Was Reformation Necessary?
In this issue is printed the Act of Separation and Reformation written by Andy Birkett and Lee Wiltjer Jr., who at the time were officebearers of Crete Protestant Reformed Church. Included with the document is printed a short introduction explaining the schism in Crete Protestant Reformed Church that gave rise to the Act of Separation and Reformation. That Act was signed by individuals and families on May 5, 2021; and by the signing of the Act, Second Reformed Protestant Church was formed. Shortly thereafter First Reformed Protestant Church—which had her own Act of Separation in January 2021—and Second signed an Act of Federation that formed the Reformed Protestant denomination.
Much has happened since then in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), especially the development of her false doctrine of conditional covenant experience by the preaching and writing of her ministers and professors. The chasm between the two denominations has widened significantly in only three years. Much has also happened in the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC). Many who joined these churches at first have since left the denomination for one reason or another. They have turned back over against the serious warning of scripture in Hebrews 10:38–39:
38. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
And their drawing back has made plain what the apostle said in 1 John 2:18–20:
18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
The troubles that have come on us, the defections from the cause, the relentless slander and hatred, and the losses that have attended our way may make some ask, “Was reformation necessary?” Others may look at our struggles and all the defections as proof that the Lord is against us and that our cause is not righteous and that it is doomed to failure. Some have prophesied as much.
Was the reformation of 2021 that gave rise to the Reformed Protestant Churches necessary?
Was reformation necessary from the viewpoint of the counsel of God, which is the divine necessity for all things? We can say of good and evil, of reformation and schism, that they are all included in the counsel of God. For the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 11:18–19 that division must come:
18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
The word “heresies” is the translation of the word meaning schisms. The meaning of the apostle is that there are divisions in the church caused by heresies. And about those schisms and divisions, the apostle says that they must come. They must come according to the sovereign purpose and the sovereign working of God and Christ, the Lord of the church. For in those schisms—which God hates and which every believer and true minister hates—God has a good purpose. His purpose is that his elect people be made manifest and approved through the controversy over those heresies. God’s purpose is also that many be made manifest as hypocrites in the controversy over the truth by their failures to cleave to that truth and to defend that truth and finally by their attacks on the truth and their labeling those who hold to the truth as evil, careless and profane, antinomian, schismatic, mean-spirited, and wicked. From this viewpoint the evaluation of the events of 2021 and the subsequent history of the RPC is easy: they happened because God willed them. They were necessary from that viewpoint.
But such a statement does not make a judgment on the righteousness or unrighteousness of the cause represented either by the PRC or by the RPC. Were all those events and the subsequent history necessary for the defense of the truth?
On the side of the PRC in the controversy, did she stand for the truth, and does the denomination represent the truth today? Was she sharpened in the truth, so that now the truth in her midst is at a higher state of development? Controversy always does that for the true church of Christ, for we can do nothing against the truth; and the truth, marching on unharmed through controversy, brings the true church along to know and to experience that truth in a clearer and sharper way. For the PRC to claim the truth in the controversy, she must also claim that through the controversy she now has a deeper and better understanding of the truth. She must also answer the question, is the PRC better as a denomination of churches because a rotten and incurable element—an ecclesiastical cancer of rebellion and antinomianism—has been excised from the denomination? And she must confess that all the writing and preaching and all the protests and appeals, which finally led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches, were evil works, schismatic, and the promotion of a doctrine that was threatening to the existence of the truth in the PRC. Therefore, for the PRC—if these things be true—the events and separation were absolutely necessary for the very preservation of the truth in the denomination and for the advancement and development of that truth beyond the advances that had been made in 1924 and 1953.
On the part of the RPC, was the separation a matter of doctrine, and was the separation thus justified because the truth could no longer be heard in the PRC and because the PRC was showing herself to be an enemy of that truth? Some challenge whether the separation was even about doctrine. Was the separation about doctrine? Much has been written from then until now, and the answer stands out more clearly than ever. Not only was the separation about doctrine, but the separation was also about the scriptural and creedal doctrines of justification by faith alone, the unconditional covenant, the cross, election, and the very doctrine of God himself. For the RPC—if these things be truth—the separation was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the truth, for a deeper understanding of the truth, and even for an opportunity to correct language that everyone simply took for granted, but language that disreputable men, who were intent on smuggling in Arminianism, used as a cover for their heresy.
In October 2021 I gave a speech in which I posed the question whether the events that gave rise to the Reformed Protestant Churches were reformation or schism.1 Those events in particular were the appearance of Sword and Shield on the scene in the Protestant Reformed Churches and then the suspension of ministers and finally the signing of two Acts of Separation. In July 2021 Cornerstone Reformed Protestant Church signed its own Act of Separation. There were also speeches given around the country that precipitated the coming out of other groups and the formation of other Reformed Protestant churches as the months went along.
For years there had been censorship at the Standard Bearer. In the middle of the doctrinal controversy that was taking place in the PRC, the magazine’s editors refused to take a lead by writing about the controversy, so the pages of the Standard Bearer remained silent about the doctrinal issue. The doctrinal issue in the controversy could not have been more serious. The doctrinal issue was the heart of the gospel, the truth of justification by faith alone. And the application of that doctrine was hardly any less serious—justification in the conscience and experience of the believer and thus the believer’s peace with God in this life and in the final judgment.
A group of men, all supporters of the Standard Bearer and members of the Protestant Reformed Churches who took their memberships seriously—even their enemies cannot gainsay that—tried to make headway and to change the situation at the Standard Bearer. The men wrote a letter to the editors of the Standard Bearer and to the board of the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA), which owns the Standard Bearer. The men laid out their viewpoint of the serious state of affairs as they saw them unfolding at the magazine. The men requested, as was their right according to the constitution of the RFPA, a meeting to discuss those things as an association. After months of labor their request was lawlessly and unethically rejected by the RFPA on account of the political maneuverings of the editors of the Standard Bearer—Russ Dykstra, Barry Gritters, and Ken Koole. I write their names so they can rot on the pages of this magazine as enemies of the truth.
Having been rebuffed, the concerned men pooled their resources and decided to begin a new publishing association, and thus Reformed Believers Publishing was born and Sword and Shield magazine was conceived. The first issue of the new magazine hit the mailboxes in the beginning of June 2020.
The appearance of the new organization and its magazine set off a firestorm in the PRC. Motions to have the magazine condemned were quickly passed by many Protestant Reformed consistories. In January 2021 Rev. Andy Lanning was deposed. In April 2021 I was suspended. And shortly thereafter the Reformed Protestant Churches were formed. The men who were members of the RFPA and their letter to its board, the formation of Reformed Believers Publishing, the printing and distribution of Sword and Shield, and finally the birth of a new Reformed denomination were all immediately condemned as schismatic without a trial and without evidence.
Thus was the question that I posed in my speech in October 2021: Were those events reformation or schism? I meant to apply that question to those in the RPC. Were we by our actions and writings and preaching guilty of schism? Or were those things the work of the Lord Jesus Christ for reformation?
I was serious when I posed that question, and it was not rhetorical. The question was intended to make plain that two and only two starkly different answers are possible when one evaluates the events of 2021, in the course of which the Reformed Protestant Churches were formed as a denomination. Those events were either reformation and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ for the good of his truth and the good of his people; or those events were schism, the work of the devil, and thus evil was raised against the truth and against Christ, God, and the people of God.
For me it was not a question that took long to answer. I saw the unethical behavior, the lies, and the maneuverings of the editors of the Standard Bearer against myself personally. I was witness to their readiness to suppress the truth and to censor it so that the truth could not be heard. Men who act so unjustly cannot believe the truth and do not know the truth. When one leaves the truth, then he also leaves all ethics. I was witness to the hatred of the truth in the consistory room of Crete Protestant Reformed Church, and I saw that same loathing for the truth in other churches. When Rev. Kenneth Koole finally came out of the closet on the pages of the Standard Bearer and told the PRC that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do,”2 it was only because the lie had already won in the PRC.
When opposition to that position of Reverend Koole was stymied and delayed with roadblocks and stipulations and finally banned from the pages of the Standard Bearer, that was because the Protestant Reformed ministers and professors agreed with Koole. All the people and decisions were in place to continue to develop the false doctrine for which they had condemned Rev. David Overway, but which they themselves taught in other and oftentimes more shocking words. The separation and the formation of a new denomination was reformation, not schism. The schism was perpetrated by the men who taught and defended the false doctrine of Reverend Overway and others.
Now it is time for a reappraisal of the question, reformation or schism? This editorial intends to do that.
The question is still asked in all seriousness, for it demands an answer. The question demands an answer as much as the question of Christ to his disciples demanded an answer: “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matt. 16:13). No one can be confronted with Christ and with his truth and remain neutral. All men must in the end make their judgments. Those judgments may be very bold condemnations of the events as schism on the part of those who formed and joined the RPC, or those judgments can be communicated by remaining in the PRC. But the judgments are the same: the events were schism on the part of the RPC.
Neither is the question rhetorical. It is asked with a view to eliciting judgment. For the writer of this editorial, the answer is plain. The events that led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches were reformation. The events were the work of the Lord Jesus Christ for the good of his truth and the good of his churches and also, in the sovereign purpose of God, to cut off many who will answer the question with the judgment that the events were schism.
Make no mistake, the judgment that one makes and the answer that one gives to the question are deadly serious. The question is of paramount importance. The answer one gives is of equal importance. If the events that led to the formation of a new denomination were reformation, then it was the Lord’s cause. All that transpired was the Lord’s work for the cause of reformation. It was the Lord’s work for the advancement of his covenant, his kingdom, and his church and for the preservation of his truth and in his love for his people. Then the Lord was in the vanguard, and the Lord was our rear guard. And in that reformation God worked in the same way in which he had worked in all reformations throughout church history. And all the opponents of the reformation in 2021 will be found liars—if it be reformation.
As a reformation, the events were the Lord’s work. Opposing the reformation, you oppose the Lord. Fighting the reformation, you fight the Lord. Slandering the reformation, you slander the Lord. Refusing to join the reformation, you refuse to help the Lord against the mighty, and you bring upon yourself the Lord’s curse against the inhabitants of Meroz, who stayed within their walls while the men of Naphtali hazarded their lives in the Lord’s battles (see Judges 5:23). Refusing to join the reformation—you retain your comfortable life, your friends and your family, your job, and your reputation—then you bring upon all of those things God’s judgment, and you threaten your own soul with damnation—if it be reformation. And cursing those who have taken the Lord’s side, you will find yourself in the uncomfortable position on the judgment day of having to explain to the Lord—an impossible task—why when he was in prison, you did not visit him; and when he was naked, you did not clothe him; and when he was hungry, you did not feed him. And you will have to explain to the Lord why you did not hazard your life and love the truth unto death—if it be reformation.
For this writer the events were not only reformation, but, risking a tautology, they were also necessary reformation. Reformation is always a necessity. Reformation comes about because the church has departed from the truth and will not be corrected. Reformation comes about because the truth in the church can no longer receive a hearing, or that truth is put on trial and rejected as the lie and condemned. Reformation comes about because of the sovereign decree and work of God, which is the ultimate necessity of reformation. According to God’s righteous ways, the church has departed from the truth; and according to his righteous ways, the church is reformed. But the word necessary is added to the word reformation to emphasize these facts. Not only were the events reformation, but they also were highly necessary. The church and people of God were in danger of losing the truth altogether.
How serious the situation was in the PRC became clear later. At the Protestant Reformed synod of 2018, which was supposed to save the denomination from false doctrine, there were negotiations about the truth in the very committee that was tasked to judge an appeal regarding sermons preached by Rev. David Overway.
The synodical decision regarding that appeal must be condemned. If someone does not believe that, I believe that he or she cannot be a member of the Reformed Protestant Churches. If someone does not believe that, then he or she will never be able to reject the current developments of that decision in the PRC. I reject that synodical decision of 2018, and I repudiate my vote for it at that synod. The Lord will forgive me. I was but a child and naïve.
That the synodical decision of 2018 regarding the appeal must be rejected becomes clearer and clearer every day as one views the doctrinal developments in the PRC. That wretched decision is being used to prop up in the PRC every lie that comes along and further denies the truth. Witness only the February 8, 2024, decision of the Protestant Reformed Classis East, which was tasked with judging appeals concerning classis’ previous decision to exonerate Reverend Koole of teaching false doctrine. In the February classical decision the most egregious lies were defended on the basis of that synodical decision of 2018. According to the transcript of the classical debate, the delegates hung their hats on that decision of Synod 2018. However, that decision of Synod 2018 is not to be trumpeted as a victory for the truth. That decision of Synod 2018 was a victory for the lie, and it was the establishment of a fatal principle in the Protestant Reformed Churches that led to the suspension and deposition of Rev. Andy Lanning, that led to my suspension, and that led to the putting out of Rev. Martin Vander Wal. Synod 2018 belonged to the convergence of the forces that had been current in the Protestant Reformed Churches for years—as many as thirty or forty or more years—before that synod.
At Synod 2018 fatal negotiations were happening within the very committee that was deciding the appeal and the doctrinal issues.3 Those fatal negotiations established a principle in the Protestant Reformed Churches that led to the overthrow of the truth and that ensured that the truth will never again have a place in those churches. The truth was not the main concern of many of the delegates to that synod and of most of the men who served on the committee to judge the appeal concerning sermons preached by Rev. David Overway. The men’s main concern was not the condemnation of the lie, but their main concern was the reputations of men. Their main concern was, how could synod get out of its sticky situation? The appellant, Connie Meyer, had established beyond a shadow of a doubt that justification by faith alone—of all doctrines—and the unconditional covenant—of all doctrines—had been denied in the Protestant Reformed Churches and that the false doctrine of justification by faith and works and the false doctrine of the conditional covenant had been taught and defended by the broader assemblies and by consistories in the Protestant Reformed Churches. How could synod extract itself from that sticky situation without harming men? How could synod get around calling the flagrant, false doctrine heresy? For heresy it was. It was the heresy of the conditional covenant and of justification by works.
In the synodical committee the lie negotiated with the truth, and the lie’s only plea was this: “The men who teach and defend the lie are good men, and you all know that.” That was the fatal compromise of the truth. In the committee the lie won. The lie won for itself the right to negotiate in the committee and at the broader assembly. The lie raised itself to the position of a partner with the truth. And the lie dared to require of the truth—require of the truth!—that the truth be quiet in the interests of men. And when the truth compromised—no, when the truth negotiated with the lie—the truth lost.
That is what the fathers at the Synod of Dordt recognized. The lie may not negotiate with the truth. So when the Remonstrants pleaded for a place at the synod, at least to air their grievances as equals, the Remonstrants were refused. They were to be tried. The case that was before the Protestant Reformed synod of 2018 demanded to be judged by the truth. The truth was to judge, not to negotiate with the lie about how the lie would be condemned or exonerated, how liked and dedicated the men were who taught and defended the lie, how inept they may have been, or how divisive condemning the lie might be. The case was not about a way for the lie to carve out for itself a position of bargaining with the truth. As soon as the truth allowed the lie to do that, the truth lost. The truth was lost. Delegates could vote for the advice of Synod 2018 that upheld the appellant, even if they did not believe a word of the advice; and it did not matter at all because the decision of Synod 2018 was going to be overthrown—whatever good the decision contained discarded and the lie it contained driven: “We experience fellowship with God through faith…on the basis of what Christ has done…and in the way of our obedience.”4
Besides, at Synod 2018 the lie had established the principle in the PRC that one cannot condemn the lie without a careful, considered judgment about the reputations of men. According to the PRC, when a doctrinal issue comes before assemblies, then the issue is not about the truth or the lie; the issue is about the reputations of men. People and the assemblies cannot condemn conditional justification as conditional justification, but they must call it a compromise of justification. People and the assemblies cannot condemn the conditional covenant as the conditional covenant, but they must call it something else, anything else, because the reputations of men are at stake. False doctrine is not determined by the words that men speak. Indeed, a man can preach something false, and it cannot be condemned as false because it has been determined before that he is a good man and has a reputation for orthodoxy. If one cannot condemn the lie as lie and one cannot condemn the lie without considering first the reputations of the men who teach the lie, then the lie wins every time. When those are the rules of the game, the truth is fatally compromised as truth. The truth does not negotiate with the lie. The truth does not treat the lie as an equal partner. The truth always condemns the lie for what it is. The truth condemns the lie as the lie in the sharpest and clearest possible language. Men are to be judged by what they teach! And men—all men—are to be judged by the truth.
The win at Synod 2018 had a long pedigree. The teachers of false doctrine in the PRC for years were slowly but surely insinuating their bad formulations of doctrine into the ears and hearts of the people. The proof of this is that even now, in spite of all the writing and witnessing that has been done against the errors of the PRC, many stubbornly cling to the errors and will not be corrected, so deeply engrained are the way of speaking and the formulations of the false doctrine. The people have been taught for so long and so consistently that the way of speaking and the formulations of the false doctrine became second nature to the people. One example only is necessary: forgiveness comes in the way of repentance. Those who have taught that language know what they mean, but they covered their deceptive language so that it was hard at first to detect. Many have used the language, not taking the time to consider what it actually means and what it actually implies. Others have used the language because it is a convenient way to give man a place in his salvation without actually saying that. Now after the controversy, those who have taught that language of forgiveness in the way of repentance are coming out with what they mean, and their language is shocking. It is a baby born of fornication between a Reformed father and an Arminian whore, and the baby looks strikingly like its mother. And yet even when this striking resemblance is pointed out and when the shocking terms and phrases are examined and shown to be false doctrine, many have excuses, they turn deaf ears, or they say that it is about time someone started preaching these things. They are mired deeply in the mire of their own backslidings.
If the events that led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches are to be judged accurately, then there must be accurate definitions of the principal terms in the question: reformation and schism.
I start with schism. Many defend their failure to come to the truth by hiding behind false definitions of schism. Schism to them is that men act poorly in the church and call other people names. Schism is a mere disturbing of the peace, even if that peace is the peace of the graveyard and of the dead. Things were going along fine. Everyone was playing along with the fiction that all the ministers were orthodox, that the denomination was orthodox. Everyone was content with their ballgames and their lives just the way they were, and someone had to come along and say that all is not well in the churches, that there are ministers who are teaching false doctrine, and that there are other ministers who do their best to cover the false doctrine. “That is schism,” they cry. Their cry is about the same as the cry of the patient who sues his doctor for malpractice when, after running his tests on the patient and confirming the worst, the doctor tells his patient that he has terminal cancer of the brain and so turns his patient’s life upside down. And so many, also many in the PRC, were angry and wildly and haphazardly threw around the charge of schism without even knowing what they were saying.
Schism is not mere fighting in the church. Fighting in the church over the truth of the gospel is not schism and cannot be schism any more than a body’s fight to stay attached to its head, a building’s resistance to being shoved off its foundation, or a wife’s refusal to be separated from her husband. Schism is not condemning some minister in the church for false teaching or even publicly condemning a minister in the church for false teaching. This cannot be schism any more than a patient’s calling the lump that is killing him cancer, or the wife who cleaves to her husband to call the strange man who is making moves on her an interloper, an adulterer, and a marriage wrecker.
What is schism? Schism is to separate the church from Christ her head; to tear the church from her cornerstone, Jesus Christ; and to cause a rift between the bride, the church, and her husband, Jesus Christ.
Schism’s principal cause is false doctrine. Along with that false doctrine, there is always the action of the false teacher to gain the affection of the church for himself instead of for Christ. Absalom was a schismatic who first gained the affection of the people and then sought to displace David, the king. The Galatian false teachers were schismatics who came with their false doctrine and also zealously affected the people so that the people would follow the false teachers. Whatever the preferred method of the false teacher, always these two things are present: the affections of the people for the false teacher and the false teacher’s false doctrine. So connected are these two, that where one is present, the other is surely lurking. A minister who makes it his business to be the nice guy liked by all and hated by none is a false teacher in disguise and has a false doctrine with him. A minister who brings in false doctrine will also be working to turn the hearts of the people to himself. The blame for schism must always fall on the false teacher. The truth by definition cannot be guilty of schism.
Reformation—what is it? Can such a grand word be applied to what happened for the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches? Many ridicule the idea. They judge with an evil eye, and they weigh the cause of Christ by the pound and the board foot because they are carnal people and they themselves do not pause to consider the works of the Lord and what a reformation actually is. Reformation is the work of Jesus Christ to form his church anew because of doctrinal corruption—corruption of the marks of the true church of Jesus Christ. All the marks stand and fall together because they are all marks that the church bears not of herself but that she bears because of the presence of Christ in her ruling by his Spirit. When another spirit is present and reigns, then the church takes on different marks. In reformation Christ forms the church anew and returns his church back to the truth that was lost and gives an advance in the understanding of that truth. An advance is a feature of reformation too. Reformation is a return and an advance. That advance comes precisely because of the conflict of the lie with the truth. Such was true of Dordt. The fathers at Dordt had the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, and the fathers made a further explanation. They did not change the doctrine, but they sharpened it.
All reformation is emphatically the work of Jesus Christ. If I thought for one moment that reformation was the work of men or that it depended on me or any other number of men and women, then I would quit right now. Souls are at stake, as is the honor, glory, and name of God. It is the conviction that reformation is the work of Christ that is a comforting and an enlivening thought to all who are given the privilege by Christ to be involved in the work and to suffer loss in that work. Reformation is Christ’s work. Reformation is not man’s work. The church is Christ’s. The word is Christ’s, and his word does not return to him void but accomplishes everything to which he sends it. Christ causes that effect. This conviction is necessary in the face of the opposition and slanderous accusations that always accompany reformation.
Christ’s work in the reformation of 2021 has been to form a church. In that church there is a return to the pure Reformed faith. This return is to the truth of justification by faith alone and the unconditional covenant. The advance is to see how these doctrines govern especially the explanation of the elect sinner’s experience of his salvation. It is especially at the point of the experience of salvation that there was the reformation in 2021. That aspect of the doctrine particularly was corrupted in the PRC. That corruption involved other aspects of the truth. There was corruption of the reality of the sinner’s total depravity, the truth of salvation at the cross, and the reality of the sinner’s salvation in eternity. Because the cross was viewed as a mere basis and provision, a basis and provision that would come into effect at some later time, and not as salvation itself, the truth of the application of that salvation to the sinner also was corrupted.
The sinner is saved at the cross. The sinner is reconciled to God. And now the sinner must be reconciled in his own conscience, and this too is the work of pure grace. This too excludes the sinner’s work and obedience. The same may be said of eternity. Protestant Reformed ministers ridicule the idea that election means that the elect sinner is saved in eternity. But the truth is that the elect sinner is saved in eternity in the decree of God, and in that decree God beholds the sinner not only as one whom God would save but also as saved in the decree because all the works of God are perfect and perfectly accomplished in his decree. Otherwise, Christ cannot be called the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.
Reformation, necessary? Yes, the false doctrine not only made an appearance but also was defended, entrenched itself, and finally attacked the truth and cast it out. That is the charge of the Reformed Protestant Churches against the Protestant Reformed Churches: “You cast out Christ, and he formed a new denomination.”
The events were reformation—necessary reformation. And I take the opportunity to point out the evidence that the events were reformation and that this reformation was necessary. The evidence need only be doctrinal. If the PRC preaches the truth, then the events were schism. If the PRC preaches the lie, then the events were reformation. In the Protestant Reformed Churches, it must be beyond a shadow of doubt that false doctrine is present and advancing. The lie like the truth also develops. And the PRC is developing her false doctrine. Here are some examples of what passes for Reformed orthodoxy in the PRC today. I do not intend to refute these statements. That has already been done. The references to Sword and Shield in the footnotes show where that has been done. Besides, the statements stand condemned as they appear in all their appalling boldness.
I begin with the sermons of Rev. David Overway that the Protestant Reformed synod of 2018 judged. The theology of the statements in the sermons never left the PRC, and what those sermons said is what men are still saying today.
The way unto the Father includes obedience…The way of a holy life matters. It is the way unto the Father…He [Jesus] is the way, your way unto Me, through the truth which He works in your hearts, through a godly life…5
We do good works so that we can have our prayers answered…
We do good works so that we can receive God’s grace and Holy Spirit in our consciousness. So that we can consciously and with awareness receive the grace and Holy Spirit of God…6
We look at our good works in the same way. Never of any value to make me be declared righteous before God, but always of help in finding and maintaining assurance that God has justified me through Christ and Christ alone.7
When the Catechism [in Lord’s Day 45] mentions requisites or requirements [of prayer], it’s talking about obedience. I must obey. It’s required of God. God requires it of me. God requires a certain obedience from me. Obedience is required here, obedience that I must perform in order to enjoy fellowship with God.
There’s requisites to fellowship, as we said, for the child of God, to the one who’s justified in Jesus Christ, the one for whom Jesus has died and atoned and satisfied for his sins. There are requirements for him to fellowship, to approaching unto God, coming to the Father.
Godliness, on the other hand, is the requirement according to Scripture for our prayers to be heard by God. I John 3:22: “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him.” Whatever we pray for, we receive. “Because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” We have true fellowship with God. We truly ask and are heard, and God receives our prayer and gives us—because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
I’ve elected you. And I’ve done everything in you so that you walk in godliness. Why? So that when you pray as a godly person walking in godliness—when you pray, God will hear and God will answer.
What do the creeds say about the relationship between obedience and fellowship? That there are requirements. That there is obedience required in order that we may have that fellowship, prayerful fellowship with God…
The Catechism says: Come to God that way, meeting those requirements, meeting those demands of God for a proper prayer, and you can be assured you will enjoy the fellowship of God…
If we but meet these requirements a little bit, by the grace of God, of course, and by God’s grace working them in us—if we meet these requirements but a little, then we will enjoy a little of God’s fellowship. That’s the truth. If we meet these requirements a lot, then we will enjoy much of God’s fellowship…8
Are we assured of the forgiveness of our sins without good works? Do good works do nothing to assure me of forgiveness, that I’m justified? Of course, they do. Jesus says it in plain English in the passage before us. And for one to hold otherwise simply contradicts the plain words of Jesus Christ our Savior.
Forgive others. Live in that obedience. Live out of those good works. And only in that way will you be assured that you’re forgiven, that you are justified by Jesus Christ your Savior.9
Rev. Ron VanOverloop preached the following, which was never condemned as heresy:
If any man will hear my voice, He’s not establishing, of course, a condition, there are none, but he is talking about not the condition to establish a union but he is establishing a condition that deals with communion. Not union, that’s grace, it’s all grace, only grace, but communion, fellowship.10
And yet God commanded; I performed a duty. Two rails. They go side by side. In the wisdom of God—his sovereignty, our responsibility. And it’s all grace, and nothing but grace. And that’s where our gratitude grows and our desire to be obedient unto his commandments arises—the way God works.11
This theology never left the PRC. This theology is taught sometimes in the very same language. Witness the February 8, 2024, decision of the Protestant Reformed Classis East:
Rev. Koole quoted and explained the following statement from Witsius in [the] January 1, 2021 issue of The Standard Bearer: “Hence, I conclude, that sanctification and its effects, are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.” (Agenda, pg. 50).12
The committee of pre-advice noted Koole’s explanation:
By that last phrase, where Witsius speaks of sanctification as “assuring the soul as to its justification,” he is not speaking of sanctification serving as the basis of justification, but of one’s sanctification…serving as evidence to the soul that one is numbered with the justified.13
Regarding the third statement, “Hence, I conclude, that sanctification and its effects, are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification,” the committee of pre-advice recommended
that Classis make the judgment that statement #3 and Rev. Koole’s explanation and use of the statement, are not in conflict with Scripture, the Confessions, or the decisions of Synod 2018.14
In 2018 the PRC supposedly condemned Overway’s statements. At the recent February 2024 Classis East, the Protestant Reformed delegates approved the same theology. The lie negotiated with the truth at Synod 2018. In 2024 the same theology gets itself the stamp of full, Reformed orthodoxy.
Peter VanDer Schaaf wrote,
Cannons [sic] 5.7. And 10. likewise demonstrates that God sovereignly works with His rational and moral elect that they experience His delight in a sequence of time and experience, in an organic way in which there is a mutuality of grace, obedience, and gracious reward.15
Professor Cammenga wrote,
Q&A 70 of the Catechism speaks of the spiritual reality of baptism, which applies to the elect who are baptized. For them baptism is “to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ.” And what does that entail? “It is to receive of God the remission of sins freely, for the sake of Christ’s blood, which He has shed for us by His sacrifice upon the cross.” After his baptism, as he matures in the faith, the child of God appropriates the spiritual significance of his baptism. At that point he “receive[s] of God the remission of [his] sins freely.” Once again, remission (forgiveness) of sins takes place during and not before the lifetime of the child of God.16
For if forgiveness takes place in eternity, what need is there for repentance in the lifetime of the Christian?17
Reverend McGeown wrote,
Justification is God’s act of declaring believers righteous, while faith is our activity of trusting Jesus for salvation, which is not God’s act.18
Reverend Koole preached,
Beloved, the question is, are you seeking the grace that is available? Now that may sound a bit strange from PR pulpits: seeking the grace that is available? But it is proper. I am not talking about regenerating grace. That’s sovereign grace that renews a man. I’m talking about the grace of which the Heidelberg Catechism speaks: he will give his grace and Holy Spirit to those only who ask him in sincerity for them. That’s the grace and Holy Spirit, beloved, to withstand temptation. And we don’t have that automatically!19
Professor Gritters said,
There are other sins that we never confess. Some of them we don’t even know we committed; some of them are sins of omission we never think about. Now, remember about those sins, God decreed not to hold them to our account. Jesus Christ died for them and paid for them. They are fully paid for. If we die not thinking about some of them, you might say that you’re not forgiven of those sins. That just means you didn’t hear about that sin God saying to you, “I forgive you.” They’re paid for though. You’re going to go to heaven.
That’s why it’s possible for a baby who dies in infancy, who’s never committed one actual sin, to go to heaven. He’s not been forgiven in the sense that he never heard consciously God say to him, “I don’t hold that sin against you.” He’s an infant; he died in his mother’s womb maybe. But Christ died for his sins; God determined to take him to heaven, and he went to heaven though he didn’t hear in his ear and embrace with his believing heart that declaration of God. But as I was thinking about that today, I thought, Hmmm. Maybe that needs to be clarified a little bit in this way. When that little infant, who never spoke one word and never thought any thought, gets to heaven, he is able to speak. And this is what he is going to say: “God, forgive me of my sinful nature. Forgive me of my connection to Adam.” And then God is going to speak to him and declare, “I don’t hold that against you because I put that responsibility on my Son, and he’s forgiven”—if we may imagine that. That’s when he would hear God say it to him.20
And to show that all of this theology—which is of one piece—has a long history, in 2003 Rev. Ronald Cammenga preached,
It is not enough for salvation that God has sent his Son, Jesus Christ, into the world. It is not enough, that there is a Jesus. It is not enough, that this Jesus was born of a virgin; that this Jesus lived a perfect life; that this Jesus taught and defended the Word of God; that this Jesus suffered under the wrath of God in an atoning death; that this Jesus arose with his body from the grave on the third day; that this Jesus is ascended in power at the right hand of God in the heavens. Not enough for salvation. God must not only have sent Jesus into the world, but I must come and you must come to Jesus. I must become one with him so that I enjoy his fellowship and share in his salvation. For salvation it is necessary that I come to him. And if I do not come to him, there is no salvation and no enjoyment of the blessings of salvation.21
Rev. Bill Langerak argued at the February 8, 2024, meeting of Classis East for what he believes is the truth of the gospel, apparently also the gospel that he preaches: “Good works are necessary to enjoy or experience fellowship with God. Period.”22
One of the most aggressive promoters of the Protestant Reformed departure has been Prof. David Engelsma. Listen to him.
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.23
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.”24
To do justice to James 4:8 by affirming that the text teaches that there is a certain aspect of salvation in which our activity precedes a certain aspect of God’s activity of saving us does not imply that James teaches that the believing sinner is first in salvation and that God is second, as my critics so eagerly and typically rashly charge against James and me. For the truth of the text is that we draw nigh to God by virtue of God’s drawing us nigh to Himself. The full truth of the text is, “I will draw you nigh to myself by the Holy Ghost, so that in the way of your drawing nigh to me, I will draw nigh to you.” God is first in this aspect of salvation also. He draws us to Himself, and He draws us nigh to Himself by the admonition of James 4, “Draw nigh to God !”25His 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…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.26
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.27
I could continue with the quotations. The apostasy, the false teachers, and the carnal element are deeply entrenched in the Protestant Reformed Churches. The PRC is awash in conditions, prerequisites, and things man must do before God can and may act, all, of course, by grace and all covered with that catchall term in the way of. In the PRC the way to God is by Christ, faith, and in the way of your obedience; that is the way to peace, joy, happiness, blessing, and salvation now and in eternity. That this is the theology of the PRC cannot be gainsaid. The evidence is overwhelming.
But that is not the Reformed faith. It is corruption, and it is corruption at the point of the believer’s enjoyment and experience of his salvation, a corruption that in the end devours all of the PRC’s theology.
Long ago the PRC’s spiritual father, whom the PRC despises and whose tomb she builds, warned
Question: Do you consider the Reverend De Wolf and those who sincerely follow him and his preaching now as Reformed and as brothers in Christ?
Hoeksema: For the first I answer, No! I do not consider them Reformed. I cannot consider them Reformed, and I will not consider them Reformed until they retract and until they apologize…I do judge whether a man is Reformed or not Reformed, and I claim that the sermons of the Reverend De Wolf were not Reformed…Unless he retracts and the consistory retracts, I cannot regard them as Reformed, and I cannot regard the consistory that supports him as Reformed. I cannot…
Not only that, but now that I am talking about that anyway, I want to issue a word of warning at the same time…I warn you that all the rumors that I hear and all the talk that is going on about responsibility and the activity of faith and the like runs not only in an unreformed way but will ultimately run you into modernism! That is not the gospel! All that ever have opposed the Reformed truth have always accused the Reformed people and the Reformed leaders and the Reformed ministers of denying responsibility. That’s very easy. All the talk about the activity of faith, about our [unintelligible word], about the Bible in distinction from the Confessions—all that talk is principally modernism! That’s my conviction. That’s much worse.
And therefore, although I’m not here to preach, I nevertheless feel it my calling to issue to all of you a word of warning with my whole heart. I have preached to you the Reformed truth for thirty-three years, and now many of you don’t want it anymore! That’s up to you, but I’m going to warn you, nevertheless. It’s up to you to choose.28
What Hoeksema warned about—all the emphasis on man’s responsibility and man’s activities—is now the theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
Yet again Hoeksema warned the PRC:
In this connection [that “Christ is the entrance into the kingdom of God”] I cannot refrain from issuing to all of you a word of warning. I’ll do it. You know, we talk about so much in our day, and in our churches,—we talk about responsibility. We talk about the activity of faith. And similar things. I’ll warn you that on that basis and in that line we’re going to lose the gospel. We’re going to lose the gospel. We’re going to lose election. We’re going to lose reprobation. We’re going to lose the gospel, the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. O yes, we must preach the activity of faith. But by the activity of faith I mean not something that you and I must do, except that first of all, by the activity of faith we cling to Christ, and embrace Him and all His benefits. That is the activity of faith. Responsibility? Don’t you ever forget that the accusation that Reformed people cannot maintain responsibility has always been brought against,—Reformed people have always been accused of denying responsibility by those that are Arminians and moderns. We do not deny responsibility. We do not deny the activity of faith. Of course not. But I warn you that with the emphasis that is laid upon these things, upon conditions, upon activity of faith, and upon responsibility, you’re going to lose the gospel. That’s my warning.29
And how prophetic Hoeksema was. With all the PRC’s emphasis on the activity of faith and on responsibility, the PRC has lost the gospel. The PRC is full of conditions and prerequisites, even though dishonestly the ministers and professors will not use the plain words condition and prerequisite.
His children did not listen to their father Herman Hoeksema. The men who were charged with building on his theology departed from him while carefully cultivating the reputation that they followed him. And now the PRC has come to grief through that leadership.
The issue between the PRC and RPC is doctrine. The issue is life and death. To save us alive as it is this day, there has been much evil devised; God devised good.
I conclude with a quote from Homer Hoeksema regarding reformation:
The second form of reformation is that of secession. When the carnal element begins to dominate; when the institute itself becomes corrupt; when the word is adulterated, the sacraments are profaned, false teachers tolerated, Christian discipline not exercised or perverted; and when your protests are not heard but are futile, for you are persecuted on account of them; then your church is manifesting the marks of the false church, and then reformation through secession becomes mandatory. In obedience to the word, when it becomes a question of denying the word of God or leaving a certain institute, the question of a certain institute or preserving the true church—no believer, beloved, may hesitate. In obedience to the word, you must either seek affiliation where the marks of the true church are already manifest, or you must act to institute the church anew.30
This the Lord Jesus Christ did. Hallelujah!
Share on
Footnotes:
Reformed Believers Publishing
325 84th St SW, Suite 102
Byron Center, MI 49315
