Introduction

In the unfolding demise of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), the Lord has yet again confronted the denomination with her false doctrine. I want to make that very clear. The Lord has confronted the Protestant Reformed denomination—her ministers and professors of theology, both current and emeriti; her elders; her deacons; and her people—with her departure from the truth. Both her clergy and her people were deaf to the warnings that had been given to them during the course of the doctrinal controversy that shook the Protestant Reformed Churches from about 2015 until 2021. They hardened themselves against every admonition, and they cast out Christ and his truth when they cast out faithful ministers of the gospel. They show themselves to be deaf to all the warnings that are still being issued on the pages of Sword and Shield against them, and it seems as though the ministers and professors in their sermons and writings are being driven down the steep slope to preach and write more and more of man.

The error of the Protestant Reformed Churches is that of conditional covenant fellowship. This error and its wide-ranging consequences for all of doctrine have been demonstrated on the pages of Sword and Shield. The Protestant Reformed denomination has corrupted the idea of the covenant, justification, sanctification, the work of the Holy Spirit, repentance, faith, and the decree of God. That corruption is a wholesale abandonment of the truth that will continue.

How far the denomination will actually go in her reconstruction of theology is evident in an appeal to Classis East and Classis East’s decision, which are the occasion for this editorial. The Lord never leaves himself without a witness. And he has witnessed against the Protestant Reformed Churches yet again, no matter how compromised were the instruments of that witness. What the denomination has yet again revealed is that she is set on the course of apostasy, and she will not be turned from it. She is a very stubborn, old strumpet with a brazen forehead and a deeply entrenched spirit of apostasy.

That the Protestant Reformed denomination shows that she will not be turned is unsurprising. Church history testifies that the word of God runs like a stream that passes a place and does not return again. The word of God comes to churches, and it works the works of God—never returning to God void—and having accomplished God’s purpose, the word passes on, going to wherever God in his good pleasure sends it, there again to accomplish his sovereign will. God had raised up the Protestant Reformed Churches to stand in an evil day and to confess God’s sovereign, particular, and irresistible grace. The denomination stood over against common grace and the well-meant gospel offer and over against the idol that God loves all men, blesses all, and offers salvation to all. And now she bows down to an idol herself. She has forsaken her heritage. She is enamored of man and what man must do to be saved. And she is going to perish with that doctrine of man. It is also clear that with her false doctrine she has no right to exist as a separate denomination any longer. She is essentially no different from any number of Reformed denominations in the world that also teach what man must do to be saved. With that doctrine she is also being destroyed in the judgment of God. The word of Abijah to Jeroboam is the word of God to the Protestant Reformed Churches: “We keep the charge of the Lord our God; but ye have forsaken him…ye shall not prosper” (2 Chron. 13:11–12).

Necessary Background

What makes this abundantly clear is the recent decision of the Protestant Reformed Churches at the meeting of Classis East in October 2023 regarding an appeal by Mr. Peter VanDer Schaaf against a decision of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church’s consistory to charge its emeritus minister, Rev. Kenneth Koole, with the sin of false doctrine. I was of a mind to publish the classical decision, but it has so little substance to it and is so full of politics and falsehoods that it would be a waste of space and paper.

A little history is in order for the reader. The Protestant Reformed Churches from 2015 until 2021 were in a doctrinal controversy over fellowship with God in the covenant. The issue was settled in 2021 when the Protestant Reformed Churches cruelly cast out those who had rebuked her for her errors. Every reader should know that in the Protestant Reformed Churches, the issue of fellowship with God in the covenant is settled. In the Protestant Reformed Churches, fellowship in the covenant is conditional. There is a sense in which man is first in repentance, and God responds to man. There are vital activities—believing and good works—that man performs before God blesses. I could go on, but the point has been made. The covenant of God in the Protestant Reformed Churches is a bilateral covenant in its maintenance and perfection. This issue is settled. If the protest and appeal and the decision of the Protestant Reformed Classis East that form the occasion for this editorial make any point at all, then they make that point.

In 2018 the Protestant Reformed Churches took a synodical decision that at first appeared to solve the problem of the covenant and of God’s fellowship and blessings. Many thought that the issue had been settled. I, for one, will freely admit that I said I could live with the decision. I thought at the time that the decision was weak, but I could live with it. Subsequently, two things about that decision have been revealed.

The first is that the decision was a compromise. The key compromise of the decision was the little phrase “and in the way of good works.”¹ We have fellowship with God on the basis of what Christ has done, through faith, and in the way of good works. That little phase relegated Christ to only one factor in our fellowship with God and made Christ’s contribution merely the basis for fellowship. Christ was not actively by his Spirit giving to us fellowship with God, but Christ was a mere basis of fellowship. The fellowship with God came to the believer by the believer’s act of faith—active faith is the code word—and through his good works. The 2018 synodical decision, in the end, was a bad decision. That decision allowed for the doctrine that is currently developing in the PRC: a fully bilateral covenant in its maintenance and realization.

The second thing that came out about the 2018 synodical decision is that the majority of the clergy did not want that decision, and the ministers and professors openly militated against it. The appellant, on whose appeal Classis East had to rule in October 2023, throughout his appeal openly militated against the Protestant Reformed synodical decision of 2018. The consistory of Grandville, to which he first protested, took note of that:

Of most significance, the Consistory maintains the fact that you are protesting the wrong body. Do you agree with the decision of Synod 2018, which states the following: “If we are truly justified by faith in Christ alone, then true faith cannot look to its works to help find or maintain assurance that is found in Christ alone”…If you do not agree with this statement, you must not protest the Grandville Consistory decision. You must protest the decision of Synod itself.²

The protestant did not agree with the decision of Synod 2018 and neither did most of the Protestant Reformed clergy, and they militated against the decision and are doing so to this day. This began shortly after the 2018 synod with a Standard Bearer editorial by Reverend Koole, in which he taught that “if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do.”³ What he must do is faith.

This militating against the 2018 synodical decision continued with a series of Standard Bearer editorials by Reverend Koole on the theologian Herman Witsius, in which Reverend Koole presented Witsius and his conditional theology of the covenant as the solution to the doctrinal problems in the Protestant Reformed Churches.⁴

Shortly thereafter events unfolded that led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches. It was Reverend Koole’s writings on faith as that which man must do to be saved and his writings on works as that which man must to do be saved that directly led to the schism in the Protestant Reformed Churches, a fact that he has never admitted.

Don’t Drown in a Mud Puddle

That series of articles about Herman Witsius spurred someone to protest to the consistory of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church, which had the oversight of Reverend Koole. The consistory condemned some of Koole’s statements, and he issued a worthless apology in the Standard Bearer.⁵ It was this apology that spurred Mr. VanDer Schaaf to protest Grandville’s decision. His protest finally made its way to Classis East of the Protestant Reformed Churches on September 13, 2023. The original protest to Grandville’s consistory took almost two years to get to classis—not to synod but to classis. When the appeal finally got to Classis East in September, the matter was apparently so complicated that the classis needed another month so that its committee could prepare advice.

Beware, don’t drown in a mud puddle!

Then in October, when the committee presented its advice to classis, the classis cleverly avoided the doctrinal issue and made the whole matter simply one of procedure. The committee wrote,

That Classis East sustain Mr. Peter VanderSchaaf’s appeal that Grandville PRC’s consistory erred when they made a judgment that Rev. Ken Koole was guilty of the public sin of teaching false doctrine without proving this from Scripture or the confessions.

Ground One: The decision of Grandville PRC’s consistory to sustain a protest against Rev. Koole’s writings in the Standard Bearer and to charge him with the public sin of false doctrine is based almost entirely on alleged contradictions by Rev. Koole of the decisions of Synod 2018, not proven contradictions by Rev. Koole of Scripture and the confessions.

A consistory may not convict a minister of the sin of false doctrine solely on the basis of synodical decisions.⁶

Now that is a blatant lie. In the appeal that came to Classis East, Grandville in its letters to the protestant had appealed both to scripture and the confessions. Besides, the 2018 synodical decision, which Grandville used in its initial judgment, made appeals to scripture and the confessions. And still more, it is simply not true at all that in a Reformed church one cannot be convicted of false doctrine solely on the basis of a synodical decision. If synodical decisions are grounded on scripture and the confessions, then being convicted on a synodical decision is to be convicted on the ground of scripture and the confessions. Do you see the implication of what the committee wrote? Protestant Reformed synodical decisions are worthless. The ecclesiastical decisions do nothing and have no power, and that is particularly true with regard to the synodical decision of 2018, which was supposed to be the definitive statement about how believers have fellowship with God. The ministers in the PRC never wanted that decision, and now it is a worthless document that can never actually be used to convict anyone of false doctrine.

And what was Reverend Koole’s fault? He had used “ambiguous” language. The classis wrote,

The decision of Grandville PRC’s consistory to sustain a protest against Rev. Koole’s writings in the Standard Bearer and to charge him with the public sin of false doctrine is based only on certain ambiguous statements that Rev. Koole made in his writings.

Rev. Koole may have used ambiguous and confusing language, which is unacceptable in a minister, which may warrant action by the consistory, and which may even warrant an apology to the readers whom he confused, but Grandville PRC’s consistory did not prove that by this Rev. Koole was guilty of the serious sin of teaching false doctrine.⁷

Poor Reverend Koole. He can never seem to get his words right. He is always muddling about with ambiguous language.

But the classical committee lied. There was one thing that Reverend Koole was not in this instance and that was ambiguous. He was deceptive. He used the ploy of quoting another man to state his own views. But he was not ambiguous. Reverend Koole, having previously cast off the theology of Herman Hoeksema regarding faith as a doing nothing for salvation, in his series on the relevance of Herman Witsius, was pleading for the conditional covenant in the PRC. The specific form of that conditional covenant is a conditional covenant experience. Herman Witsius expressed that in very clear language. No one can be taken seriously who argues that Herman Witsius was not a conditional covenant theologian. The form of his conditional covenant was nearly identical to the form of the conditional covenant in the PRC at present. It is a conditional covenant experience, an experience that comes to the believer by his act of faith and by his acts of obedience. In their promotion of this conditional covenant, Protestant Reformed ministers are always being told that they are using ambiguous language—not false, heretical, and wrong language—but merely ambiguous. The Protestant Reformed Churches, you remember, cannot have a false teacher or a heretic. The whole classical decision is laughable. It was just all about ambiguous language and bad procedure. The decision of Classis East was a clever avoidance of the doctrinal issue.

Doctrine Is the Issue

The issue before the classis was doctrine. Mr. VanDer Schaaf argued doctrine. He wrote, “I am convinced that your mistakes have raised important issues of doctrine and discipline.”⁸ The consistory of Grandville also argued doctrine:

Grandville Consistory’s primary concern was our own context as churches with regards to controversy that was (is) brewing at the time of these writings. Our present context was one which involved controversy with regards to the place and function of good works in salvation.⁹

The context was doctrinal; the appellant argued doctrine; the consistory argued doctrine. And the doctrine could not be more serious: the covenant, faith, assurance, and really the entirety of the doctrine of salvation, and in the end the doctrine of God and his decree!

But the classis would not touch the doctrine with a ten-foot pole.

Though the classis faithlessly would not address the doctrine, there is in the PRC a doctrinal consequence of that decision. The doctrinal consequence is that the theology of Herman Witsius regarding the covenant is acceptable in the PRC. This means that the theology of conditional covenant experience as the doctrine of the PRC has been confirmed again. Pete won! His protest was a full-throated defense of Herman Witsius’ language and covenant doctrine. Herman Witsius to Pete is orthodox. And Witsius’ theology should be the theology of the PRC. Grandville demurred. By classis’ not ruling on the doctrinal issue specifically and by making Grandville’s consistory take back its decision against Reverend Koole that charged him with false doctrine, that doctrine of Herman Witsius has received sanction in the PRC. The classis wrote,

The issue is not whether Herman Witsius in the three contested statements is orthodox or whether Herman Witsius is a generally orthodox theologian or one who teaches a conditional covenant. Classis East is not in the business of making official condemnations or giving official commendations of theologians who lived centuries ago. The issue is rather this: did Rev. Koole, in quoting and in seeking to explain Witsius, teach false doctrine?¹⁰

The answer to the question is, yes, Reverend Koole emphatically taught false doctrine. If English words have meaning, he taught false doctrine. Since he taught the false doctrine in the words of Witsius, the classis also had the obligation to rule on the orthodoxy of Witsius’ statements and in condemning the statements to condemn those who used them to freight heresy into the church. But to do so the delegates at classis would have had to condemn themselves.

At the heart of Witsius’ covenant theology is the distinction between “a right to life, and the possession of life.” Let me explain. In the theology of Herman Witsius, God brings all of his people into the covenant by grace. And once they are in the covenant, they do not have the experience of the covenant except by many works of faith and obedience. No one can gainsay that this is what Witsius taught. He wrote,

We must accurately distinguish between a right to life, and the possession of life. The former must so be assigned to the obedience of Christ, that all the value of our holiness may be entirely excluded. But certainly our works, or rather these, which the Spirit of Christ worketh in us, and by us, contribute something to the latter.¹¹

This distinction amounts to the fact that we have a right to life by Christ alone through faith alone, but the possession of life we have by faith and through obedience, or as the Protestant Reformed Churches are fond of saying, “We have fellowship with God by faith and in the way of obedience.” For the men of Classis East to condemn Witsius would be to condemn themselves. This is the theology that many in the PRC wanted for years. This is the theology that Synod 2018 supposedly condemned. This is the theology for which Reverend Koole was contending. And this is the theology that Classis East refused to condemn and by doing so gave the theology a sanction, making sure, of course, to issue a lame warning to ministers not to be ambiguous—a sin seemingly very common for Protestant Reformed ministers these days.

An Open God

In his protest Mr. VanDer Schaaf gave a full-throated defense of the conditional covenant and made a fervent plea for this doctrine as orthodox and as the doctrine of the PRC. In his protest Mr. VanDer Schaaf stated the conditional covenant theology of the PRC as clearly as anyone has. He made a case for that theology on the basis of scripture and the creeds. Mr. VanDer Schaaf made perfectly plain that his god is an impotent, open, responsive god in the covenant. His god can give a right to salvation, but he cannot give the possession of salvation without man’s help.

Pete is right. The doctrine of the conditional covenant experience is the doctrine of the PRC. Pete never wanted the decision of Synod 2018. He was a delegate there. He argued against it. And he never accepted the decision, as his protest clearly demonstrates. Understand that I believe that the Protestant Reformed synodical decision in 2018 was a rotten decision. It was written by men who were not valiant for the truth but at best were politicians. And all those who trumpet Synod 2018’s decision as a glorious decision—including Grandville’s consistory—must realize that if they accept the decision, then they will end up exactly where Reverend Koole, Pete, and the rest of the PRC are. The key to the decision is the little phrase “and in the way of good works.” If you accept that phrase as an explanation of our experience of covenant fellowship with God, then you end up where Pete and Reverend Koole and the rest of the PRC are. Grandville’s consistory should reevaluate its position on that decision and pitch it overboard. Then the consistory will stand on a firm foundation—the foundation of the truth that God’s covenant in its establishment, maintenance, experience, and perfection is absolutely unconditional. There is not that which man must do to be saved. Christ did all that must be done to be saved. Works are fruits and only fruits.

Pete also shows what the current state of theology is in the PRC, and it is more serious than ever. If the synodical decision of 2018 is worthless, nothing proves that more than its fruits, and the fruits are bitter indeed. Deep in the exchange between Pete and Grandville’s consistory, he wrote this:

The instruction that is given in the SB articles is consistent with the instruction of God’s Word on the nature of the covenant. The Scripture gives us pictures of the organic relationship that exists in the covenant between God and His people.

The relationship between a child and his parent and the relationship between a husband and his wife are used by God’s Word to show how God and His people respond to each other in their fellowship with each other. This is the way in which God receives all of the glory for our justification, our sanctification, and our perseverance, and his rational and moral people grow in grace and knowledge and work out their salvation…

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.¹²

These are shocking words.

I have maintained that the PRC with her man-first, conditional-covenant-experience doctrine is one step away from open theism. Open theism teaches that God is responsive to the inputs of man, especially of man’s decisions, works, and prayers, and that God actually changes what he is doing in response to man’s inputs. And that is where the Protestant Reformed denomination is headed if Pete’s doctrine is her doctrine. Just listen: “God and His people respond to each other in their fellowship with each other.”

Is that who God is? That god does not have an eternal decree. That god is open to the inputs of man. That god is the god of open theism. He reacts to and responds to what man does.

And Pete continues, “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.”

Is that God? He works with man? This is how salvation and the covenant work—“a mutuality of grace, obedience, and gracious reward”? God is one party with his grace, and man is another party with his obedience, and the result is a reward? That is not the Reformed faith.

The baptism form states that God brings his people into the assembly of the elect in life eternal without one work on their part but by his promise. The calling of God’s people is to cleave to God in thanksgiving. The man-first, conditional covenant experience of the PRC leads not only to corruption of the doctrine of salvation and salvation’s experience but also to the corruption of the very doctrine of God!

Categorically Not Categorical

Grandville’s consistory appeared to be alarmed, as well the men should be. They hamstrung themselves, however. In the consistory’s reply to Mr. VanDer Schaaf, the consistory said one thing and then immediately took it back. Indeed, reading through all of the consistory’s interaction with Mr. VanDer Schaaf, one wonders if the men know whom they believe. They halt between two opinions. Mr. VanDer Schaaf made plain that he had already decided that Baal is God. Peter VanDer Schaaf worships this open, responsive god. The word to Grandville is that if Jehovah is God, then worship him; but if Baal is God, then worship him.

I feel sorry for Grandville’s elders and their minister. They are the products of their leadership and the schizophrenic preaching and teaching of that leadership for many years. They have been put into the ecclesiastical washing machine, and it was turned on the high-spin cycle, and they obviously do not know what end is up. They are the people that the Lord warns about when he says that we must not be tossed about with every wind of doctrine. They are not skilled helmsmen who can guide the ship of the church on the storm-driven seas and bring her safely into the harbor. But the officebearers have been taken in by the sleight of man and cunning craftiness.

When I read through the response of Grandville’s consistory to Peter VanDer Schaaf, I was initially surprised. The consistory sounded at certain points to be Reformed Protestant. They certainly did not sound very Protestant Reformed. It is worthwhile to quote the relevant parts. The consistory wrote to Pete,

Surely, the Consistory would never deny that “Scripture teaches that something must be done that we may be saved.” Scripture absolutely teaches that something must be done that we may be saved, but Scripture also identifies and explains that something in the simplest, clearest, and most emphatic manner when it reveals the gospel! The gospel declares that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came into the flesh and rendered unto God a life of perfect obedience and suffering climaxing on the cross for the sake of his sheep. Jesus, and Jesus alone, performed the “something” that must be done that we may be saved.¹³

Later the consistory wrote,

Conclusion: we will state this bluntly and clearly: the consistory does not believe there is any biblical support for the statement “that something must be done that we may be saved” outside of the perfect work of Jesus Christ, and him alone! This statement is erroneous and must be categorically condemned.¹⁴

One wonders where these men of Grandville’s consistory were when we were engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Reverend Koole and his allies over the teaching that faith is something that man must do to be saved. And in the consistory’s document we find out: the consistory gave Reverend Koole a pass on his teaching that faith is something that must be done so that we may be saved. The consistory gave Reverend Koole a pass because the consistory glossed over Koole’s teaching as though it is no great thing that faith is something that man must do to be saved. It is only when Reverend Koole added works to faith as that which man must do to be saved that the consistory became alarmed that salvation by works was being taught. So the consistory wrote,

This series of articles [on Witsius] did not only repeat what the author had previously stated [Koole had taught previously that faith is what man must do to be saved], but rather developed and advanced this idea because now the issue was no longer faith (as it was in the previous article), but the issue is works! In the original 2018 editorial, faith was the “something that man must do to be saved.” In the Witsius editorials, works became the “something that man must do to be saved.”¹⁵

And later the consistory added,

The final statement [of Koole/Witsius] is “Men drift in the direction of an antinomianism exactly because they fail to distinguish between what grants the right to life, and what has to do with the possession (the enjoyment and benefits) of that newness of life.”

Witsius is stating here that while the right of life with God is based entirely upon the perfect obedience of Christ, the possession and experience of salvation is obtained, at least in part, by the works a believer performs. This is taught when works are said to “contribute” to the possession of life and are said to “serve one’s own salvation.”

The Consistory will continue to maintain the fact that Jesus, and Jesus alone, performed the “something” that must be done that we may be saved. We will not be moved from that position.¹⁶

And the consistory continued,

You can impose whatever meaning you desire upon the statement “Scripture teaches that something must be done that we may be saved.” This statement must be categorically condemned.¹⁷

But then the consistory added,

The exercise of faith is necessary for the conscious enjoyment of salvation…

Faith is demanded. “Believe!” is the imperative that must be issued as the call of the gospel.

That said, when one packages these truths together and presents them under the formulation of “If a man will be saved there is that which he must do,” this points us in a new direction. It steers us away from the truth that faith is a gift of God sovereignly worked by the Spirit, and points us in a new direction where faith is a work that we must perform in order to be saved.

Furthermore, when Rev. Koole used this statement again, in these articles, it was not a repetition of this statement but a development and advancement. This was alarming. The issue was no more faith but works. Works, in these articles, became the “something that man must do to be saved.” Again, this points us in the direction of salvation by works.¹⁸

What Grandville’s consistory categorically condemned, it allowed. What it allowed, it categorically condemned. Stop halting between two opinions! The consistory did not like it that faith is something that man must do to be saved, but the consistory allowed it. But if Grandville allows that faith is what man must do—with the appropriate caveats and cautions—then Jesus alone did not do that which must be done to be saved. And then when it came to saying that works are what man must do to be saved, the consistory categorically denied the phrase. But allowing the phrase in the one case of faith but disallowing it in the other case of works is not a categorical denial.

Besides, the consistory should know that if the proper explanation of the call of the gospel is that faith is what man must do to be saved—if the consistory allowed that and did not categorically condemn it—then the consistory must also allow that works are what man must do to be saved because the full call of the gospel is to repent and believe, in which case repentance is a whole new life—works.

Reverend Koole’s teaching about faith and works being what man must do to be saved did not merely point the Protestant Reformed Churches in a new direction of salvation by works, but it was also bold, persistent, impenitent, stubborn, and destructive teaching of the false doctrine over the course of years—years!

Consistorial and Classical Unrighteousness

Also, the consistory was either deceived or duplicitous in its assessment of Reverend Koole. The consistory did not seem to take seriously or was ignorant of the biblical description of a heretic and a false teacher. And if there ever was one in church history, it is Reverend Koole. Here also the consistory showed its unrighteousness: if Reverend Koole sinned in those statements that Grandville’s consistory condemned, then he is personally responsible for the split in the PRC that resulted in the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches. Deliberately, over against every warning, he has taught and publicly defended his false doctrine; and then in the Standard Bearer, he patched it all up with a lame apology, which was no apology.

How can you know that Reverend Koole is insincere? He never once has militated against his false doctrine. He has never claimed responsibility for the grievous split in the Protestant Reformed Churches that he with his false doctrine caused. Besides, his error was public, yet for some reason—to spare an unrighteous man—the announcement about his repentance was read only to the congregation in Grandville Protestant Reformed Church. This was raw unrighteousness. He sinned! He taught false doctrine publicly! He wrecked a denomination. But the thought of Grandville’s consistory seemed to be: “Let us get past this thing!”

Listen to Grandville’s consistory address the protestant:

Finally, taking into account the current state of the denomination, the time that has elapsed (close to three years), and all that she is and has gone through, is this wise? What good is going to come from it?

Pete, for the sake of all involved, with all sincerity, we again implore you to lay this matter to rest.¹⁹

Pete responded: “In continuing to assert my objections to the Consistory’s decisions, I am seeking the unity of our churches in the truth.”²⁰

The question for the church and for a consistory in a case of alleged false doctrine is, what is the truth? Nothing more and nothing less! But Grandville’s consistory mingled in all kinds of carnal considerations.

And I believe that it is these kinds of unrighteous actions on the part of Grandville’s consistory to spare an unrighteous, false teacher that showed Classis East that despite whatever supposed doctrinal disagreement there was in Classis East, Grandville’s consistory and the men of Classis East are not all that different. They are united in their doctrine that there is that which man must do to be saved—at least the doctrine can be tolerated—and they are united in tripping over themselves to save men’s names and honor and in ignoring and sweeping under the rug the schism of which Reverend Koole is guilty.

The consistory was also unrighteous in that it did not suspend Reverend Koole. Some may ask, “What should Grandville have done?” The answer is to suspend him immediately and then depose him. But Grandville charged him with violating his oath in the Formula of Subscription and yet let him keep preaching! Reverend Koole is still preaching! And he will keep teaching his false doctrine that faith and good works are what man must do to be saved. He believes that false doctrine. He will change his language. False teachers always play cards with their words. But the substance of his false doctrine will remain.

Others may ask, “Well, what could classis do?” The answer is to recommend Reverend Koole’s suspension and deposition. But the classis cleverly avoided the doctrinal issue that was before them and gave Koole a slap on the wrist for being ambiguous. He was not ambiguous. He was clear and clearly is a false teacher.

The men of the committee of Classis East understood that Grandville’s consistory, despite its bluster, was not that far from them. And all these differences can be patched up, and the unholy peace of the denomination can be preserved.

I am sure Pete is happy because he got what he wanted in the end. The electionless doctrine of conditional covenant fellowship has once more been confirmed in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

Pete won!

Now what?

Decisions, Decisions

Grandville’s consistory has its decision to make.

I am not a prophet, nor the son of prophet, but it does not take a seer to understand that in the PRC the truth is not what controls men’s actions, but what controls their actions are carnal considerations of outward peace, men’s reputations, and preserving the denomination, no matter how corrupt. I believe that the officebearers of Grandville’s consistory will see that they have too much to lose, and they will knuckle under. I have seen it happen time and again in the PRC. There will be some huffing and puffing. But I do not believe that any reformation will come out of the recent classical decision. Maybe some will flee to the United Reformed Churches or to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, as many already have, jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but they will not stand for the truth.

If after this decision the ministers did not go home and preach off their own pulpits against the decision, then they do not have any great zeal for the truth, whatever their words might be in their decisions. Maybe they will write a protest, and it will take another two years to wind its way through the church courts, where it will be either cast out on a technicality or the whole point of the protest—if it is doctrinal—will be cleverly sidestepped. The main task of ecclesiastical bodies in the PRC is not anymore to judge right and wrong but to keep problems from happening. And the majority of the people yawn and go about their lives. “Let the theologians figure it out,” they say.

I would like to warn the men who were at Classis East and who disagreed with the recent decision that they have now been shown yet again that the Protestant Reformed denomination is set on her course, and she is going to travel it to complete destruction. If these men believe that Christ’s work is the only thing that must be done for us to be saved, then they must also reject the decision of Synod 2018; they must reject Reverend Koole’s articles that faith is what man must do to be saved; and they must reject Koole’s articles on Witsius and the theology that stood behind the articles—that there is a distinction that must be made between a right to life and the possession of life or between the covenant and the experience of the covenant. In their pulpits they must publicly militate against the false doctrine and start a magazine to write against it. And we shall see how long these men last. If they believe that Jesus’ work is the only work that is necessary for salvation, then they do not belong in the PRC. The denomination does not believe that and has not taught for some time that Christ’s work is the only work that must be done to be saved. If they believe that Jesus’ work is the only work that must be done for our salvation and they continue to remain in the PRC, then they deny Christ, and they will also share in the terrible destruction that is coming on the denomination which so faithlessly forsook the truth.