Introduction

Prof. David J. Engelsma continues to lead the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) in her devilish assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ and her antichristian advancement of Man. Professor Engelsma’s theology is that man’s activity of repentance is a prerequisite to God’s activity of forgiving man’s sins. In the matter of justification, man precedes God, and God follows man. In the matter of justification, man is not justified by faith alone, but man is justified by his repenting. This theology is not from heaven but from hell. This theology is not of God but of the devil. This theology is not for the abasement of man and the glory of God but for the glory of man and the abasement of God. God’s people have been warned regarding Professor Engelsma’s theology that it is another gospel, which is no gospel (Gal. 1:6–7). God’s people have been warned regarding Professor Engelsma himself to let him be accursed (vv. 8–9). And all men have been warned that those who truly believe Professor Engelsma’s theology are not justified but are damned (2:16). Regardless of whatever other storm and bluster continues to come from the professor’s pen, let all men remember that Professor Engelsma’s theology is justification by prerequisite repentance. Let no man be distracted by the professor’s braying and blatting about this issue and that issue. The issue is justification. Either justification is by faith alone apart from the activity of man, or justification is by man. Either justification is by faith alone without prerequisite repentance, or justification is by man. Justification by faith alone is the gospel and Jesus Christ and heaven. Professor Engelsma’s justification by prerequisite repentance is the lie and the devil and hell.

Professor Engelsma’s method for leading men to perdition has been a series of email articles addressed to his family, which articles he has intended for public circulation. To this point, Sword and Shield has published all of these email articles, along with editorial responses. There was profit to this because Professor Engelsma is still the theologian of the PRC. His articles have advanced the controversy considerably, so that everyone can see for himself the doctrine that animates the PRC in the year 2022. The soul of the PRC in 2022 is not particular grace. The soul of the PRC in 2022 is not the unconditional covenant. The soul of the PRC in 2022 is justification by prerequisite repentance. Professor Engelsma’s articles have shown this: “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.”¹

In April, May, and June 2022, Professor Engelsma churned out several more articles. This was after his solemn and repeated promise to his family and to all of his readers that he would write no more on the subject, which promise he breezily dismissed a few days later with a few yuk-yuks and a few hardee-har-hars. Professor Engelsma’s promise was rash, quickly and easily broken with great hilarity. His rash promise makes him a liar who goes back on his word, as he himself acknowledges. Worse, though, is his dismissing his broken word as some little thing. And worst of all is his making a big joke out of his confessing of his sin. “Nevertheless, I am here going back on my word, for which sin I make confession: peccavi. I have already confessed to your mother.”² For someone who believes that man’s repenting must precede God’s forgiving, Professor Engelsma is awfully cavalier about his own repenting.

The series of email articles that Professor Engelsma published from April to June 2022 are not all worth publishing, and perhaps none of them are. They are full of bluster. They are full of speculation. They are full of lies. Quite frankly, I sometimes think that Professor Engelsma has gone mad and is being ridden by a lying spirit. Whatever the case, we are not publishing these articles in this issue. Nevertheless, for the sake of those who may have Professor Engelsma’s articles foisted upon them as the last word on the matter, I do plan to make some comments on the articles. Two of them will be dealt with in this editorial. Perhaps we can deal with the others in a future issue.

“Schism in the PR Churches” by David J. Engelsma (May 2022)

Empty Promises

In his email article entitled “Schism in the PR Churches,” Professor Engelsma addresses the question “whether the controversy and division are schism or, as those who have left us claim, reformation.” Professor Engelsma’s answer: “In this letter, I will prove to you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the division is sinful schism, not glorious reformation.”

The letter does not live up to the promise. For seven pages Professor Engelsma loudly and repeatedly asserts that Rev. N. Langerak and I are guilty of schism. But loud assertions are as far as Professor Engelsma can go. What he offers as proof are only more assertions. When he comes to assert the facts of the case, he twists and mutilates those facts until they are unrecognizable. He makes up events that did not happen, and he denies events that did happen. There is no other way to say it: Professor Engelsma is a liar. By the end of the letter, the reader does not have proof “beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the division is sinful schism.” The reader has only Professor Engelsma’s assertions. The reader has only Professor Engelsma’s word, and Professor Engelsma’s word is no good.

Nevertheless, Professor Engelsma’s letter has been well-received in the Protestant Reformed Churches. The letter confirms for the denomination that she was right to put Rev. N. Langerak and me out of her fellowship. The letter confirms for the PRC that the members of the Reformed Protestant Churches are wicked schismatics who divided the precious bride of Christ. Professor Engelsma’s letter hardens the PRC in her apostasy. The Protestant Reformed denomination now believes more than ever that her murder of Christ at her assemblies by putting out Christ’s prophets was good and right.

Such hardening of the PRC in her apostasy is good for the true church of Christ. It reminds us in the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) not to look for the vindication of our cause from our mother church. Our cause is the cause of the gospel. It is the cause of the unconditional covenant of grace. It is the cause of the perfect and completed work of Jesus Christ for every aspect of our salvation, including our enjoyment of that salvation. Our cause is the cause of Christ. Christ loves his truth, and Christ vindicates his truth against every unrighteous judgment of man. Therefore, let the members of the RPC not expect—or desire!—an apology from the PRC. Let us not expect or desire an admission from the PRC that she was wrong. Let us not expect or desire a confirmation from the PRC that the cause of the RPC is right and good. The cause of the PRC is not the gospel, and the RPC need no vindication from unrighteous men. Oh yes, the RPC need vindication. All men must know that our cause is the cause of Christ and that he graciously saved us by his gospel. But that vindication will never come from unrighteous men. That vindication comes from Christ by his gospel now, and it will come from Christ publicly in the day of judgment. So let the PRC harden even more in her condemnation of us. Let the members cry, “Schism!” until their veins bulge, their faces turn purple, and their throats go hoarse. It is not their judgment that matters.

Much of what Professor Engelsma writes in his letter has already been addressed. The charge of schism against us is old and cold by now. Professor Engelsma tries to warm up the charge for his readers, but it has been answered often. I refer interested readers to Rev. Nathan Langerak’s speech at the 2021 annual meeting of Reformed Believers Publishing, which speech was entitled, “Reformation, Not Schism.”³ I also refer interested readers to Dewey Engelsma’s blog, astraitbetwixttwo.com. Finally, there are many past issues of Sword and Shield that deal with the charge of schism. See, for example, the editorials of April–June 2021.⁴

This editorial will not repeat all that has been written before but will only point out a few of the more egregious lies in Professor Engelsma’s email article.

Sword and Shield

Professor Engelsma’s proof for my supposed schism is that I refused to submit to the decision of my elders regarding editing Sword and Shield.

I begin with AL. His discipline in Byron Center began with a decision of his consistory forbidding him to edit a new magazine that, in the judgment of his elders, was divisive in the PRC. AL refused to submit to the decision. But neither did he submit to the decision of his elders, while protesting the decision of his consistory to the broader assemblies in the PRC, Classis East and synod.

Everything about Professor Engelsma’s assertion is wrong. Everything, that is, except for my initials. My initials are indeed “AL.” Professor Engelsma has adopted the goofy convention of referring to me as “AL.” He does not refer to me as “Reverend Lanning” because his denomination has told him that he may not. Nor does he refer to me as “Andy,” though the rest of his denomination does. I wonder what is holding him back from calling me “Andy.” Does he think that he somehow spares himself the guilt of my unjust deposition and discipline, which were murder? Does he think that his hands do not drip blood as long as he refrains from calling me “Andy”? Whatever the case, Professor Engelsma has decided to call me by my initials, “AL.” Well, then, Professor Engelsma gets my initials right, but that is all.

Professor Engelsma is wrong that the elders of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church judged that Sword and Shield was divisive in the PRC. The decision of Byron Center’s consistory in November 2020 requiring me to resign as editor of Sword and Shield never stated that Sword and Shield was divisive. I am sure that most of the elders at Byron really did think that the magazine was divisive. When the church visitors at the regular meeting with the council in October 2020 told the council that the magazine was divisive in the denomination, the council as a whole did not defend the magazine. There is no doubt that most of the elders personally thought that the magazine was divisive. But when it came to their official judgment, the elders deliberately and craftily kept any mention of division out of their decision requiring me to resign. If they had mentioned that the magazine was divisive, then they would have had to condemn the content of the magazine. They would have had to evaluate whether the magazine taught the truth or the lie. The elders wanted nothing to do with that debate over content. They knew that the content was the truth. Their problem was that they hated the truth. They hated what the truth did to their congregation. They hated that the truth ruffled feathers and made some in the congregation not want to come to church anymore. But the elders could not say anything like that in a document. Therefore, the elders deliberately did not enter into a debate about the content of the magazine, but they would only talk about conduct and manner. In their written judgment the elders very deliberately did not state that Sword and Shield was divisive. You can read for yourself what the elders said. The following recommendation carried word for word.

Recommendation: That the Byron Center PRC consistory require Rev. Lanning to resign as editor of the Sword and Shield publication for a time, and until such time that the consistory may approve of his involvement as editor. This would include all activity normally required of, or assigned to, an editor’s position.

Grounds:

1. BCPRC’s congregation is in a fragile state. Rev Lanning has a flock that is in turmoil and at this time his focus must be on the preaching of the Word and care of the congregation. The position of editor requires much time as Rev. Lanning also ministers to the many needs of the congregation he is called to serve at Byron Center PRC. Included in the many additional activities required of an editor are: meetings, writing articles, reviewing articles, answering various forms of correspondence and letters that are typical for that position, and interacting with the governing board regarding general business activities and issues. Being an editor reduces the important time spent with members of his own congregation, getting to better understand her concerns and needs and being more involved in shepherding the flock. The additional time gained from not being editor would allow this aspect of his ministry to more greatly flourish. Jer. 23:4. “And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord”.

2. Rev. Lanning has not asked permission, been given approval, or sought the advice of his consistory to accept the position of editor. On June 17, 2020, the Byron Center PRC consistory ruled that “Rev. Lanning erred in not seeking the advice and approval of the consistory before agreeing to take on the work of being editor of the Sword and Shield publication”. According to the Form of Ordination, it is the duty of the elders in regard to the welfare and good order in the church, “to be assistant with their good advice to the ministers of the Word” and “to have regard unto the doctrine and conversation of the ministers of the Word”.

Respectfully submitted.

Your brothers in Christ,

Tim Block

Terry Kaptein

Harlow Kuiper

Professor Engelsma is also wrong when he asserts that I “refused to submit to the decision” that I resign as editor of Sword and Shield. In reality, I protested the decision of the consistory. Protesting was my right as a member of the church and as a minister of the gospel. Protesting was also my submission to the authorities who were called to judge the case. By protesting, I acknowledged that the judgment of the matter in light of the scriptures belonged to the elders. In the meantime I continued to edit Sword and Shield until my protest could be heard and answered. I was very open with the consistory in this regard, informing both the consistory as a body and the committee that was assigned to meet with me that I understood the status quo would hold until the consistory had a chance to judge my protest. I asked the consistory and the committee to inform me if they thought differently. Neither the consistory nor the committee ever told me to do any differently. So I continued to edit Sword and Shield, with the consistory’s tacit approval. You can read my protest for yourself.

December 1, 2020

Dear brethren of the consistory of Byron Center PRC, Greetings in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who has made us free in him.

I write this letter to you regarding the consistory’s decision of November 10, 2020, Article 4.b. of the minutes: “Motion to approve the recommendation of the committee [to require Rev. Lanning to resign as the editor of Sword and Shield]. CARRIES.” I ask that the consistory declare the decision to be in error, thus rescinding the requirement that I resign as editor of Sword and Shield.

I write this letter in the form of a protest, so that I am able to appeal if need be. However, I do not write with an adversarial spirit. Rather, I humbly beseech you as brethren that you not entangle me with this yoke of bondage.

I have only one ground for my protest. I believe this ground to be so weighty that any ground the consistory has already used would fall away. My one ground is that the consistory’s decision robs me of my Christian freedom to confess the name of Christ before men as the editor of Sword and Shield. In light of Galatians 2:3-5 and 5:1, my only possible response to this must be not to give place by subjection even for an hour, and to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made me free.

Explanation:

1. The issue in the consistory’s decision is not the editorship of Sword and Shield. Being the editor of Sword and Shield is a matter of adiaphora. A man could be the editor and glorify God, or he could not be the editor and glorify God. “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (I Cor. 10:31). If the consistory had suggested that I resign as editor of Sword and Shield, I could have considered that suggestion. Although I would almost certainly have continued editing Sword and Shield, I could at least have considered that suggestion and the consistory’s reasons, without having to reject it outright.

2. As soon as the consistory required me to resign as editor, the consistory took away my Christian freedom to confess the name of Christ before men as editor of Sword and Shield. The issue is not whether there are also other ways for me to confess Christ, such as writing for the magazine, preaching the gospel, teaching my family, and my Christian walk. The issue is that I am free in Christ to confess his name before men also as the editor of a Reformed magazine. Regardless of every other opportunity that I may have to fulfill my calling to confess Christ, the consistory has targeted my Christian freedom as an editor and brings that Christian freedom under the consistory’s compulsion.

3. The only moral reason that the consistory might compel me to resign as editor is if being editor is sinful. Neither I nor anyone else have Christian freedom to sin. “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13). Being the editor of Sword and Shield is not sinful. The holy purpose of Sword and Shield is the believer’s confession of Christ as he is made known in Scripture and as he is confessed by the Reformed faith. From the preamble of the constitution of Reformed Believers Publishing: “The members of Reformed Believers Publishing have organized for the express purpose of witnessing to the Reformed truth. The organization is rooted in the office of believer, by virtue of which every believer has the privilege and calling to confess the truth and contend against the lie.”

4. As far as the consistory’s oversight of my labors as pastor, the only reason the consistory might compel me to resign as editor is if being editor contradicts my calling as a minister of the gospel. I am to devote myself to the ministry of the Word. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:16). My calling as a minister of the Word is also laid out in the Form for the Ordination of Ministers of God’s Word and in the Church Order, Article 16. Editing Sword and Shield does not contradict my calling as a minister of the gospel as laid out in Scripture and the confessions, but fits perfectly within that calling, and thus is for the spiritual good and the spiritual care of Christ’s flock in Byron Center. Editing Sword and Shield fits especially in my calling according to Article 55 of the Church Order: “To ward off false doctrines and errors that multiply exceedingly through heretical writings, the ministers and elders shall use the means of teaching, of refutation or warning, and of admonition, as well in the ministry of the Word as in Christian teaching and family-visiting.”

5. The consistory’s compulsion will not stop with the matter of being editor, but before long the consistory will also compel me to stop writing and to stop preaching certain things. This is because the one cause that unites my editing, writing, and preaching is the cause of Jehovah God’s glory in Jesus Christ and his gospel. That gospel exposes the sin of the Protestant Reformed Churches in our present controversy and points us to our only hope outside of ourselves in Jesus Christ. The evidence that the consistory’s compulsion will not stop with being editor is that the consistory has already declared my sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14 to be schismatic. That sermon said the same thing as my editorials in Sword and Shield. For me to accede to the consistory’s compulsion in the matter of editing Sword and Shield means that eventually I will have to subject the gospel itself to the consistory’s compulsion, which may never be.

6. The matter of Christian freedom is no small matter. This freedom was purchased by Christ’s blood. It is “our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 2:4). This freedom is unbreakably connected to Christ’s gospel. When Christian freedom in Christ is subjected to man’s compulsion, then the truth of Christ is also eventually subjected to man’s compulsion. Paul refused to submit to the compulsion of men against Christian freedom “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5). To subject my Christian freedom to men’s compulsion in this would be to despise the blood of Christ that purchased my freedom and to despise the truth that brings me freedom.

7. Christ’s apostle shows what is the only possible response for all Christians whose Christian freedom is taken away by compulsion. That response is to give no place by subjection, but to stand fast in one’s liberty. “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 2:3-5; 5:1).

In light of all this, I ask that the consistory declare its decision to be in error, thus rescinding the requirement that I resign as editor of Sword and Shield.

Warmly in Christ,

Rev. Andy Lanning

What did Byron Center’s consistory do with my protest? They did not answer it. They put it on a stack of at least a dozen other protests and ignored it. Instead of dealing with my protest, the consistory recommended my deposition for my preaching. Professor Engelsma publicly charges that I did not submit to the decision of my consistory and that I should have been protesting and appealing the consistory’s decision. But Professor Engelsma lies. I did protest the decision. And I could not appeal the decision because the consistory refused to answer my protest.

But while we are on the subject of Sword and Shield, let us hear what Professor Engelsma had to say about Sword and Shield during the very time that this was unfolding. Remember that the committee’s advice requiring me to resign from Sword and Shield had first been presented to the consistory by October 2020 and was adopted by the consistory in November 2020. What was Professor Engelsma saying about Sword and Shield in October 2020? This, in response to one Ray Kikkert, who was attacking Sword and Shield as being schismatic by its very existence:

Dear Ray Kikkert,

This is in response to your attack on the new magazine, “Sword and Shield,” now in circulation among the members of the PRC.

Your criticism of the magazine as virtually (sinfully) divisive, with appeal to the magazine, “Concordia,” that played a role in the schism in the PRC in the early 1950’s, overlooks at least two significant facts.

First, when “Concordia” came on the scene, the Rev Herman Hoeksema recognized the magazine in an editorial in the “Standard Bearer,” welcomed it, and advised members of the PRC to receive it. Although I am presently away from my home and study, so that I cannot now confirm this memory, I am quite sure that my memory does not betray me.

Incidentally, the author of the article you quote was not “Rev Hoeksema,” but Professor H.C. Hoeksema.

The second fact—of greatest importance—is that “Concordia” was not schismatic by virtue of its mere existence, but by virtue of its content. It’s message was a conditional covenant—another form of the heresy of salvation by works. As the first few issues of “Sword and Shield” prove, beyond any doubt, the message of the new magazine is not a corruption, or even weakening, of the gospel of sovereign grace. On the contrary! It is sound doctrine with the necessary polemics that defends sound doctrine.

To appeal to the appearance of “Concordia” in the past, as though this weighs against “Sword and Shield,” is egregious error.

You may subscribe or decline to subscribe as you please. But you may not, rightly, attack the magazine as schismatic. Bold explanation and defense of the truth is not schismatic. Ever! Nor may you liken it’s appearance to that of “Concordia.” “Concordia” proposed and defended the heresy of a conditional covenant. “Sword and Shield” nails it’s colors to the mast of salvation by sovereign, particular grace.

My question is: why the excited opposition? Why not, rather, enthusiastic support?

Cordially in Christ,

Prof. David J Engelsma

Professor Engelsma is double-tongued. In October 2020 he emphatically denied that Sword and Shield was schismatic. Now, not even two years later, he allows for the possibility that Sword and Shield did divide the churches. He throws Sword and Shield and the editing of Sword and Shield at Reverend Langerak and me as if it were this that divided the churches. I ask Professor Engelsma his own question: “Why the excited opposition? Why not, rather, enthusiastic support?” And I answer it for him: because Professor Engelsma too is now opposed to the content of the magazine. Let the reader judge from the scriptures whether the content has been faithful or not.

Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine

Professor Engelsma asserts that my sermons “were thinly disguised attacks on his consistory and on his colleagues in the ministry of the PRC as ‘vipers’ and a ‘whore of Babylon.’”

Professor Engelsma is wrong. For one thing, Professor Engelsma’s facts are all jumbled. That is, he is still lying. In my sermons at that time in the PRC, I did not call the ministers of the PRC “vipers,” nor did I call the denomination the “whore of Babylon.” Now I certainly say that. I believe with all my heart that the ministers of the PRC are the vipers that Jesus condemns in Matthew 23. How do I know? Not because I am inspired or because I know anyone’s heart but because the ministers’ behavior reveals it, just as Jesus pointed to the scribes’ behavior when he called them vipers. The Protestant Reformed ministers build the tombs of the prophets with all kinds of praise: Hoeksema, Ophoff, and Danhof. The Protestant Reformed ministers condemn the unjust deposition of the prophets from the Christian Reformed Church in 1924. But the Protestant Reformed ministers then turn and kill the prophets in their own midst: VanderWal, Langerak, and Lanning, along with many other elders and deacons. That kind of hypocrisy is what makes the Protestant Reformed ministers vipers.

But when I was still Protestant Reformed, I did not know that this is what the Protestant Reformed ministers were. I did not yet know to call them vipers.

And now I certainly say that the Protestant Reformed denomination is not only a whore but that she is the whore of Babylon described in Revelation 17–18. She is a manifestation of that great whore and an aspect of that whore. The Protestant Reformed denomination is antichrist. She is that aspect of the antichrist that is the false church. How do I know this? Not because I am inspired or because I know anyone’s heart but because the denomination’s behavior shows her to be so. The denomination carries around a cup. In that cup is wine. The wine is her false doctrine. The wine is her teaching that man precedes God. The wine is her teaching that man’s experience of covenant fellowship depends upon man’s working. That wine represents the whore’s adultery and whoredom. That wine represents her departure from Christ. The whore takes her cup of wine and makes men drunk with it, so that they are ready to serve antichrist. The wine of false doctrine fills men’s heads with Man. False doctrine makes man drunk with his own self. The Protestant Reformed denomination now carries around such a cup filled with the wine of the wrath of her fornication. By her doctrine she helps prepare the way for antichrist. She rides the beast of antichrist and seduces men to fall in love with Man. Remember that antichrist will need a denomination of churches to help him win over conservative Reformed people too. Antichrist will not only need churches to help him win the heathens and pagans. He will not only need churches to help him win the liberal Christians. He will also need a denomination to help him win conservative Reformed people to his cause. That denomination will appear very conservative. That denomination will talk a lot about conservative things. That denomination will be full of good people living good lives. They will vote against abortion. They will go to church more than anyone else. They will regularly check to see that the Reformed creeds are still in the backs of their psalters. If anyone would ever tell those people that they were whores and publicans and sinners, they would be highly, highly offended. But for all of that denomination’s good appearance, that denomination will carry a cup of false doctrine, which is the wine of the wrath of her fornication. She will cause men to drink that cup so that they become spiritually drunken and insensible and believe a lie. The Protestant Reformed denomination is that denomination. She has a conservative appearance and maybe always will. But she holds in her hand that cup of dreadful wine. That is why I say that she is the whore of Babylon.

But when I was still Protestant Reformed, I did not know that yet. I did not yet know to call the PRC the whore of Babylon.

What I did say then, and what I still stand by, is that the sin of false doctrine is as odious to God as a homosexual orgy. I said that in a sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14. Those who walk in lies are to God as the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. We are so blind that we think false doctrine is a minor thing but that homosexuality is a really disgusting and wicked thing. God’s word through Jeremiah disabuses us of that notion, comparing those who walk in lies to the men of Sodom. That is what I preached, calling the denomination to repentance for her sin of minimizing the disgusting nature of her false doctrine.

But Professor Engelsma’s facts aside, his assertion that my sermons “were thinly disguised attacks on his consistory and on his colleagues in the ministry of the PRC as ‘vipers’ and a ‘whore of Babylon’” merely continues his denomination’s favorite practice of demolishing straw men. My sermons were not about people, whether ministers or consistories or editors of the Standard Bearer or anyone else. My sermons were about doctrine. My sermons were about the gospel, the defense of the gospel, and the condemnation of the lie. Anyone can listen to the sermons to hear for themselves. You will not find condemnation of men but a rebuke to a denomination regarding doctrine.

When the PRC and Professor Engelsma say that I attacked my colleagues, they build a straw man. When the PRC and Professor Engelsma condemn me for attacking my colleagues, they demolish their straw man. But what they have not yet done is actually deal with my sermons! They have only pulverized a straw man, a scarecrow, a ragamuffin. The sermons stand unscathed.

I have never known a more fearsome foe of scarecrows everywhere than the Protestant Reformed Churches. The church visitors beat the stuffing out of this straw man. They handed it to Byron Center’s consistory to thrash it some more. Byron Center in turn handed it to Classis East and the synodical delegates to drub it some more. Now Professor Engelsma stumbles upon that old raggedy scarecrow in his denomination’s basement and hauls it back upstairs to deliver a few more wallops. Poor raggedy scarecrows everywhere must be terrified. I begin to think that “PRC” stands for “Pulverizing Ragamuffins Constantly.”

But What about Reverend VanderWal?

Professor Engelsma is strangely silent about Rev. Martin VanderWal. Professor Engelsma charges Rev. N. Langerak and me with schism. He writes his entire letter about only two men. “The two ministers who are the main cause of the division in the PRC are guilty of schism.” But Professor Engelsma forgets (if he ever knew or cared) that Reverend VanderWal was the first minister to be charged with schism. Reverend VanderWal has the distinct privilege of being the first minister put to death by the PRC in her fury against the gospel. Neil Meyer (then in Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Walker, Michigan) was the first elder, being deposed from office in 2015 and placed under discipline for several years while the rest of us in the PRC snoozed away. Reverend VanderWal and Deacon Craig Ferguson (then in Wingham Protestant Reformed Church in Ontario) were the second and third officebearers to be killed for the sake of the gospel, in May 2020. Long before I was deposed on the charge of schism (January 2021) and long before Reverend Langerak was suspended on the charge of schism (April 2021), Reverend VanderWal and Deacon Ferguson were “relieved of their duties” on the charge of schism. Relief of duties was a novel and un-church-orderly invention of the Protestant Reformed hierarchy. For a denomination that hollers so much about the church orderly way, the denomination has shown herself to be decidedly un-church-orderly. Whatever “relieved of duties” means, it amounted to being suspended from office, and it included being placed under discipline.

What makes Reverend VanderWal’s case pertinent is that the charge of schism was so bogus that eventually it had to be dropped. The charge of schism was the favorite charge of the Protestant Reformed hierarchy. It was leveling that charge against Reverend VanderWal, Reverend Langerak, me, and others for well over a year, but the hierarchy could never get the charge to stick. In May 2019 several concerned men were fed up with the censorship and false doctrine of the editors of the Standard Bearer. We wrote a sharp letter to the board of the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) and another sharp letter to the editors. We demanded that the board get control of its magazine for the sake of the truth, for which the magazine had been established. In high dudgeon the editors brought formal charges of schism against the three ministers. This charge of schism was essentially the same charge that would repeatedly be made against us in 2019, 2020, and finally in 2021. In 2019 it was the editors of the Standard Bearer who charged us with schism. In 2020, after Sword and Shield appeared, several consistories wrote open letters warning that the magazine would divide the churches. In 2021 Byron Center’s consistory, Trinity’s consistory, Crete’s consistory, Peace’s consistory, Classis East, Classis West, and the representative delegates of synod all joined in finally suspending Reverend Langerak and deposing me. Finally, after years of trying, they had gotten the charges to stick.

But what about Reverend VanderWal? Way back in 2019, when he was first charged by the editors of the Standard Bearer with the sin of schism, his consistory relieved him of duties and placed him under discipline. But the charge was so ridiculous then, as it would be in the years to come, that the consistory of Wingham Protestant Reformed Church eventually had to drop the charges. You can read for yourself what they had to say.

June 17, 2020

Dear Congregation,

Consistory would like to draw your attention to the following announcement:

Charges of public slander and schism have been leveled against our pastor, Reverend VanderWal, by the editors of the Standard Bearer for comments he made in his blog and also for his involvement in a group of men who wrote a letter of concern to the Standard Bearer Editors. The consistory initially sustained these charges. According to Articles 79 and 80 of the Church Order the sin of schism requires suspension from office after seeking the judgement of a neighboring consistory. Because deacon Ferguson was also involved in the group who wrote the letter of concern to the Standard Bearer Editors, the consistory decided that he also must be suspended.

These suspensions, however, never took place because the consistory never sought the judgement of a neighboring consistory. The consistory initially decided to work with our pastor Reverend VanderWal and deacon Craig Ferguson for a period of time with the hope that suspension could be avoided. In the meantime, the consistory relieved them of their duties as pastor and deacon. This was announced to the congregation in a letter dated May 15, 2020. In a follow up letter dated May 19, 2020 the consistory clarified their previous letter by informing the congregation that our pastor Reverend VanderWal and deacon Craig Ferguson had been placed under discipline.

The consistory has come to see that placing these two brothers under discipline was in error. The Personal discipline under which these men were placed (as stipulated in Article 76 of the Church Order) can only be implemented after suspension occurs according to Article 79 of the Church Order. Suspension under Article 79 requires that a neighboring consistory concurs with the charges brought against these men. The judgment of a neighboring consistory was never sought, therefore the personal discipline of these men ought not to have been implemented at this time. The consistory recognizes the serious consequences that came out of this discipline and humbly apologizes for the error.

As the consistory continued to deal with our pastor Reverend VanderWal and deacon Craig Ferguson, it has come to the point where consistory can no longer sustain the serious charges of public slander and schism leveled against them. The consistory has therefore retracted the charges of public slander and schism against our pastor Reverend VanderWal and deacon Craig Ferguson and restored them to the full duties of there respective offices. The consistory also apologizes to our pastor Reverend VanderWal, deacon Craig Ferguson and to the congregation for the mistakes it has made in dealing with this very complicated situation.

We give thanks unto the Lord for His mercy, that we may continue to forgive, just as Christ has forgiven us.

James 4:10 “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.”

On behalf of the Consistory

Rod Crich, Clerk

But Professor Engelsma will not deal with Reverend VanderWal. If he did, the case would show that all of Professor Engelsma’s charges of schism are empty. Just because the PRC eventually found a way by hook and by crook to make the charges stick does not mean that the charges were ever just.

The Old Paths

But let us hear what our Protestant Reformed forebears used to say about schism. Let us hear their instruction about what is reformation. Here is Homer Hoeksema from 1961.

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.⁵

 

“Letter to My Family in re the RPC: the Heresy on the ‘Right’” by David J. Engelsma (May 23, 2022)

Madness

When I read this particular email article from Professor Engelsma, I thought to myself, “He has gone mad.” Mad with deceit. Mad with a lying spirit. Mad in the delusion into which God has delivered him. For example, how could the professor write the following with a straight face: “It becomes increasingly evident there is now a serious doctrinal issue in the controversy”? Is this a joke? Now—now!—there is a serious doctrinal issue in the controversy? Before it was just all church politics, but now it is doctrinal?

Earlier it seemed that the controversy was strictly church political—the schism caused by the RPC. And the fact remains that the discipline of Andy Lanning and of the now suspended Rev. Langerak was grounded upon their schismatic conduct, not at all upon any doctrinal issue. This is incontrovertible…

But of late, and so early in the history of the RPC, there are startling doctrinal developments in the RPC.

What did Professor Engelsma think was going on in the PRC since 2015? A doctrinal controversy was raging, which controversy has continued unabated to the present day. Did Professor Engelsma fall asleep somewhere during that time, so that he does not see that the same doctrinal issues in the controversy in 2015 are the doctrinal issues in the controversy in 2022? What did Professor Engelsma think was the issue with the sermons of the then Rev. David Overway? What did Professor Engelsma think that he himself was protesting to synod in 2017? What did Professor Engelsma think that he himself was writing in a letter to the Standard Bearer in 2019? What did Professor Engelsma think Sword and Shield has been developing for two years? What did Professor Engelsma think all of our articles back and forth with him over the last year have been about? After all of that, the professor can seriously say that only now it becomes evident that there is a serious doctrinal issue in the controversy?

Madness.

The letter does not improve but descends even further into madness from there. Professor Engelsma pontificates about what “the RPC and their leaders” think. He becomes wild in his imaginings about the RPC’s thoughts and motives, so that reading his pontificating is like reading the insane ravings of a deranged lunatic. He imagines that the RPC saw themselves as “more PR” than anyone else when we were still in the PRC, that we worked for schism, that we tried to “purify” the PRC of “such weak PRs as myself,” that we are the “Wheat RPC” and the PRC are the “Chaff PRC.” It is chilling how sure Professor Engelsma is that his imagination is reality. He is sick, but he does not know he is sick.

Madness.

What especially drives Professor Engelsma insane is Malachi 3:7. “Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?” Professor Engelsma is absolutely sure that this text teaches that man’s activity of returning to God precedes God’s activity of returning to man. The professor is absolutely sure that it is heresy to teach that the text is meant to expose Judah’s unbelief. My exegesis of the text as the law and not the gospel has been a burr on his brain for more than a year now. In this letter he returns to my exegesis in order to charge that the RPC reject God’s commands to his people. Rejecting God’s commands to his people? Nonsense. We just don’t want to be saved by the law. As for the exegesis of Malachi 3:7, perhaps someday Professor Engelsma will get around to explaining the response of Judah: “Wherein shall we return?” That sure sounds to me like Judah’s unbelief being exposed, and that sure does not sound to me like Judah’s turning. And perhaps someday Professor Engelsma will get around to Luther’s exegesis of the passage as the law, which exegesis is identical to mine. But until then, Professor Engelsma cannot handle my refusal to believe that Malachi 3:7 teaches that man precedes God in a vital sense in salvation.

Madness.

In his fevered state Professor Engelsma accuses the RPC of the “heresy on the right,” which he defines as a denial of sanctification. The RPC deny sanctification? The RPC do not issue the call of the gospel? The RPC deny the law? The RPC do not exhort and command obedience? That is all news to me. Professor Engelsma’s claims are not the judgments of a sound mind.

Madness.

Lies

Professor Engelsma continues his program of lying his way through his controversy with the RPC. Referring to article 31 of the Church Order, Professor Engelsma asserts, “The simple, fundamental, obvious fact is that neither Andy Lanning nor the now suspended Rev. Nathan Langerak protested their discipline by their respective consistories.” This lie is popular. Professor Engelsma has taken to repeating it as often as he can, and members of the PRC have long ago been conditioned to repeat this as a knee-jerk reaction to the ecclesiastical murder of Reverend Langerak and me. When we tell a well-behaved PR that we were murdered by the assemblies, his conditioned response is, “But you didn’t protest.”

Well, we did. Often. And so did many, many others. There were so many protests, many of them sitting unopened in the consistory’s inbox, that I don’t know if we will ever know the exact number that were submitted. Reverend Langerak addresses his own protest elsewhere in this issue. And Elder Andy Birkett addresses this in his recent posts on Dewey Engelsma’s blog, astraitbetwixttwo.com.

As for my own protest against my discipline, every level of Protestant Reformed assembly saw my protest. I protested to Byron Center’s consistory. I have published that protest previously in Sword and Shield.⁶ When Byron Center did not sustain my protest, it was sent along with the material of my deposition to Classis East, so that all the delegates saw and judged my protest. Present at Classis East were the delegates representing synod, so that they also saw and judged my protest. Every level of denominational assembly was represented in judging my protest. The simple, fundamental, obvious fact is that Professor Engelsma is a liar when he says that we did not protest our discipline.

As if that were not enough, after I was deposed and after First Reformed Protestant Church had separated from the PRC, the council of First church addressed a letter to the Protestant Reformed Synod of 2021 showing the error of my discipline.⁷ First Reformed Protestant Church technically did not have to do this. We were no longer Protestant Reformed. But First had enough regard for her mother, who was once a nurturing woman, that First’s council felt obligated to send a protest against my discipline even after we were no longer Protestant Reformed.

And as if that were not enough, I have heard that there is still a protest against my deposition coming to the Protestant Reformed Synod of 2022 from somewhere in the PRC. (I write this before synod meets and without any desire and probably without any ability to get an agenda, so I cannot confirm whether this protest is actually coming. But I trust the source.)

So for Professor Engelsma to say that we did not protest our discipline is a lie, and a whopper of one at that.

Prerequisites

As for Professor Engelsma’s doctrine, he remains impenitent in his teaching that man’s activity of repenting is a prerequisite to God’s activity of forgiving. The professor takes umbrage at my stating it that way and accuses me of deliberately misrepresenting him. I refer the reader to previous issues of Sword and Shield where I have cataloged Professor Engelsma’s own words on the matter at length. I believe that I am giving a fair and honest evaluation of Professor Engelsma’s doctrine. I also believe that Professor Engelsma takes such offense at my statement of his theology because he knows the stench his theology gives off.

I once again encourage the professor to own that stench. Let him reveal to everyone that he is actually teaching prerequisites. Prerequisites is exactly the word that he needs to be precise and accurate. And I am sure the professor could explain convincingly to everyone why it is orthodox to speak of prerequisites in justification. He is already teaching it, after all. Here he is in his own words from his “Letter to My Family in re the RPC: the Heresy on the ‘Right’”: “Justification is by means of the believing of the one who is justified, so that believing, with its essential component, repentance, precedes the justifying act of God.”

What word exactly captures that doctrine of justification? Prerequisite!

Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is not justification by faith alone but justification by faith as a doing. It is not justification by faith alone but justification by repenting. Don’t believe his doctrine, for it goes to hell.

Development

As he has done in his past email letters to his family, Professor Engelsma develops his false doctrine to a further state. Thus far he has been teaching that repentance is a prerequisite for justification. With this recent letter the professor teaches that the law of God is the power of the believer’s sanctification and the power of the believer’s obedience. The law, or the “serious exhortation,” is what affects and causes the believer’s obedience.

Commenting on Jesus’ salvation of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1–11), Professor Engelsma writes,

When Jesus spoke the justifying declaration to the adulterous woman in John 8, “Neither do I condemn thee,” He immediately added, as in one breath, “go and sin no more.” The work of salvation is two-fold: the change of legal status and the change of actual spiritual condition. As this added word of Jesus, “go and sin no more,” shows, this second work of grace is effectual by means of serious exhortation, exhortation that expects, and works, obedience to the exhortation.

Professor Engelsma is working with the doctrine of sanctification. The forgiven adulteress’ sanctification was her new life in Christ. As Professor Engelsma says, it was “the change of actual spiritual condition.” But when Professor Engelsma teaches what causes this change, he says that “this second work of grace is effectual by means of serious exhortation.” The “serious exhortation” is the command “Go and sin no more.” The “serious exhortation” is the law. Professor Engelsma is not teaching here that the serious exhortation is the rule, standard, and guide of the believer’s obedience, which would be true. He is not teaching here that the law is the rule for the believer’s grateful life, which would be true. Rather, he teaches that the believer’s obedience “is effectual” by the law. He teaches that the law affects, or causes, the believer’s obedience.

It will be interesting to see where Professor Engelsma goes with this. Undoubtedly, he will develop it further.

As it stands, Professor Engelsma is giving the law a power that God forbade the law to have. God does not work the believer’s sanctification by the law but by the gospel. God does not work the believer’s obedience by the law but by the gospel. It was Jesus’ word “Neither do I condemn thee” that both justified and sanctified the woman. It was Jesus’ word “Neither do I condemn thee” that both forgave the woman’s sin and that caused her obedience. Jesus’ word “Go and sin no more” was the rule, guide, and standard of the woman’s obedience. It showed her what it meant to obey, but it did not affect her obedience.

This is the truth of the law/gospel distinction taught in Canons of Dordt 3–4.5–6.

Yes, it will be very interesting and instructive, indeed, to see where Professor Engelsma goes with this.

More madness, likely.