of the Reformed creeds is their agreement with scripture. Refer to Belgic Confession 7, as quoted above. Refer also to the Formula of Subscription, with its line that is the basis for adherence to the Reformed creeds specifically indicated, that they “do fully agree with the Word of God” (Confessions and Church Order, 326). What of the historical positions of the PRCA, which can all be protested on the basis of God’s word? What of the Reformed creeds, which can be changed by gravamen on the same basis of God’s word?

No, you have no army. You have no divisions. You have no weapons. No intimidation. There is nothing to get around. Why is God’s word alone insufficient for your task? Why not use that weapon that is identified and given in the word of God, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17)?

A Question of Faith

Turning to the material of your letter, you put forward your first point of contention. It concerns a quotation from an article written by Rev. Ken Koole following the meeting of the Synod of the PRCA in 2018. You signify the importance of this quotation. First, you isolate it as the only thing worthy of inclusion in your letter. Second, you put it forward as one of the “historic positions of the PRCA,” implying that it has the support of your unified army, from the scriptures to “rational philosophy, and empirical science.”

If this quotation of Rev. Ken Koole is indeed a historical position of the PRCA, I must conclude that your denomination is in serious trouble. In connection with the defense of this so-called historical position of the PRCA, the same theologian called the position of the founder of the PRCA, Herman Hoeksema, “nonsense.”¹ Furthermore, another theologian of the same denomination, Prof. David Engelsma, took violent exception to this historical position announced by Rev. Ken Koole on the basis of the biblical truth of salvation by sovereign grace alone.²

It should also be noted that Rev. Ken Koole’s quotation was written in response to the decisions taken by the synod of the PRCA in 2018. That synod declared that Classis East had erred in its defense of the preaching and teaching of Rev. David Overway. Rev. David Overway had taught that there are certain things that Christians must do in order to receive benefits of salvation such as assurance of justification and answers to prayer. Synod 2018 condemned those teachings and Classis East’s support of those teachings by way of a doctrinal statement composed by a committee of Classis East. Rev. Ken Koole’s response? Indeed there are things the Christian must do, and must do to receive benefits of salvation. To declare that Reverend Koole’s statement that you quote is a historical position of the PRCA is at the least very confusing. At the most it is simply false.

What follows in your letter is a leap over a chasm that is unbridgeable by any kind of logical connection. Whether you recognize it or not, you leap from Reverend Koole’s quotation about the necessity of faith as an act of man to a statement about faith’s having some kind of a definite, limiting content. According to the context of Reverend Koole’s quotation, as an errant commentary on Acts 16:31, the object of faith given in the word that Paul spoke to the Philippian jailer was Jesus Christ himself. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Nothing there about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Setting aside your pretension to define faith according to the vast host you enumerate, you muster your support. You ground your contention that faith must consciously accept the singular truth of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in Jesus’ resurrection itself. Indeed, Jesus did die in order to atone for the unbelief of the elect and to purchase by his blood the gift of faith. Indeed, he did arise from the dead in order to send his Spirit to his church, in order that his Spirit work faith in the hearts of the elect. But that is not to limit faith to the doctrine of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Nor is it a justification for your assertion that faith in Jesus’ resurrection is the ground for distinguishing true, saving faith from a faith that is not true and that does not save.

With this limitation of faith to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, your attempt to further limit faith to its operation in the consciousness of the believer for the conscious experience of salvation collapses on itself. If you reduce faith to a conscious acceptance or agreement with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that will be as far as it must go in the consciousness of the believer as well.

It is passing strange that you declare that Lord’s Day 1 contains the “assumption” of believing in Lord’s Day 1, when question and answer 2 of the Lord’s Day identifies the three things that are necessary to know in order to live and die happily in the comfort of belonging to Jesus.

You pose the argument in your letter, “That, after all, is the minimum obedient response to the command and call of the gospel.” You make here a bare assertion without any proof. Everything that follows in the paragraph runs in a circle that is entirely without support and runs itself out of energy. The challenge at the end is no challenge at all. The reader can only watch as the argument collapses on itself.

What follows of your “universal principle,” which you draw from many alleged sources without a connection to the subject of faith, makes a fearful connection. The connections you state are behavioral. Shall we turn faith into a certain behavior, whether psychological or physical? Shall we take that behavior and make it a condition for obtaining salvation, even assurance of salvation? May it never be! How much worse is your effort in the following paragraph to graft this “universal principle” into anything remotely resembling Christian experience! How fearful that you make Christ into an example to support your contention: “…should be able to recognize that he humbled himself in washing his disciple’s [sic] feet before exercising his authority in instituting the Lord’s Supper.”

I must admit that I cannot make sense of your paragraph that begins with the words “For the above reasons.” It makes stunning twists and turns that defy both logic and comprehension. Yet it manages somehow to arrive at its end: “So, in the end, your position implies the self-righteous legalism associated with the Federal Vision.” I am left to wonder if you were so attached to your conclusion that your premises mattered not at all.

In all these observations it becomes evident that you share a common feature with your quotation of Reverend Koole. This feature is common with rational philosophy and empirical science. (By the way, I understand that what you mean by “empirical science” is science according to the philosophical principles of the Enlightenment carried forward by Immanuel Kant, etc.) What is this feature?

This feature is to limit faith to parameters that are agreeable to the nature of man. Man’s reason is the standard. Man’s reason is the standard for what faith must be. This is rationalism, pure and simple. This is the rationalism of Arminianism. This is the rationalism of Reverend Koole. Because man himself does believe, faith must be the deed of man. This is your rationalism. Faith must have a mini-
mum content, namely Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. This minimum content, because it accords to man’s reasoning, must be true. Reason will count up a number of propo-
sitions because it can only conceive of faith as agreement or subscription to those definable propositions. Or, in your case, reason will single out one such proposition, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is fitting to paraphrase James 2:19: Thou believest that Jesus was raised from the dead; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Yes, there is indeed a war. There is an army on the battlefield of this war. But this army is the army of the words and thoughts of men summoned together against the word of God and the truth of his word. The battle is exactly that which is described in Ephesians 6. It is the warfare observed by article 7 of the Belgic Confession as that Reformed creed reflects on the truth of Psalm 116:11, which verse is also referred to in Romans 3:4.

This true warfare identified in scripture is not of one kind or sort of idea about faith against another kind or sort of idea about faith. It is the warfare of unbelief against faith. It is a battle taken up against God. In this battle man wrests the truth of faith from the Bible and must mold and shape it into a vain image to which he can conform on his own terms. It is not, therefore, faith in God or faith in Christ the mediator between God and man. It is instead faith in man himself. It viciously empties out the glory, the wonder, and the power of faith as the gift of God. It makes of faith a vain show, grotesquely to distort it into a form agreeable to man’s pride.

The Bible refuses to allow faith to be so twisted and distorted. The Bible teaches that faith is ruled wholly and entirely by its one true and proper object: the person and the work of Jesus Christ, true God and man, the only savior and redeemer, the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Although you do not refer to Romans 10:9, where the Holy Spirit specifically places the truth of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in connection with true, saving faith, the context of verse 9 denies your rationalistic goal. The words that follow two verses later make clear that the object of faith is not a proposition but Christ himself. “The scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (v. 11). Earlier in the passage, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (v. 4). This same glorious truth about faith is made evident in the very passage that Reverend Koole wrested in his desperate attempt to make faith into a deed. In Acts 16:31 the apostle Paul correctly identified that same proper object of faith, Jesus Christ. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” By the very identification of faith according to its object, Jesus Christ in all his glory as the complete savior, the foolish notion of faith as a doing that has standing before God ought to dissolve completely, were it not for the perverse pride of men—rationalism.

There is the testimony of the answer to the Ethiopian eunuch’s question to Philip, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”: “Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:36–37). The purpose of the gospel according to John, given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is stated in John 20:31: “These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

What is to be said about these references? Can it possibly be that they set out a number of minimum requirements for true faith? That faith must believe one, two, three, or a hundred items of truth? Or must it believe in Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)? It must. Indeed, faith must not and cannot believe in Christ if it is of man in any respect. If faith is of man, it can never come to Christ. True, saving faith must be and must always be the gift of God in Christ himself (Eph. 2:8).

Do the Reformed creeds fully agree with the word of God on this subject? Or do they stand in support of the quotation of Reverend Koole as a historical position of the PRCA, in support of your letter’s content, and in support of rational philosophy and empirical science?

Lord’s Day 7, clearly teaching on faith itself, gives its sharp answer to the question of your letter:

Q. 22. What is then necessary for a Christian to believe?

A. All things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted Christian faith briefly teach us. (Confessions and Church Order, 91)

Is saving faith saving faith because it entertains some doctrinal propositions, even doctrinal propositions derived from scripture? Can the faith of devils (James 2:19) be true, saving faith? Can this weak, morally vacuous, and spiritually inept view of faith compare to the testimony of the Reformed creed, the Belgic Confession?

We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him. For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or, if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him. (Article 22, in Confessions and Church Order, 49–50)

I have a reason for including the second sentence of the above quote. In it, together with the first sentence, the Belgic Confession lays bare the deepest flaw of the erroneous conception of faith you assert. This deepest flaw runs through every rationalistic consideration of faith, whether yours, Reverend Koole’s, or the Remonstrants’ in their rationalism. Your erroneous conception of faith is that it asserts “that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ.” It makes Christ insufficient. Faith as a doing or an act of man makes Christ insufficient. Faith defined as man’s agreement with certain propositions defined by man makes Christ insufficient. These conceptions of faith are legal in their character, not organic, in spite of your vain contentions twice appearing in your letter. The faith you purport to be supported by your army is not of God the Holy Spirit but is of the vain imagination of man.

Yea, let God be true but every man a liar, as it is written.

I also express a word of caution about certain elements of your letter that demonstrate unbelief: “If the testimony of scripture is true.” “Assuming that Jesus Christ ascended into heaven.” “Even animals can be trained to have some sense of it.” “Even worldly psychology recognizes that there can be a sense of catharsis associated with it.” “All of these things can be tied to the cycle of repentance, forgiveness, and renewed positive work.”

On account of these elements, I answer your letter with deep humility and sorrow. It demonstrates in a powerful way that true, saving faith is indeed always and only a divine gift given to unworthy sinners. Only God’s grace by the Holy Spirit can break the powerful grip of depravity’s unbelief and bring that depraved unbeliever to rest in Christ alone without reservations or conditions.