Introduction

Professor Engelsma’s latest papers are being passed around by many as the definitive answer to whether man’s activity precedes God’s activity in the forgiveness of sins and salvation. I have read these papers several times. I have underlined many passages. I have jotted many notes in the margins and in a separate notebook. I have looked up the quotations. I have labored to grasp the arguments. After all of that, I can say that Professor Engelsma did indeed come very close to ending the controversy in the first paragraph of his paper, Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken. There Professor Engelsma acknowledges that if my charge against his theology is correct, then it is a “damning” charge for his theology.

In the February 15, 2022 issue of the magazine, Sword and Shield (hereafter S&S), an editor accused me of “teaching that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation” because I teach that “repentance precedes remission of sins.” The charge, that one teaches that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation, is, of course, damning, which is exactly what the editor unbrotherly and unkindly intended.

“Damning.” I agree wholeheartedly. This is why Sword and Shield has condemned Professor Engelsma’s theology in the strongest possible terms as Pelagian and Arminian. Though Professor Engelsma takes umbrage at that condemnation—as if the editors were merely hurling epithets at him and being unkind to him instead of carefully, painstakingly analyzing his doctrine and providing copious quotations to demonstrate our charges—the condemnation is right to use such strong language. The teaching that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation ought to be damned, by Professor Engelsma’s own acknowledgment.

“Damning.” Yes! I wish that Professor Engelsma would take hold of that word in his own heart and repudiate his own teaching with all of his considerable force. I hate the theology that Professor Engelsma teaches these days. It stinks of hell. I mourn my professor’s fall into such gross false doctrine. This false doctrine will be the one thing that he leaves to the Protestant Reformed Churches as his legacy and as hers. All of his sermons, his books, his Standard Bearer editorials, and his lectures will be forgotten, or at least they will become mere historical artifacts. But the theology that he has made to live and breathe in the PRC for the rest of her generations is that man’s activity of repenting of his sins precedes God’s activity of forgiving man’s sins. The professor has always had the theological power of ten other men. With regard to strength, he has been a mighty Samson among the judges of Israel. Even now, when he is well into his fourscore years because “strength be great,” he still writes with more weight than all of his Protestant Reformed colleagues combined. While his hair is yet grown and he yet has strength, let not the mighty judge of Israel help to build the temple of Dagon in the exaltation of man, but let him pull down the temple of man, man, man—on his own head and as the last act of his ministry and of his life, if need be.

“Damning.” If Professor Engelsma believed that and took hold of it, then Sword and Shield’s controversy with him would be finished, at least on that front. But he does not believe it and does not take hold of it. Rather, the professor calls the charge absurd, as if he has not taught and does not teach that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation. If that were all, it would not be so hard to demonstrate (again) that Professor Engelsma has indeed taught and does indeed teach that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation.

But Professor Engelsma goes further. He develops his false doctrine. In his endless attempts to restate and reformulate and clarify and prove his false doctrine, he begins to bring out explicitly its implications. It is inevitable that development occurs in the doctrine that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation. Principles work through. Through Professor Engelsma’s latest writings, we can mark the development of the error occurring before our very eyes. So the controversy continues. For the sharpening of the truth and the comfort of God’s people, the controversy continues.

What the Issue Is

What I so strongly object to in Professor Engelsma’s teaching is that there are aspects of man’s salvation in which man’s activity precedes God’s activity, and that in these aspects of man’s salvation, God’s activity waits upon man’s activity before God’s activity can follow. Over against Professor Engelsma, I maintain that salvation is of the Lord and that man’s activity is always the response to God’s activity and the fruit of God’s activity, and never the prerequisite for God’s activity or the condition for God’s activity.

The question that separates us is this: Is there a vital aspect of man’s salvation in which man’s activity precedes God’s activity, in which God’s activity waits for man’s activity, and in which God’s activity then follows man’s activity? In Engelsma’s latest documents that question has to do with man’s activity of repentance and God’s activity of forgiveness. In the vital aspect of man’s forgiveness of sins, does man’s activity of repenting precede God’s activity of forgiving, so that God’s activity of forgiving waits for man’s activity of repenting, and God’s activity of forgiving then follows man’s activity of repenting? Professor Engelsma says, yes. I say, no.

It is necessary to state again the issue between us because Professor Engelsma continues to confuse and misrepresent the issue. The professor has repeatedly tried to convince everyone that the issue is about some other thing than whether man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation.

In June of 2021, Professor Engelsma tried to make the issue the call of the gospel and the real spiritual activity of God’s people. He told all who would listen that I do away with the call of the gospel and that I deny the real spiritual activity of God’s people. His framing of the issue this way was silly. Did he not know that I was deposed from the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) exactly for calling the Protestant Reformed Churches to repent of their false doctrine? Of course he knew this, for he himself called me into his office two days after the sermon for which I would eventually be deposed to tell me that I may never criticize my own denomination from the pulpit, even if my own denomination had fallen into false doctrine. I considered it odd at the time, and I still consider it odd now, that the one who is supposedly the champion of the call of the gospel called me into his office to tell me to stop issuing that call with regard to the false doctrine of my own denomination. I speak as a man and as an utter fool and blushing crimson to have to say it, but if there has been anyone who has issued the call of the gospel in the PRC and who has called the members of the PRC to the real spiritual activity of repenting and turning and being converted and believing, it was I. Professor Engelsma completely confused the issue by framing it as though it were my inability or refusal to utter the call of the gospel.

Next, in a lecture in January of 2022, Professor Engelsma tried to make the issue antinomianism. In the published version of his lecture, he contended against the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC). In his lecture he accused the RPC of being opposed to God’s law, being nervous about obedience to God’s law, denying the obligation to perform good works according to God’s law, and rejecting God’s law in the name of God’s grace. 

Professor Engelsma’s framing of the issue as antinomianism was deceitful. It was deceitful because Professor Engelsma never demonstrated the supposed antinomianism of the Reformed Protestant Churches. He defined antinomianism. He condemned antinomianism. He nearly sang an epic ballad of his own heroic battles against antinomianism. And he lamented that at the late date of AD 2022 the PRC had to do battle against antinomianism in a Reformed church. In all of this, Professor Engelsma never showed that the Reformed Protestant denomination is actually guilty of the miserable heresy of antinomianism. He left it as a foregone conclusion. He left it as common knowledge. No proof necessary! 

And it is a good thing for Professor Engelsma and his churches that no proof is necessary for them to believe that the Reformed Protestant denomination is antinomian, because no proof can be found. The Reformed Protestant Churches love the law, preach the law, sing the law, and obey the law. We just don’t want to be saved by the law. We don’t want to be saved by the “Thou shalts” and the imperatives in the Bible. We want to be saved by the “It is finished” and the indicatives in the Bible. 

When Professor Engelsma and his sympathetic audience gathered on that snowy evening for his antinomianism lecture, they could all nod their heads and waggle their eyebrows and nudge their elbows knowingly at each other, happily shivering with the certainty that lurking just outside the warm and holy glow of the PRC were those wicked, law-hating, antinomian RPs.

Now Professor Engelsma tries to make the issue that God himself works man’s repentance. He tells his readers that Sword and Shield has misrepresented his position because when Sword and Shield accused him of teaching that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation, Sword and Shield left out the fact that Professor Engelsma teaches that God moves the sinner to repent.

Everyone can see that my affirmation of repentance preceding remission is radically different from the description of this truth by the editor of S&S. My statement does not deny God’s being first in salvation. With regard to the issue at hand, repentance and forgiveness, I confessed that our repenting is the gracious work of God in us (II Timothy 2:25): God moves us to repent so that in the way of our repenting He forgives. The presentation of my statement by the editor of S&S leaves out that God moves the elect sinner to repent and that He does so by His efficacious call, “Repent!” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

Professor Engelsma is mistaken that Sword and Shield has left out the fact that he teaches that God moves the sinner to repent, to draw nigh to God, or to do any of the sinner’s other activity. Sword and Shield has acknowledged that Professor Engelsma teaches that God moves the sinner to the sinner’s activity. Interested readers can see this for themselves in volume 2, number 5 (August 15, 2021), page 29, first column, last paragraph.

But Professor Engelsma’s complaint that we left something out is a distraction from the real issue between him and Sword and Shield. The issue is not whether the sinner’s repenting is the gracious work of God. Everyone agrees that God moves a sinner to repent. Rather, the issue is whether God’s activity of forgiving the sinner’s sin waits upon the sinner’s activity of repenting. For that question it makes no difference whether one confesses that the sinner’s activity of repenting is from God. The question is not about where the sinner’s activity has come from. The question is whether the activity of God in forgiving the sinner’s sin waits upon the sinner’s activity of repenting. It is conditional theology to teach that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in such a way that God’s activity waits upon man’s activity. That is conditional theology, whether one teaches that man’s activity is from himself or that man’s activity is from God. 

All of the other things, then, that Professor Engelsma keeps writing about and speaking about are not the issue. This is the issue between us: Does God’s activity of forgiving the sinner’s sin wait upon the sinner’s activity of repenting of his sin?

This is quite an issue. It is nothing less than the doctrine of justification. Does God’s activity of justifying the sinner wait upon the sinner’s activity of repenting?

Is the Charge Absurd?

Professor Engelsma says that my charge against him is absurd.

What is my charge against him? This: Professor Engelsma teaches that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation. This is how Professor Engelsma understands my charge, and this is also how I understand my charge. Never mind for the moment that my charge actually goes further than Professor Engelsma has stated it. I also charge that Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is the doctrine of prerequisites. I charge that his doctrine is the doctrine of conditional justification and conditional salvation. I charge that his doctrine denies justification by faith alone and teaches justification by the works of man. I charge that his doctrine of repentance and the remission of sins is not Reformed at all but Arminian and Pelagian. I warn the men who truly believe and practice Professor Engelsma’s doctrine of justification as he teaches it in the year 2022 that they will go to hell and perish everlastingly. But leave all of that aside for the moment. Let us deal with my charge as Professor Engelsma states it.

In the February 15, 2022 issue of the magazine, Sword and Shield (hereafter S&S), an editor accused me of “teaching that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation” because I teach that “repentance precedes remission of sins.” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

About my accusation Professor Engelsma says, “In reality, the charge is absurd” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken). The professor maintains that I have misrepresented him, and he offers three possible explanations for my supposed misrepresentation. He rejects the first two explanations and stands on the third.

There are three possible explanations of this misrepresentation of my affirmation of the biblical doctrine that repentance precedes forgiveness, and is the way to receive forgiveness. One is that the editor is ignorant…

The second possibility is that he is lying—deliberately misrepresenting me so as to convince his adherents of the necessity of his abandoning the Protestant Reformed Churches and so as to gain more followers…

This leaves only the third option: he is honestly mistaken. Despite the efforts of myself and of the assemblies of the churches of which I am a member, he does not understand that God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this repentance, He may forgive. (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

Well then, is my charge against Professor Engelsma absurd or not? Have I misrepresented him, or have I faithfully and accurately represented him? Is it true or isn’t it that Professor Engelsma teaches that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation? 

My charge is simple to demonstrate (again). Here follow quotations from Professor Engelsma’s own writings from June of 2021. These quotations are from his letters dealing with my sermon on Malachi 3:7, preached within the last year, and his own sermon on James 4:8, preached many years ago. The underlining is mine.¹

We do draw nigh to God; God calls us seriously to do so; and there is a sense, a certain, specific sense, in which our drawing nigh precedes God’s drawing nigh to us. To deny this is to contradict the inspired Word of God. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum, June 14, 2021)

A member of the church, who considered himself the most orthodox member of the congregation and probably of the denomination, if not of the catholic church of all time, objected to my sermon because I did justice to the obvious truth that there is a sense—one, specific and very important sense—in which our drawing nigh to God, in the language of the text, precedes God’s drawing nigh to us and in which sermon I vehemently exhorted the congregation, including the ultra-orthodox member, to draw nigh to God. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021)

Even one who is “mentally challenged” can understand James to be teaching that it is our solemn, serious calling to draw nigh to God; that in a certain sense our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us; and that it is not Christian orthodoxy to deny our serious calling or that in a certain sense our drawing nigh to God precedes His drawing nigh to us. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021)

First, to repeat, there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us…Second, this sense has to do with our experience of salvation, which is not an unimportant aspect of our salvation. When we draw nigh to God, by faith including faith’s repentance, God draws nigh to us in our experience. We have the consciousness that God is our near-by friend and that we are close to Him, in His bosom, which is Jesus, so to say. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021)

Let all us “idiots” look closely at James 4:8. And let us see with the eyes of faith, not blinded by a man-made scheme of ultra-orthodoxy, eyes that understand the clear teaching of God’s Word, that there is an important sense in which our drawing nigh to God, by the effectual allure of the promise that in this way God will graciously draw nigh to us (than which experience nothing is more precious), precedes God’s drawing nigh to us.” (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021)

Question to AL: does he deny that God draws nigh to us in the way of His drawing us nigh to Himself, so that our drawing nigh to Him precedes our experience of His drawing nigh to [us]? (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021)

God is always first in salvation, but with regard to the assurance of salvation He works in the order of drawing me to Himself as the way to draw nigh to me. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021)

Otherwise even AL will have to acknowledge to his congregation that there is a sense in which our returning to God, by the effectual power of the grace of God in the call, precedes God’s returning to us, who have gone astray. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021)

Let AL and his audience ask the question of himself and of themselves in light of Malachi 3: does the passage not teach that there is a sense in which Israel’s returning to God, by His efficacious call, precedes Israel’s enjoyment of these blessings. This does not mean that man is first. To charge this against one who rightly explains Malachi 3 is not merely a reprehensible tactic by which one thinks to win an argument, but also the twisting of Holy Scripture by which one opposes the way of God’s saving work with his people. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021)

Presenting my thought as man’s preceding God is sheer falsehood. The truth is, as I also made plain, that our drawing nigh to God, by His effectual call, precedes God’s drawing nigh to us in our experience. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021)

Let me state this once again, more simply. In salvation as the matter of our consciousness, or experience, of God’s drawing nigh to us in the assurance of His love and the sweet experience of the covenant of grace, God draws us to Himself (thus He is first in the matter of experience) in such a way that we actively draw nigh to Him by a true and living faith (which faith as a spiritual activity of knowing Him in Jesus and trusting in Him), so that in the way of this our drawing nigh to Him He may draw nigh to us in the experience of His nearness in Christ. In this specific sense, our drawing nigh to Him precedes His drawing nigh to [us]. This is the plain meaning of James 4:8: “Draw nigh to me, and I will draw nigh to you.” This is the plain meaning of the text as it stands in all its perfect clarity before every reader, especially before a minister of the Word. Our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us. (Professor Engelsma to the Engelsma Family Forum, Terry Dykstra, and Andy Lanning, June 21, 2021)

The charge is not absurd but well established. Professor Engelsma teaches emphatically and insistently that man’s activity of drawing nigh to God and returning to God precedes God’s activity of drawing nigh to man and returning to man. The fact that man’s activity of drawing nigh and returning are the works of God is not the issue. The issue is that God’s activity of drawing nigh to man and returning to man follows—and waits upon—man’s activity of drawing nigh to God and returning to God.

In September of 2021, Professor Engelsma carried his line of thinking into the doctrine of justification. I very much appreciate that he did this. Now we do not have to wait a generation, or even a few years, for the evil fruits of Professor Engelsma’s false doctrine to be seen. The man is a theologian to the bitter end. He did not leave it to the succeeding generation to develop his doctrine that man’s activity of drawing nigh to God precedes God’s activity of drawing nigh to man. Within a mere few months, Professor Engelsma himself carried his line of thought into the doctrine of justification and the remission of sins. Again, the underlining is mine.

Justification, or forgiveness, follows faith, as the end follows the means. Faith precedes justification. Repentance precedes remission of sins. But because it pleases God to justify by means of faith (believing), and to forgive in the way of the sinner’s repenting, justification is not caused by faith. Neither is repentance the cause of forgiveness. Faith is the (God-worked) means. It is not the cause…

The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance. Similarly, believing is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto justification; as end, justification follows faith.

Do the theologians of the RPC deny this? Do they deny that the end follows the means? Do they deny that the (God-worked) repentance of the sinner precedes forgiveness? Do they deny that an active faith precedes justification? Do they deny the teaching of James 4:8 that an important aspect of salvation has God’s causing us to draw nigh to Him precede His drawing nigh to us. Is this now the rock-bottom, doctrinal validation of their separate existence? Is this in the end their “here we stand”?²

In January of 2022, Professor Engelsma continued his insistence that in some sense man’s activity in salvation precedes God’s activity in salvation and that in justification, in some sense man’s activity of forgiving his neighbor precedes God’s activity of forgiving him. The quotations are all taken from Copy of the Lecture on “Antinomism” Given to my Reformed Doctrines Class on January 26, 2022, by David J. Engelsma. Again, the underlining is mine. All other brackets and emphases are Professor Engelsma’s.

The text is James 4:8: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.”

My explanation of this text will at the same time explain, or at least give the sense of, the passages with which my questioner confronts me. First, it is clear as the sun in the heavens that the text teaches an activity of ours in the sphere of salvation, namely, drawing nigh to God, that precedes God’s activity in some sense of drawing nigh to us: he will [thus and then; note the future tense: ‘will’—DJE] draw nigh to you.” One who cannot or will not notice that the text plainly teaches a certain activity of ours that precedes an activity of God is disqualified as a teacher of the Word of God, and a teacher at all, so plain, so explicit is the text: “draw nigh to God [in the present], and he will [in the future] draw nigh to you.”

I suppose that if I explain Jesus’ word about forgiveness, as I do, as meaning that there is a sense in the sphere of salvation in which our forgiving each other is first and in which God’s forgiving us follows, my critics, forgetting that they are criticizing Jesus Himself, will accuse me of putting man first in salvation. They will then exalt themselves as always putting God first, also in Matthew 6, as though I do not.

What they ignore and want their audience to overlook is that the text itself teaches that our forgiveness in the text is first and that God’s forgiveness follows [“your heavenly Father will also forgive you,” that is, after you forgive—DJE]. Their criticism, therefore, falls upon Jesus Himself for “putting man first in salvation.” My warm, brotherly advice to them is, “Be careful! Be careful not to criticize Jesus and not to be more orthodox than Jesus!”

First, we must do justice to the teaching of these verses: a certain work of God’s salvation follows an activity of ours, and if we fail in this activity, we will not enjoy that particular work of God, but suffer painful chastisement, for example, living without the experience of the forgiveness of our sins, as is the warning of Matthew 6.

Second, all is God’s salvation, and He works—He works—in such a way that an activity of ours (which is God’s work in us) precedes an activity of His: our forgiving precedes His forgiving, so that if we do not forgive, neither does He forgive us. Denying this, the theologians of the Reformed Protestant Churches have a very difficult time explaining the fifth petition of the model prayer.

In February of 2022, Professor Engelsma again insisted that man’s activity of repenting precedes God’s activity of forgiving and that God’s activity of forgiving waits upon man’s activity of repenting. These quotations are taken from Professor Engelsma’s privately published paper, Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken. Once again, the underlining is mine.

His reference was to my assertion that in a certain aspect of God’s work of salvation God works in such a way that He moves us to act in order that He may then act in the way He has determined. In that particular aspect of salvation, God works in such a way that our activity (which He accomplishes) precedes His activity. The precise reference was to His act of the forgiving of our sins. Our repenting precedes His remission of our sins. My statement was as follows: “It pleases God…to forgive in the way of the sinner’s repenting…Neither is repentance the cause of forgiveness…[As an aspect of faith it is] the (God-worked) means. It is not the cause…The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance.”

This leaves only the third option: he is honestly mistaken. Despite the efforts of myself and of the assemblies of the churches of which I am a member, he does not understand that God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this repentance, He may forgive.

I explain, therefore, to my mistaken brother, and beloved former student, yet once again, that our believing precedes God’s justifying us and that God’s remitting our sins follows our repenting, and that this order of God’s saving us does not compromise the truth of salvation by grace alone.

Time and space would fail me to quote all the passages of Scripture and the creeds that teach that repentance precedes forgiveness, or, what is essentially the same truth, that believing precedes justification, and that repentance is required for forgiveness.

And now after Professor Engelsma has written all of that, month after month, with all the force and persuasion that he is able to bring to pen and paper, he finds it absurd that I would accuse him of teaching that man’s activity precedes God’s activity in salvation?

How absurd.

First Development: “As We Forgive Our Debtors”

In his latest articles Professor Engelsma has developed his false doctrine. He makes explicit what was implicit in his previous formulations, and he does this in especially three areas.

First, Professor Engelsma teaches that God’s forgiveness of the sinner follows—and waits for—the sinner’s forgiveness of his neighbor. According to Professor Engelsma, the sinner must do the good work of loving his neighbor and forgiving his neighbor’s trespasses against him before God will forgive the sinner his own trespasses against God.

The professor taught this in response to the question of an astute listener. Whether the listener actually believes the implication of his question, which is chilling, or whether the listener was trying to lead the professor to see his own error, the question is astute.

In light of your instruction concerning antinomianism, justification, and sanctification, how are we to understand passages in the Bible that clearly teach that if I do something then God will do something. Are these not demands with conditions? (Copy of the Lecture on “Antinomism”)

The listener then listed four passages. One of these passages was Jesus’ explanation of the fifth petition of the Lord’s prayer, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” Jesus explained in Matthew 6:14–15, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Astoundingly, Professor Engelsma answered his listener by insisting that the sinner’s activity of forgiving is first and that God’s activity of forgiving follows. Professor Engelsma insisted that the sinner’s loving good work of forgiving his neighbor precedes God’s forgiving the sinner his own sins.

I explain the sense of the entire list of “if then” texts that my questioner presents to me by a brief explanation of another of the passages, Matthew 6:14, 15. God not only wills to forgive our debts to Him, but He also wills that we forgive each other. Therefore He instructs us that He “will” {note well the future tense—DJE} forgive us when we forgive each other and in the way of our forgiving each other. He warns us that if we refuse to forgive each other, neither will He forgive us. I suppose that if I explain Jesus’ word about forgiveness, as I do, as meaning that there is a sense in the sphere of salvation in which our forgiving each other is first and in which God’s forgiving us follows, my critics, forgetting that they are criticizing Jesus Himself, will accuse me of putting man first in salvation. They will then exalt themselves as always putting God first, also in Matthew 6, as though I do not.

What they ignore and want their audience to overlook is that the text itself teaches that our forgiveness in the text is first and that God’s forgiveness follows [“your heavenly Father will also forgive you,” that is, after you forgive—DJE]. Their criticism, therefore, falls upon Jesus Himself for “putting man first in salvation.” My warm, brotherly advice to them is, “Be careful! Be careful not to criticize Jesus and not to be more orthodox than Jesus!” (Copy of the Lecture on “Antinomism”)

It makes absolutely no difference for the professor’s position that he goes on to teach that God is the one who causes the sinner to forgive his neighbor. It makes no difference that he teaches that God is the one who makes the sinner willing and active. It makes no difference that he teaches that “God works in us naturally unforgiving sinners so that we forgive each other.” All of that is true. But none of that is the issue! The issue is this: Must I perform the good work (by grace, of course) of forgiving my neighbor’s trespasses before God will forgive my trespasses? Does God’s forgiveness of me wait for my forgiveness (by grace, beloved) of my neighbor?

Professor Engelsma’s answer is so astounding because it is a naked doctrine of justification by works. It is not a disguised doctrine of justification by works. It is not a doctrine the implication of which is justification by works. It is not a doctrine that someday will lead to justification by works. Rather, Professor Engelsma’s doctrine today is justification by works. It is the naked teaching that the sinner’s justification is by his loving good work of forgiving his neighbor.

If anyone needs it demonstrated further that Professor Engelsma is teaching justification by works, then consider this. The forgiveness of sins is justification. “We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied” (Belgic Confession 23, in Confessions and Church Order, 51). On the other hand, forgiving our neighbor is a good work of love for the neighbor in obedience to the second table of the law. “What doth God require in the sixth commandment? That I lay aside all desire of revenge” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 105, in Confessions and Church Order, 129–30). To teach that God’s justification of us waits upon our forgiveness of the neighbor is to teach that we are justified by that work.

If anyone needs it demonstrated further that Professor Engelsma is teaching justification by works, then consider this. These are the professor’s own words, in which he teaches that our work of love precedes God’s work of forgiving us and that if we fail in our work of love, then God will also not perform his work of forgiving us.

First, we must do justice to the teaching of these verses: a certain work of God’s salvation follows an activity of ours, and if we fail in this activity, we will not enjoy that particular work of God, but suffer painful chastisement, for example, living without the experience of the forgiveness of our sins, as is the warning of Matthew 6.

Second, all is God’s salvation, and He works—He works—in such a way that an activity of ours (which is God’s work in us) precedes an activity of His: our forgiving precedes His forgiving, so that if we do not forgive, neither does He forgive us. Denying this, the theologians of the Reformed Protestant Churches have a very difficult time explaining the fifth petition of the model prayer. (Copy of the Lecture on “Antinomism”)

What then is the explanation of the fifth petition of the Lord’s prayer? And what is the explanation of Jesus’ words, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14–15)?

First, the explanation is that God’s forgiveness of our sins is due entirely to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our justification is not the reward, the result, or the consequence of what we have done. Our justification does not follow our work. Rather, our justification is God’s imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to us. Not our love, not our obedience, not our work, not our forgiving our neighbors, and not any other work of ours explain God’s forgiveness of our sins. Only the perfect work of Christ, including his bearing our curse in our place for all our sins, explains God’s forgiveness of our sins. And by the way, where is this work and righteousness of Christ in Professor Engelsma’s theology? In his speech and his letter, he hardly mentions the righteousness of Christ in connection with the forgiveness of our sins, but he mentions always and again man’s work as preceding the forgiveness of sins. The truth is that the forgiveness of our sins is founded upon Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 

14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:13–14)

Second, we are justified by faith alone. We are not justified by our forgiving our neighbor or by any other good work of the law. We are not even justified in the way of forgiving our neighbor or in the way of any other good work. Faith does not do anything or give anything or contribute anything but only receives what God has done and given and bestowed. Faith is alone in justification. Faith is passive in justification, which means that it does not work, and it is not work for justification. Faith’s whole power is not at all the man who believes but the object of faith, which is Jesus Christ.

10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 

11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal. 3:10–11)

Third, God’s forgiveness of our sins is before—absolutely and entirely before—our forgiveness of our neighbor. We do not love, we do not work, we do not obey, we do not forgive our neighbor until after we have been forgiven. This is true from all eternity, for the Lamb has been “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). In God’s counsel we are righteous in Christ, long before we ever forgive any of our neighbors. This is also true in our own lives. We do not love, we do not forgive until after we have been forgiven. “For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good” (Belgic Confession 24, in Confessions and Church Order, 53–54).

Fourth, the reason that we love God, love our neighbor, do good works, and forgive our neighbor is never in order that we may be forgiven our sins by God. The only reason that we love and obey, including the love and obedience of forgiving our neighbor, is that we have already been forgiven our sins by God. Our obedience, including the obedience of forgiving our neighbor, is the fruit of our justification and the fruit of faith.

41. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 

42. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 

43. Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

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. (Luke 7:41–43, 47–48)

Fifth, our forgiving our neighbor is a mark and evidence that we have been forgiven of God. Our forgiving is not that which precedes our being forgiven by God. Our forgiving is not that by which (or the way in which) we are forgiven by God. Rather, our forgiving is the mark, the proof, the evidence that we have already been forgiven by God.

Q. 126. Which is the fifth petition?

A. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; that is, be pleased for the sake of Christ’s blood, not to impute to us poor sinners our transgressions, nor that depravity which always cleaves to us; even as we feel this evidence of Thy grace in us, that it is our firm resolution from the heart to forgive our neighbor. (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 51, in Confessions and Church Order, 139)

Sixth, the man who refuses to forgive his neighbor shows evidence that he himself has not been forgiven. His refusal to forgive is not the reason that he is not forgiven, any more than his obedience is the reason that he is forgiven. Rather, his refusal is the mark that he himself has not been forgiven.

44. And he 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. (Luke 7:44–47)

14. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 

15. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt. 6:14–15)

Let us call men to forgive each other their trespasses, as Jesus himself taught. Let us impress upon men the urgency of forgiving each other their trespasses as the mark and evidence of their own forgiveness, as Jesus taught. Let us warn men that if they do not forgive each other, they show evidence that they are not forgiven themselves, as Jesus taught. But let us never, never make God’s forgiveness of men’s sins follow upon and wait upon men’s forgiveness of each other. Jesus never taught that.

Professor Engelsma’s doctrine of forgiveness is not a matter of friendly debate between two denominations or between a few ministers in a magazine. It is not a friendly back-and-forth between theologians, whether they are bright or otherwise. Men who believe and practice Professor Engelsma’s doctrine of justification will go to hell. Those who believe and practice this—“Our forgiving precedes His forgiving, so that if we do not forgive, neither does He forgive us”—are under the wrath of God now and forever, except they repent and believe in Jesus Christ alone. Men who believe and practice Professor Engelsma’s doctrine find their justification in the law. They find their remission of sins in their loving good work of forgiving their neighbor. Those who find their righteousness in the law have no righteousness, for the only righteousness of the sinner can be his righteousness in Jesus Christ by faith.

According to the word of our Lord himself, the man who seeks his righteousness in his own righteous deeds does not go “down to his house justified,” but he goes down to hell unjustified (Luke 18:14). According to the apostle, those who seek their righteousness of the law are “not justified by the works of the law” but remain unjustified, and their doctrine means “Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:16, 21).

All who have followed Professor Engelsma in his latest doctrine, you are to repudiate him and to let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8–9). Though he be an apostle, though he be an angel from heaven, and though he has meant much to you and to the churches, you are to let him be accursed. His gospel is not the gospel of justification by faith alone but the damned error out of hell that righteousness is by the works of the law.

Second Development: “In Order That”

Professor Engelsma’s second development of his error that man’s activity of repenting precedes God’s activity of forgiving is his teaching that God works man’s repentance “in order that” God may then forgive man’s sins. The underlining in the following quotations from Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken is mine.

His reference was to my assertion that in a certain aspect of God’s work of salvation God works in such a way that He moves us to act in order that He may then act in the way He has determined. In that particular aspect of salvation, God works in such a way that our activity (which He accomplishes) precedes His activity. The precise reference was to His act of the forgiving of our sins. Our repenting precedes His remission of our sins.

God moves us to repent so that in the way of our repenting He forgives.

This leaves only the third option: he is honestly mistaken. Despite the efforts of myself and of the assemblies of the churches of which I am a member, he does not understand that God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this repentance, He may forgive.

Here Professor Engelsma explains the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. There certainly is a relationship between repentance and forgiveness. Scripture often connects the two. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). For the better part of the past year, Professor Engelsma has been working with this relationship between repentance and forgiveness. All of his incessant barking about the future tense of God’s promises is his recognition of this relationship between repentance and forgiveness.

Our difference over this relation of repentance and forgiveness seems to be the main doctrinal issue between us, or, at least, very close to the heart of the main issue.

I explain, therefore, to my mistaken brother, and beloved former student, yet once again, that our believing precedes God’s justifying us and that God’s remitting our sins follows our repenting, and that this order of God’s saving us does not compromise the truth of salvation by grace alone. (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

That there is a relationship between repentance and forgiveness is certain. But how one explains the relationship is all-important. In the explanation of that relationship is either the truth or the lie, either the gospel or the corruption and loss of the gospel.

With his “in order that” and “so that” statements, Professor Engelsma gives us his explanation of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. The professor’s explanation is that God’s forgiving man waits upon man’s repenting. God’s forgiving man cannot proceed until man has done his repenting. It makes no difference for the professor’s theology that God is also the one who works man’s repentance. The issue is not where the sinner’s repenting comes from. The issue is whether God’s work of forgiving the sinner waits upon the sinner’s activity of repenting. In the professor’s teaching, God must bring the sinner to repentance in order that God may forgive the sinner. In the professor’s theology, God may not forgive the sinner until he has brought the sinner to repentance. Only after God has brought the sinner to repentance may God then proceed with his forgiveness of the sinner. “God works in such a way that He moves us to act in order that He may then act in the way He has determined” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken). “God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this repentance, He may forgive” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken).

The proper term for Professor Engelsma’s explanation of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness is prerequisite. In the professor’s theology, the sinner’s repentance is the prerequisite for God’s forgiving the sinner. The sinner must repent as the prerequisite for the sinner to be forgiven, and God himself may not proceed to forgiveness until the prerequisite of repentance has been met. The proper term is also condition. The sinner’s repentance is the condition of God’s forgiving the sinner. The sinner must repent as the condition for the sinner’s being forgiven, and God himself may not proceed to forgiveness until the condition of repentance has been fulfilled.

Professor Engelsma will never use the terms prerequisite or condition to describe his theology, but he should. These terms are precise, and they accurately describe his explanation of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. These terms would save the professor a world of trouble. Instead of having to tweak and rework and restate and reformulate his doctrine with every new publication, he could simply say, “The sinner’s repentance, worked by God, is the God-ordained prerequisite for the sinner’s forgiveness.” That would be a simple, accurate statement of what he is trying to get across. The professor is already saying this anyway, minus the word prerequisite. Consider Professor Engelsma’s statement as he made it, and then with the addition of the word prerequisite. Is there any theological difference whatsoever between the two?

God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this repentance, He may forgive.

God works this aspect of salvation in such a way that He (sovereignly) moves the elect sinner to repentance so that, following this [prerequisite] repentance, He may forgive.

Professor Engelsma’s doctrine this past year has been prerequisites all along. In his dogged insistence that an activity of man (worked by God, of course) precedes an activity of God in salvation, he has been teaching prerequisites. The prerequisites that were implicit in his man before God formulation are now made explicit in his man before God in order that God may proceed formulation.

If Professor Engelsma’s explanation of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness is wrong, what is the correct explanation? This: repentance is the fruit of faith and the fruit of forgiveness, not the prerequisite to forgiveness. Repentance is the mark and evidence of forgiveness, not its condition. This explanation of repentance and forgiveness can be found earlier in this article, as well as earlier in this issue.

Third Development: “Repentance Is an Element of Faith”

Professor Engelsma’s third development of his error is that he makes repentance to be an aspect or an element of faith. The underlining is mine, but all other punctuation and brackets are Professor Engelsma’s.

My statement was as follows: “It pleases God…to forgive in the way of the sinner’s repenting…Neither is repentance the cause of forgiveness…[As an aspect of faith it is] the (God-worked) means. It is not the cause…The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance.” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

An aspect of the mistake concerning repentance on the part of the editor of “S&S” (which I mention in the hope that recognition of this mistake may incline him to recant his error that repentance does not precede remission as the God-ordained and God-worked way unto the remitting of sins) is that apparently the editor does not know that the Reformed tradition follows Calvin in regarding repentance as an aspect of faith. Repentance is not a “good work” of the sinner that is a “fruit” of faith produced by the sinner, but an element of faith itself. (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

In Professor Engelsma’s theology, repentance is faith, and faith is repentance. Repentance and faith are equivalent. Whatever distinction there may be between repentance and faith, repentance is an aspect of faith and an element of faith itself. For Professor Engelsma faith has certain elements. Presumably, knowledge is an element of faith. Presumably, assurance is an element of faith. But certainly, repentance is an element of faith. Faith is knowledge, assurance, and repentance.

In support of his doctrine that repentance is an element of faith, Professor Engelsma appeals to John Calvin. Professor Engelsma’s appeal to Calvin is bizarre. It makes me wonder, as I have before, whether the professor knows what he is doing. Is the theology of the professor over the last year the work of a sound mind that truly believes that there is a vital aspect of salvation in which man’s activity precedes God’s activity? I hope not. I hope it is dementia. (And lest anyone think that that is an unkind hope, the alternative is that the professor is subverting the gospel with a sound mind.) But then I read Professor Engelsma’s papers, in which he writes with tremendous learning and force. He is alternately able to condemn Sword and Shield or play nice with Sword and Shield as suits his purpose. He appeals to the same theology that he taught in South Holland Protestant Reformed Church when he was in the prime of his ministry. So I guess that this is truly Professor Engelsma’s theology. I don’t know what he is reading in John Calvin, and I cannot explain why he thought Calvin supported his position, but I will leave the evaluation of that mystery to others.

Professor Engelsma mutilates John Calvin. The professor is trying to prove from Calvin that repentance is identical to faith, or an aspect of faith, or an element of faith itself. Professor Engelsma hacks Calvin to pieces and sews him back together thus:

cf. his Institutes, 3.3.1: “Both repentance and forgiveness of sins…are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith…Repentance…is also born of faith.” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

What is so bizarre about this quotation is that even this mutilated Calvin does not teach what the professor tries to make him teach. Calvin (even as Professor Engelsma quotes him) does not teach that repentance is an element of faith but that repentance is attained through faith. Calvin does not teach that repentance is an aspect of faith but that repentance is born of faith. What is attained through faith is not faith. What is born of faith is not faith. What am I missing?

Here is Calvin’s actual doctrine of repentance, not as an element of faith but as a distinct gift from faith that is produced by faith and that follows from faith: “That repentance not only always follows from faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy.”³

Can true repentance exist without faith? By no means. But although they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished. As there is no faith without hope, and yet faith and hope are different, so repentance and faith, though constantly linked together, are only to be united, not confounded.⁴

The real evil in all of this is not the professor’s misuse of John Calvin. Rather, the evil is that Professor Engelsma makes repentance to be the means of justification along with faith. For Professor Engelsma, justification is not by faith alone but by faith and repentance. And Professor Engelsma rightly claims this as the doctrine of the entire Protestant Reformed denomination. Quoting his previous document, he says, 

The PRC teach that repentance is the (God-given and God-worked) means unto the remission of sins. As means, repentance precedes remission of sins; as end, remission of sins follows repentance. (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken)

What does scripture say about the means of the remission of sins, which is justification? This: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28). And this: “That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith” (Gal. 3:11).

What do the confessions say about the means of the remission of sins, which is justification? This: “How art thou righteous before God? Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 60, in Confessions and Church Order, 106). And this: “Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works” (Belgic Confession 22, in Confessions and Church Order, 50).

What does Herman Hoeksema say about justification by repentance? This from his 1957 sermon on Lord’s Day 24, “Justification without Works”:

Do we not feel sometime, beloved, that when we repent, then that act of repentance ought to be an act of righteousness before God? So that we are justified also, at least in part, by that act of repentance? Do you not feel that way sometimes? I must confess I, I feel that way, if I’m not—if I don’t watch out. Easy for me to do that. When I say I feel sorry for my sins, when I confess that I’m sorry for my sins, I think that confession makes me feel—if I do not look out—righteous. Is that possible? Is the act of repentance part of our righteousness before God? No! says the Heidelberg Catechism. Not at all. Not at all. As far as that is concerned, you may just as well not repent. That’s the…Catechism. Just as well. I say, I want to emphasize that. I must emphasize that.

Here is Hoeksema, with regard to whether we are justified by repentance: “As far as that is concerned, you may just as well not repent!”

Professor Engelsma disagrees and the PRC with him. For Professor Engelsma and the PRC, the means of remission of sins is also repentance. In their theology justification is not by faith alone but by faith and by repentance. Let all take heed that those who believe and practice this theology are not justified but perish in their imperfect repenting.

In this connection Professor Engelsma misrepresents my position on the means of justification. I maintain that faith alone is the means of justification and that repentance does not enter in whatsoever as a means of justification. The professor says that my position means that the sinner has forgiveness without repenting, as though there were no more reason to call the sinner to repent. Professor Engelsma italicizes my statement and quotes it thus: “Repentance has no bearing whatsoever on [a] man’s remission of sins” (Ignorant, Lying, or Merely Mistaken). I stand behind my statement as the gospel truth that justification is by faith alone. I also stand behind my insistence that the sinner be called to repentance, without confounding that call as though it taught repentance as a prerequisite. I provide the full quotation as I wrote it and not as Professor Engelsma quoted it:

So also for all of the blessings of salvation: justification and sanctification are all through faith, not repentance. Though repentance springs from faith as its fruit from the very instant that a man believes, that repentance has no bearing whatsoever on that man’s remission of sins or his justification.⁵

And I will let the reader judge whether the professor, in his quotation and interpretation of my words, was ignorant, lying, or merely mistaken.

Conclusion

The development of Professor Engelsma’s theology was inevitable. He has done the church world a favor in developing that theology himself, though it means that we must now let him be accursed for subverting the gospel. The truth and the lie are not hard to discern, and Professor Engelsma’s continued developments make that lie stand out ever more starkly. 

Let God’s people now discern the truth and contend for it.