Can they really be serious?

Are they really that ignorant?

Or are they so insistent that they cannot be wrong? Wrong about good works? Wrong about faith? Wrong about antinomianism? Doubling down, digging their hole deeper and deeper, and getting more and more authoritative and judgmental.

In the present circumstances one can only say after the Lord himself, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15). Or “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind” (15:14). Or with the inspired apostle John, “They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43).

However that may be, what is written is not first of all for those who have no ears to hear and no hearts to understand. It is not written for the praise of men or out of respect of persons. But it is written for the glory of God in the truth, the truth that the upright in heart delight to follow, no matter the cost. It must be explained for the care of God’s people, who must know the greatness of the salvation of their God and find all their assurance and peace not in or by anything they do but only by the finished work of their Lord and Savior.

Let me be so bold as to propose that one little word in the controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) these past years has been largely ignored. This one little word is the hinge upon which this controversy spiritually has turned.

Unashamedly, the provocateurs of this controversy have trolled for visceral reactions and gotten them. They have gotten what they wanted from the lovers and defenders of the truth, those who were not ashamed to stand practically alone for the sake of the truth of salvation by grace alone. Those defenders of the truth did not bow or bend when they felt the weight of the entire denomination against them. They did not yield when they were publicly reviled by their consistories and the broader assemblies of the churches, by the official preaching in the churches, by Standard Bearer editorials, and by blogs and circulated emails. Those people looked not to men but to the Lord to vindicate the cause of his truth. They looked to the Lord’s vindication, uncaring whether that vindication would come through the repentance of the denomination or at the return of their Lord on the clouds of glory.

The provocateurs used many words and phrases to troll for these reactions. They did not care which doctrines they attacked. Their objective was not the truth. It was never to defend the truth of salvation by sovereign grace alone. Their purposes were very different. Their purpose was, first, to stir up controversy. They knew that the only way to do that was to attack the truth. But they had to be careful about the manner of their attack. No open, outright attack would do. They needed a camouflage. Yes, they were upholding the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, have no fear. In fact, they were upholding the doctrine of salvation by grace alone but defending it against antinomian attackers. They were upholding the doctrine of sanctification against evil antinomian attacks. They were upholding the doctrine of the call of the gospel against hyper-Calvinists. They were protecting the current direction of the denomination against those who would take it in a new direction of antinomian hyper-Calvinism. They were protecting the unity of the church against schismatic persons who were causing trouble for their own shameless gratification.

But all these insistences and justifications were only camouflages. They were camouflages for the introduction of what was new. New teachings. New teachings about assurance. New teachings about good works and their relationship to assurance. New teachings about faith, what faith is and what faith is not. New teachings about man’s responsibility. New teachings about balance and two tracks. New teachings about covenant fellowship and friendship.

All these new teachings came to be tied into a new justification for these provocateurs. An old phrase was dredged up that met with instant, widespread approval. It was so highly acclaimed because it met with the stated approval of Herman Hoeksema himself. Yes, faith as man’s doing, assurance by good works, man’s responsibility, the importance of good works, all because of in the way of. “We are saved in the way of faith.” This new phrase made everything right and good. So in the PRC a crop of new mantras arose, which were quickly adopted and widely circulated, to the delight and approval of the majority.

“We receive assurance only in the way of our good works.”

“God blesses us only in the way of our good works.”

“We enjoy prosperity in the way of our walking with God.”

“We are conscious of our salvation only in the way of our believing in God.”

The list can go on and on.

Indeed, so much can be said about the context of these various sentences that makes them suspect. At times the context indicates that the benefits that follow our actions are identified as reasons and motivations for what we do. In order to obtain these benefits from God, we must do these things. What else is this but to say that these are conditions that we must fulfill, prerequisites that we must perform, to get the mentioned benefits? Regardless of whether the small print it is all by grace is added, the sentiment remains the same. Subsequent benefits and blessings are still dependent on what we do. The things we do are conditions that we fulfill. There is no way around it.

Indeed, the statements themselves, considered by themselves, are suspect. Regardless of how in the way of is stated, the very forcefulness given the statements as dogmatic assertions is cause for suspicion. The statements were made cornerstones of theology. The same thing can be said of the arrangement found in a similar construction, such as “When we do good works, only then does God bless us.” Suspicion only grows when these statements are placed adversely to statements about grace. “Oh, yes, we are truly saved by grace alone, and all that we do is by grace alone. But only in the way of our doing good works does God bless us.” That adversative position pits works against grace. It establishes a completely different track of doctrine, which differs from the track of grace alone. It is also the same adversative relationship that presents itself in such statements as listed above. Subsequent blessings and benefits are placed in an adversative relationship to faith, good works, walking with God, and the like. As if to say that neither faith nor good works nor walking with God are blessings and benefits in comparison with what follows faith, good works, or walking with God.

Yet controversy continues. What is stated above is further debated and contested. Of course, grace is never denied! All these matters are by grace through faith. All is only the proper application of the order of salvation. All is only meant to give to faith, conversion, repentance, sanctification, good works, and walking with God proper places and roles in the Christian life. These statements are only meant to fend off the charges of hyper-Calvinism and antinomianism. They are required to do justice to the commandments and callings of scripture and to find a proper place for them in our Reformed theology and doctrine. Are not faith, conversion, good works, and all the rest real gifts of God, given to his people in time and history?

Why is this so controversial?

Because it is meant to be controversial. As with so many doctrinal controversies in the history of the church of Jesus Christ, the point is political. The doctrinal controversy is a smokescreen employed by those who care not a whit about the truth or about true doctrine, much less about good works, sanctification, or walking with God. The point is power. Power to control. Power to direct and steer. Power to be rid of obstacles and barriers to the wanton exercise of power for the gratification of the powerful. Power to be rid of accountability and responsibility to the truth of God’s word and to Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Thus the doctrinal controversy, first used as a smokescreen, has become a means to this political end. Once orthodoxy has been overthrown as the standard, heterodoxy (wrong doctrine) takes its place as the new standard. Those who yet oppose the new standard are judged to be heretical and thus enemies of the peace and unity of the church of Jesus Christ. There is no longer room for such quarrelsome members. The devil’s playbook is well-worn because it is certainly effective.

Why is it so effective? Why is the smokescreen so effective? Why is this kind of controversy such a powerful way to rid a church or denomination of the orthodox?

Because of one little word that is presented. Such a little, seemingly innocent word. But that word is so very attractive to pride. Used so often by Satan, it is a tool as powerful as it is subtle.

That word is our. “Our faith.” “Our prayers.” “Our conversion.” “Our repentance.” “Our obedience.” “Our good works.” “Our walk with God.”

Do not be deceived by that word our. Understand that our truly can mean many different things.

Originally, that word was used in the controversy to denote particularity, the particularity of election and the covenant. “Our obedience” was originally trotted out to indicate that this could not be any so-called “obedience” of the reprobate wicked, even of the reprobate wicked in the line of the generations of believers and their seed. It was said that “our obedience” cannot be meritorious or conditional, no matter how it is explained in relationship to following blessings. Why not? Because it is the obedience of those who are elect and therefore are already in the realm of God’s grace in Christ.

That little word our was trucked in under the guise of covenant theology. Once trucked in, it took on a life of its own, growing and moving and entering into places where it had no business.

It is certainly true, this little word our has its proper use in theology. It is properly explained in Canons of Dordt 3–4.14. Indeed, by the working of God’s grace in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, we actually believe. By that same grace, faith is made fruitful, so that we actually do good works, beginning with true conversion: true mortification of the old man and true putting on of the new man. As a consequence, faith is so worked in us that it becomes truly and really our faith. Good works are given to us, so that they become truly the good works that we do. They become our good works (Confessions and Church Order, 169). Such is the language of question and answer 62 of the Heidelberg Catechism, and answer 86 speaks of “our conduct” and of “our godly conversation” (Confessions and Church Order, 107, 120).

No controversy so far.

However, we can speak of the use of this pronoun our in different ways. From a more technical, grammatical standpoint, there are different possible ways to understand the relationship between this pronoun in the genitive case and that to which our is attached. Most simply and directly, there is the genitive of possession. This is the common, ordinary use of the genitive case. It answers the question, whose? Whose are these good works? They are so given to us by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit that they become really and truly ours.

There is another way in which we can speak of faith, good works, and repentance as ours. That is by the use of the genitive of the subject. This answers the question, who did it? Who believed? Who walked with God? Who did the good works? As we indeed believe, repent, and do good works, they are ours.

But there is another use of the genitive case, called genitive of source. It answers the question, whence? We speak of cow’s milk because it comes from cows. We say of a man, “He is his father’s son” because it is evident from the son’s character traits that he demonstrates his source. He has come from his father. The sound of a drum means the distinctive sound that comes from a drum.

Can this genitive of source be used to explain the our of “our good works”? Can we say, “Our good works” because we are the source of these good works? Can we say, “Our faith” and mean that we are the source of our faith, of our activity of believing?

Scripture forbids this use of the word our. Faith is not ours in this sense. Good works are not ours. Conversion is not ours. Our walk with God is not ours.

Ephesians 2:8–9 strictly forbid identifying ourselves as the source of any part or aspect of our salvation. Concerning faith, the word of God tells us, “that not of yourselves.” Addressing all that he did as an apostle of Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul denied himself to be their source. “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).

Source, then, is at the heart of the controversy. Not good works or faith as a gift. Not good works or faith as the believer believing or doing good works. Rather that believers, in some way or another, are themselves the source of their believing or the source of their doing good works.

The believer must not be deceived by any false claims. He must not be led astray by all kinds of categorical denials. “I never said we are the source.” “Of course, it is all by grace.” “Remember the context of grace alone.” “Remember what was said elsewhere: not by works.”

What has been said? What has been taught? What has been affirmed?

As noted above, an adversative relationship has been taught. Teachings have been laid out in contrast to one another. Following so many affirmations of grace, there comes the point of contrast: “But we must still…” Faith is certainly God’s gift, but we must still believe. Good works have been ordained for us to do, but it is up to us to do them. There is grace to some degree and in some way as the source, but then we must believe—the activity to some degree and in some way proceeds from us. The same thing can be said of good works. Grace enables, grace equips. So far, so good. But we still must do them. The actual doing of good works is separated from the grace of God that enables and equips.

This same adversative relationship is evident in the statements that run in a typical manner as follows: “We must do good works because only in the way of our good works God blesses us.” God’s blessing of his people waits. He is the source of their blessing. But there is something standing in the way of his blessings upon them. What stands in the way is their good works, which they must do. God’s people stand before the necessity of good works and their doing of their good works, and God’s blessing them for their good works is suspended upon their doing of their good works. According to this simple representation, we are made to stand over against God. We are the source of good works, and God is the source of the blessings that follow them. With this construction article 24 of the Belgic Confession is denied. “Nay, we are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not He to us” (Confessions and Church Order, 54).

There is also the new teaching of a two-track theology. It is said that there are two tracks running side by side. One track is God’s sovereignty, the sovereignty of grace. That track is necessary. But there is another track, the track of man’s responsibility. That track is established by commands in the Bible and God’s promises related to those commands. Both tracks are necessary for the production of good works. Both tracks working mysteriously together are necessary for us to do good works. Neither track by itself is capable of producing good works. Grace is therefore in part a source. But to that one track God’s grace is confined. Therefore, believers themselves are in part a source as well. Responsibility is necessary for good works to be truly the good works of believers themselves.

Thus there is a new teaching in the PRC. There are now two tracks. There is now a balance. God’s sovereignty of grace in salvation is no longer enough. “All by grace” certainly must be injected somewhere into the sermon or article. “All by grace” can even be brought closer to the subject. Yes, grace makes both tracks. Yes, grace makes possible the balance. Yes, look at what God’s grace can make of a man. Grace, as grace, makes man able to be the source of his good works.

There is one last way in which the phrase our good works identifies us, rather than God’s grace, as the source. God’s grace in relationship to faith and good works is that grace enables us. God’s grace enables us to believe. God’s grace enables us to do good works. Without this grace no one can ever believe or do good works. Further, since this is sovereign, particular grace, only the elect are enabled to believe. Only the elect are enabled to do good works. As a result, this enabling grace is strictly within the realm of the covenant. A further consequence, we are told, is that this grace remains unconditional because it is given unconditionally to covenant members only. That is the reason it cannot lead to conditions in the covenant or to conditional covenant theology. (A caveat here: do not try to analyze this logically.) Here Canons of Dordt 3–4.13 may even be invoked:  “Notwithstanding which, they rest satisfied with knowing and experiencing that by this grace of God they are enabled to believe with the heart, and love their Savior” (Confessions and Church Order, 169). (Please continue on to article 14 to see the whole truth about grace and faith.)

Grace enables, but it is up to us to actually believe. Grace enables, but it is up to us to actually do good works. These statements require a division. In the realm of faith and in the realm of good works, the ability does come from God’s grace. But the actuality of believing and of doing good works comes from believers themselves.

Why not ours? Why the “not of yourselves” of Ephesians 2:8–9?

To be sure, “lest any man should boast” (v. 9). To be sure, that we may glory only in the Lord and not in ourselves (1 Cor. 1:31).

And for the sake of the truth of God’s everlasting covenant of grace.

To make man—in any respect, to any degree, or in any way—the source of anything good before God is of the essence of pride that is a revolt from God. It is disastrous to the truth of faith as delightfully complete dependence on the God of our salvation for every aspect and part of that salvation. It is disastrous to the heart of the covenant of grace, which is fellowship between God and man that is truly life and peace. To make man the source of anything good before God makes man a party over against God; and insofar as it does, it makes the covenant into a contract between the two parties. God will do his part, and man will do his part, and man must do his part before he receives further blessings from God. Man must look to God and his grace for some blessings, but he must look to himself for other blessings.

Why not ours? Why the “not of yourselves” of Ephesians 2:8–9?

For the sake of the truth of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Most of all, damage is done to the truth of the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ. Has that precious blood shed by the Lamb of God actually purchased everything necessary to our salvation? Is it sufficient to that cross to say that its blood has purchased grace that only enables faith and good works? Is it sufficient to say that the cross has purchased the blessings of assurance that follow actual believing and the blessings of God that follow actual good works done by believers? What damage is done to the fullness of Calvary’s cross to say that grace only goes so far, and then it is up to the believer!

Conversely, what glory and blessedness it is to ascribe everything to the almighty power of God’s grace! What a wonder it is to find the cross of Jesus Christ to be the fountainhead of every part and aspect of faith, both the ability to believe and the act of believing itself! To find that cross to be the source of both the ability and the doing of all our good works, from the willing of the heart to the doing of the hands and the speaking of the lips! What blessedness to know that any and every reward of grace is truly gracious, not because of anything that we have done but from our complete savior, Jesus Christ.

“By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves…not of works, lest any man should boast.”