A Hypocritical Charge

Prof. Ronald Cammenga of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) has issued a malicious, ignorant, and graceless email condemning the elders of Cornerstone Reformed Protestant Church, formerly of Wingham Protestant Reformed Church. Those elders judged that the PRC departed from the truth.

I began an examination of his shabby screed that would be unworthy of a reply, as merely transparent self-promotion, if it were not so full of lies and deception that must be exposed for the truth’s sake.

In his email Professor Cammenga brings up the matter of antinomianism in the controversy recently finished in the PRC. The PRC finished that controversy by the unrighteous ecclesiastical murder of a couple of ministers deemed by the churches to be ringleaders of a mob of troublers in Israel. As is the Lord’s way, that evil served—by the grace and sovereign work of God—the forming of a new Reformed denomination. Professor Cammenga says that he has known all along that antinomians were the problem and that now this is coming out in their teaching and writing. He does not prove his charge but simply asserts it. He does not even bother to cite a single instance of this alleged ongoing antinomianism.

His charges of antinomianism are simply a continuation of his mantra throughout the recent controversy, and they are of a piece with his rants in a sermon, “Shall We Continue in Sin?” that he is preaching in numerous Protestant Reformed churches. For instance, recently in that sermon as he preached it in Randolph, he charged me specifically with antinomianism. For the benefit of those who have heard him preach this sermon, I am the one who supposedly put my own personal liberty above the calling to listen to the elders.

I will not answer that charge in this article. At a later date, the Lord willing, I will answer his slander by writing about what happened at Crete Protestant Reformed Church, including the names of the ringleaders in the plot to oust the truth and the names of the elders who knew better and perjured themselves by failing to defend the truth, all the secret shenanigans that were going on behind the scenes, and the details of the charges leveled against me; and by publishing my own protest, which never saw the light of day. Professor Cammenga speaks about my case as though he knows the details, which he does not. If he does, perhaps he could write about it for the benefit of the PRC, so that the members can learn how insubordinate I really was.

My purpose in bringing up his charges of antinomianism is to show that he is a hypocrite in his charges of antinomianism. To paraphrase the apostle Paul—who had some knowledge of dealing with hypocrites—Professor Cammenga sits to judge us after the law, but he smites us contrary to the law (Acts 23:3). In this instance he is going around publicly accusing me in a case that he knows nothing about. But the ninth commandment requires that he love the truth, not lie against it, and that he judge no man—not even his enemy, such as I am—rashly and unheard. The commandment also calls what Professor Cammenga is doing—lies and deceit—the proper works of the devil. So he is a breaker of the law. Worse, as James said, he is a judge of the law, and thus no doer of the law at all (James 4:11). He is like the antinomians whom Christ pointed out: On the one hand, they are Pharisees, who for a pretense made long prayers—or write long emails—and on the other hand, they are antinomians, who devoured widows’ houses—or the names of men.

Pharisees in doctrine are frequently antinomians in life. Those same men, who supposedly were so zealous for the law, suborned false witnesses to lie against the truth, and Professor Cammenga does no differently. That is because the errors of the Pharisee and the antinomian are two sides of the same lie. The one exalts man in his righteousness. The other exalts man in his sin. But both exalt man, and both proceed from the same source as every lie, that men are lovers of their own selves (2 Tim. 3:2).

Professor Cammenga’s lawlessness is also evident in his email regarding the elders formerly of Wingham Protestant Reformed Church. While he preaches and teaches that synodical decisions are settled and binding, he feels himself free now to criticize those decisions openly and to rewrite them. He does this probably because he knows that his intended audience agrees with him and has no desire to prosecute him for his lawless militancy and his dishonest rewrite of history. He is pandering to them.

I point out only a few of his more egregious statements, and then I will show that he militates against his own synod, and he rewrites history and thus is also a hypocrite when he takes the charge of antinomianism on his lips.

He writes in his email,

Synod 2017 judged that a number of Mr. Meyer’s statements were contrary to Scripture and our Reformed confessions…Synod 2018, it is true, judged that it should not have entered into a protest that had not been upheld. On purely technical and legal grounds, therefore, the decision of 2017 was set aside. In reality, however, it does not change the fact that a number of Mr. Meyer’s statements are indeed contrary to Scripture and the Reformed confessions…

Synod 2017 did not sustain the charge of antinomianism because it was not demonstrated that Mr. Meyer “embraces some coherent and consistent form of the heresy.” That was 2017. I seriously doubt that given developments since then, synod would make the same judgment today.¹

The last statement in particular is telling and disgusting. Professor Cammenga is admitting that, as far as he is concerned, the synods of the PRC do not make judgments based on objective facts but on consequences and developments. What an unrighteous view of synods. If that is the view of synods by the delegates and advisers who go there and who have influence there, then the same warning applies to Protestant Reformed synods as Jacob applied to Simeon and Levi: “O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united” (Gen. 49:6). 

Contrary to Professor Cammenga’s unrighteous view of synods, Neil Meyer’s exoneration was based on objective facts. Those objective facts do not change.

What Professor Cammenga does not mention in the interest of his own self-promotion is that Synod 2017 made statements that denied the gospel of grace. Those statements were protested to Synod 2018. Thus at Synod 2018 the issue was finally decided.

I will give the cliff-notes of that decision from the summary of the controversy that was written and adopted by the consistory of Crete Protestant Reformed Church. Professor Cammenga should remember as well that a church in his denomination has a settled and binding decision about the controversy in the PRC, which decision he also contradicts by his email.

I do not know if the elders at Crete church still believe what they adopted. Some of them did not believe that summary of the controversy when it was adopted on April 15, 2021, so that it was adopted only by the narrowest of margins. They were deep into their plans by that time to suspend and depose me for insubordination. But if the elders still do believe what the consistory adopted, they should demand a retraction from Professor Cammenga because their decision said that the charge of antinomianism was a “false charge.”²

Regardless, for the present the decision stands, and that decision is that the charge of antinomianism in the whole controversy in the PRC was false.

Professor Cammenga does not feel himself compelled to deal with that in the orderly way of protest and appeal but lawlessly contradicts it in public. And when I review that history, you will see that he also militates against his own synods and rewrites that history. It will be good for everyone to review how this all came to a head so that they will not be fooled by his dishonesty.

The Historical Record

Elder Neil Meyer filed a protest with the consistory of Hope Protestant Reformed Church on July 7, 2015, against the sermon on John 14:6 preached by Rev. D. Overway.

By July 13, 2015, the consistory had decided that Elder Meyer maintained antinomianism. On July 26, 2015, the consistory decided to proceed with his suspension. On August 11, 2015, he was suspended in a combined meeting of the consistories of Hope and Grandville Protestant Reformed churches. On August 16, 2015, Mr. Meyer’s suspension was announced to the Hope congregation. On September 20, 2015, the congregation was informed that Mr. Meyer had been deposed from the office of elder. Two and a half months from filing a protest to deposition! Protestant Reformed churches do not always move quickly; but when getting rid of the gospel is involved, they can move with the speed of a striking snake.

The grounds for the charge of antinomianism were three statements from Mr. Meyer’s protest against Rev. D. Overway’s sermon on John 14:6:

There are commands in Scripture and we preach them, but they are not the power to save. There is no power of the gospel to save in the preaching of the law, for the way is the way of mere grace, which preaches what God has done in Christ for us and in us, fulfilling the law. That leaves the commands to be a guide of thankfulness to us. But thankfulness is no small, leftover grace. Our fathers in 1953 emphasized the power of this grace and amply proved it.³

Mr. Meyer made these statements over against the false teaching about John 14:6 that the way to the Father is Christ and the believer by his Spirit-wrought works—a teaching that was a blatant and glaring contradiction of the gospel of grace that Christ is our way to the Father and that we are not.

Hope’s consistory maintained that Mr. Meyer taught antinomianism by those statements. The elders said that Mr. Meyer “is willing for the sake of grace to abandon every obligation that the child of God has to obedience and holiness and denies that there is any value in the preaching of the admonitions of Scripture” (86). 

Hope’s consistory also maintained that Mr. Meyer believed that

the commands are of some limited value in suggesting some things we could do, but God does not by any means actually require thankful obedience. This is a profoundly twisted view of the new life that is ours in Christ, and is completely antinomian in its demolition of our ability to actually walk with God in thankful obedience and communion. (91)

Further, Hope’s consistory said, “Neil, the fact that you have a problem with Rev. Overway’s preaching is reason in itself to suspect that you have antinomian leanings” (55).

The opposite is also true—a point that many refuse to see: Professor Cammenga, the fact that you did not have a problem with Reverend Overway’s preaching and do have a problem with the preaching of the Reformed Protestant Churches is reason in itself to suspect that you are an Arminian.

Part of Hope’s charge against Mr. Meyer involved the issue of the proper interpretation of Acts 16:30–31 and Acts 2:37–38. This is very fascinating because Rev. Kenneth Koole picked these texts in order to militate against Synod 2018 in the Standard Bearer by teaching that if a man would be saved there is that which he must do.⁴

That is not coincidental: he was part of the decision to condemn Mr. Meyer on the basis of the corruption of those passages; he cannily recognized that that interpretation was threatened by Synod 2018’s decision and so rushed to undermine that decision.

Hope’s consistory wrote regarding Mr. Meyer’s protest,

In support of the assertion that salvation is pure grace, page 168 of Voice of our Fathers is partially quoted, and then Elder Meyer makes the following statement: “Obedience is included here, but not as our activity—what we do, but as the perfect obedience and holiness of Christ in justification and sanctification.” This is a false statement and contradicts the creeds and Scripture. The Philippian jailer asked the Apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” The Apostle Paul answered him concretely with these words, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” Acts 16:30–31. The multitude present for Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost responded to Peter’s preaching in this way, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” and the Apostle responded, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37–38). Now, neither of the Apostles was teaching that salvation or the gift of the Holy Ghost was conditioned or based in any way on what the people did; however, they were teaching that repenting and believing were in fact the personal activity and obedience of God’s people, worked in them through the preaching of the commands to repent and believe. Canons 3/4.12 teaches explicitly that our wills do in fact become active and man is himself rightly said to believe and repent. (88)

Hope’s doctrine and the doctrine of the PRC now is that faith and repentance are what man does—by grace, of course, but what man does—to be saved. And you have to remember that they were arguing over John 14:6 and the truth about the way to God, the way of salvation! The way to God is man’s faith and repentance.

Obedience and man’s activity of faith and repenting are simply not a part of that way. The way IS CHRIST! Alone! We come to God through Jesus Christ by faith alone—God’s gift and not our work—doing nothing, nothing, nothing. Believing and doing are contrary here. Believing is a not doing. Believing that your doing is part of the way is not believing but doing, and whoever does that shall not come to the Father.

This is all shocking to reread. I almost cannot believe what I read. But there it is, black on white. And then this reality: almost everyone was just fine with that false doctrine and still is because this is the doctrine of Reverend Koole (if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do), of Professor Cammenga (Christ is not enough), and of Professor Engelsma (in a certain, specific sense, man is first in drawing near to God).

Mr. Meyer responded to Hope’s assertion this way:

This point [the quote of the consistory above] objects to this statement: “Obedience is included here, but not as our activity—what we do, but as the perfect obedience and holiness of Christ in justification and sanctification.” To prove this objection, texts are cited such as Acts 16:30–31, where the Philippians jailor asks, “What must I do to be saved.”

I [Mr. Meyer] quote some excerpts from the sermon of Rev. H. Hoeksema, “The Calling of the Philippian Jailor,” preached in Doon, IA, July 1953:

“Listen: we must believe? Oh, that’s true. But, is that the gospel? Is that the gospel: “we must believe”? We must believe? If that were the gospel, beloved, that gospel could never be realized. I say once more, to be sure, we must believe. But there’s no hope in that statement, and there’s no salvation in that statement. Because if you only say that we must believe, which means of course, that nobody has the right not to believe and nobody has the right to be an unbeliever, that we are [bound] before God to believe. Yes, yes, yes; there’s no hope in that. That’s not the gospel.

But when Christ says that, beloved, Christ, not I, but Christ—as He did here. As He did here through Paul and through the apostle, when Christ says that, then indeed, you do not answer, “Oh, I must believe.” But then the fruit, the inevitable fruit, the sure fruit is that you say, “I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.”⁵

This was all to no avail. Neil was an antinomian, according to Hope’s consistory.

Mr. Meyer appealed the charge of antinomianism to the meeting of Classis East on January 13, 2016. He reiterated his position on the three heretical statements in the John 14:6 sermon:

My judgment on these statements is that because they make the way of salvation and covenant communion with God include our obedience, and be our holy life and godly life, that we then no longer need rely on Jesus Christ and His obedience alone as the way of salvation and communion with God and that this therefore teaches conditional covenant theology. (92–93)

Classis East did not sustain Mr. Meyer in his appeal against the charge of Hope’s consistory that he “maintains and teaches antinomianism” (86). All his careful explanation was also to no avail. He was an antinomian, according to Classis East.

It was also becoming clearer and clearer that the Protestant Reformed denomination had a serious gospel-problem, by which I mean she had a serious problem with the gospel. It was antinomian to her.

Mr. Meyer appealed to Synod 2016.

Synod 2016 ruled that

Mr. Meyer does not fit classical and Reformed descriptions of an antinomian…

He is not against the necessity of preaching the law and its demands…

He is not against the need for obedience to the law in the life of the child of God…

He is not against the law in either of its uses as set forth in the Heidelberg Catechism, namely, to show our misery and to direct us in thankful obedience. (53–54; synod’s emphasis)

Synod 2016 ruled that

Hope’s consistory misrepresents Mr. Meyer’s position on the commandments as a guide of thankfulness…

Hope’s consistory overstates Mr. Meyer’s position regarding the law…

Hope’s consistory prejudices itself against Mr. Meyer simply because he disagrees with their pastor’s preaching. (54–55)

Synod 2016 ruled that 

Classis East…asserts that Mr. Meyer is antinomian without interacting with the material of his defense in order to demonstrate this charge…

When Mr. Meyer rejects the law in connection with salvation, he is not rejecting the preaching of the law altogether. Instead, he is rejecting the preaching of obedience to the law as part of the “Way” to God in John 14:6, that is, as part of the basis for our salvation. (55–56)

Now a more thorough vindication of the man could not be written. Mr. Meyer is not an antinomian. He does not teach or believe antinomianism. All the things he said were in defense of Christ and his perfect sufficiency as the way to the Father.

However, that all was not enough for Professor Cammenga. Neil is an antinomian!

So Professor Cammenga protested the decision of Synod 2016 to Synod 2017. He wrote,

I believe that Synod 2016 erred in not condemning certain statements made by Mr. Meyer in his protest, statements that at the very least are not in harmony with our Reformed confessions, and statements at worst that betray the antinomian error.⁶

He rejected as antinomian the following contention of Mr. Meyer:

There are commands in Scripture and we preach them, but they are not the power to save. There is no power of the gospel to save in the preaching of the law, for the way is the way of mere grace, which preaches what God has done in Christ for us and in us, fulfilling the law. (274; Cammenga’s emphasis)

Remember that Mr. Meyer was defending the gospel against the idea that obedience to the law is the way to fellowship with God and blessedness from God, and Christ alone is not the way.

Professor Cammenga stated his position on the law: “It has ever been the teaching of the Reformed that the law serves as an instrument of grace” (274).

Really!? Where is this “Reformed” teaching found? It surely is not found in the three forms of unity. The creeds speak about the admonitions of the gospel, which are admonitions to repentance and to thankfulness. The creeds teach that the preaching of the gospel is the means of grace. But the law? As a means of grace? Perhaps Professor Cammenga could still write about this new means of grace.

Professor Cammenga also rejected as antinomian this statement of Mr. Meyer: “I maintain that God does require thankful obedience, and provides it” (275).

Professor Cammenga said, “To say that God ‘provides’ our thankful obedience goes beyond the teaching of Scripture and our Reformed creeds” (275).

However, though he is a professor of theology, he is ignorant of the creeds because Belgic Confession, article 14, confesses, “In short, who dare suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God?”

But Professor Cammenga is sufficient to provide his obedience and that by which he comes to God, no less.

And the professor does not know article 24 of the Belgic Confession, which says specifically about our good works, “We are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He that worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” 

And the professor contradicts answer 26 of the Heidelberg Catechism, in which the believer confidently says, “[God] will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body” (Confessions and Church Order, 39–40, 54, 93).

He obviously still has not repented of his denial of Reformed theology in the creeds, because he thinks synod got it wrong when it let Neil go, and if given another go-around, synod would condemn him, according to Professor Cammenga, because he still thinks these statements of Neil are antinomian.

Synod 2017 royally botched the case. It ruled that “some of Mr. Meyer’s statements, taken at face value, are contrary to Scripture and the Reformed confessions” (88).

Over against Mr. Meyer’s statement, “There are commands in Scripture, and we preach them, but they are not the power to save,” Synod 2017 said, “But properly done, the preaching of the law is the preaching of the gospel, and the preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (88; synod’s emphasis).

Over against Mr. Meyer’s statement, “I maintain that God does require thankful obedience, and provides it,” Synod 2017 said, “God does not provide our obedience; rather, He regenerates our heart and sanctifies us so that we bring forth the good works which He has before ordained that we should bring forth” (88; synod’s emphasis).

Over against Mr. Meyer’s statement, “To say that…after Adam and Eve fell ‘the way is barred’ for them as fallen sinners is to make the covenant conditioned on obedience,” Synod 2017 said, “Not only is it a historical fact that they were barred from the tree of life, but Isaiah 59:2 teaches that sins in which God’s covenant people persist do separate us from God so that He will not hear our prayers” (88; synod’s emphasis).

However, Synod 2017 did not sustain the protest of Professor Cammenga because he did not

prove conclusively that Mr. Meyer maintains and teaches antinomianism…[Mr. Meyer’s statements] do not conclusively confirm the charge of maintaining and teaching antinomianism…

Maintaining and teaching antinomianism implies that Mr. Meyer embraces some coherent and consistent form of the heresy, which can be demonstrated to be contrary to the confessions. Prof. Cammenga has not so demonstrated…

Although Prof. Cammenga challenges a few unrelated and unorthodox statements of Mr. Meyer, this challenge does not attain the level of certainty required to classify him as an antinomian. (89)

Synod 2018

The whole mess came to Synod 2018 in several protests, which Professor Cammenga conveniently fails to mention in his email. Synod 2018 addressed the matter of Mr. Meyer’s supposedly “unorthodox statements” by its condemnation of Synod 2017’s statements that contradicted Mr. Meyer. It was either / or. Either Neil’s statements were wrong or synod’s were wrong. With the condemnation of synod’s statements, Neil was vindicated, and the charge that he was an antinomian fell away. Synod said that. Anyone who cares can read the decision.

Now Professor Cammenga militates against the decision of 2018 and rewrites the history. He wants to pretend that the decision about Mr. Meyer was a pure technicality. But there were concrete synodical decisions made about what is and what is not antinomian. Professor Cammenga and others never were content with the decisions of synod in this matter. They are still militating against them. And they dare to lecture on what is the proper church orderly way of protest and appeal.

Rev. Andrew Lanning protested to Synod 2018 against the decision of Synod 2017 that “properly done, the preaching of the law is the preaching of the gospel, and the preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.”⁷

He argued that this statement “contradicts the biblical and confessional distinction between the law…and the gospel” and that “by identifying the law with the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, synod’s declaration brings the law into our salvation at exactly that point that Scripture and the confessions exclude the law” (340–41). He argued that this statement contradicts Canons 3–4.5–6. The law cannot be the gospel because the message of the law does not include Christ. Further, the law cannot give man the power to obey it, but the law is weak through the flesh.

However, the gospel is

“the glad tidings concerning the Messiah”…The Canons explicitly state that this salvation from sin could not be accomplished by the law, and that this salvation from sin God accomplishes only through the gospel…

Synod’s declaration that the preaching of the law is the preaching of the gospel contradicts the Heidelberg Catechism…(Q&A 19, 21, 59, 65, 67, 83, 84)…According to the Heidelberg Catechism, the law’s role is not to save us, but to teach us our sin and misery (Q&A 3, 115) and to be the rule, guide, and standard of our thankful life of obedience (Q&A 86, 91, 114, 115). (342)

Further, Reverend Lanning objected to this statement of Synod 2017: “God does not provide our obedience; rather, He regenerates our heart and sanctifies us so that we bring forth the good works which He has before ordained that we should bring forth” (343). The statement contradicts this phrase in Canons 3–4.16: “Wherefore, unless the admirable Author of every good work wrought in us…” (Confessions and Church Order, 170). Thus Reverend Lanning said, “The good works that man truly performs out of his regenerated heart are furnished, given, granted, bestowed, imparted to him—that is, provided—by God” (343). The fact of God’s providing is confessed in answer 26 of the Heidelberg Catechism: “I have no doubt but He [my God and Father] will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body,” of which our good works are a part (Confessions and Church Order, 93). Reverend Lanning contended that “the Scripture passages that synod cites all teach that God is the Author of our obedience by His regeneration of us…by His eternal counsel…and by His sanctification of us” (343).

Mr. Meyer protested to Synod 2018 against Synod 2017’s condemnation of three of his statements, which Professor Cammenga had quoted in his protest and charged with antinomianism. Mr. Meyer wrote,

I contend that those statements are conclusive evidence that the author of those statements holds to and confesses that the covenant of God with His people in “absolute terms” is unconditional. In effect, these decisions [of synod to condemn his statements] have made binding on all those in the PRC, that, to hold to and confess the truth of the unconditional covenant, in absolute terms, is antinomian heresy.” ⁸

He maintained that “such a false charge of antinomianism, when dealing with the doctrines of salvation, will necessarily involve whether the covenant of God is unconditional or not” (346).

Keeping the issue in line with his original protest to Hope’s consistory regarding Reverend Overway’s sermon on John 14:6, Mr. Meyer noted that Synod 2017 overturned Synod 2016’s decision and sustained his objection to obedience being made part of the way to the Father in John 14:6. Then he noted that Synod 2017’s decision against his confession of the unconditional covenant in those three statements “puts good works back into the ‘way’ of John 14:6” (347).

That is what was at stake, that is what is still at stake, and that is what separates the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC). The PRC has good works as part of the way of salvation. The Reformed Protestant denomination rejects good works as part of the way of salvation. By having good works as part of the way of salvation, the PRC has a conditional covenant. By excluding good works from the way of salvation, the RPC has an unconditional covenant.

Synod 2017 spoke out of both sides of its mouth. It said that Neil’s interpretation of John 14:6 was right, and then synod went on to contradict itself and say that Neil was an antinomian.

Specifically, with regard to his statement, “There are commands in Scripture and we preach them, but they are not the power to save,” Mr. Meyer said that this statement “is in plain harmony with Canons 3/4.5” (350). Further, he said that Synod 2017’s condemnation of this statement and its teaching that “properly done, the preaching of the law is the preaching of the gospel” (Acts of Synod 2017, 88) is “to mix law and gospel to the destruction of the gospel as gospel and is to receive the doctrine of the conditional covenant into the midst of the PRC” (351).

Regarding his statement, “I maintain that God does require thankful obedience, and provides it…,” which Synod 2017 had condemned as antinomian and about which synod had said, “God does not provide our obedience; rather, He regenerates our heart and sanctifies us so that we bring forth the good works which He before ordained” (Acts of Synod 2017, 88), Mr. Meyer maintained that this means that “man…is active in providing obedience” (351). He quoted from the Declaration of Principles: “The sure promise of God…makes it impossible that we should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.” And he quoted from Battle for Sovereign Grace in the Covenant: “The child’s faith and obedience, therefore, are not conditions upon which the covenant depends—to the overthrow of divine sovereignty, but fruits of thankfulness” (351–52). Neil pointed out that 

to say other than God provides is to uphold the covenant as conditional…

That God provides our thankful obedience is the teaching of Belgic Confession, Article 24…“we are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He that worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” We are beholden to God for our good works and not He to us because He has provided those good works. This article of faith quotes Phil. 2:13 here to say that if man provides his own good works, then that provision would be meritorious and would make God “beholden” to us…

Also, to say other than God provides our thankful obedience is to “make the believer’s good works part of the way of salvation, which way John 14:6 declares to be Christ alone”…To say other than God provides is to uphold the covenant as conditional. (352–53)

In defense of his statement, “To say that…after Adam and Eve fell ‘the way is barred’ for them as fallen sinners is to make the covenant conditioned on obedience,” Mr. Meyer noted,

I wrote in my protest [to Synod 2016] concerning this statement: “To teach in all this that Adam was barred from fellowship with the Father is, again, completely omitting the truth of election. Adam and Eve did not ‘stand as fallen sinners’…but were elect, redeemed sinners…raised to a higher, heavenly life in Christ [the head of the covenant].”…Prof. Cammenga characterizes my arguments as “typical antinomian reasoning.”…Decisive election and unconditional covenant are inseparable. For Prof. Cammenga to oppose my reasoning, which reasoning flows from the truth that election governs the covenant, is to establish and maintain that the covenant is conditional. (353–54)

Neil maintained that by his statement he was not denying “that Adam and Eve were put out of the Garden of Eden. I do deny that they were put out of Father’s fellowship thereby.” He pointed to the Belgic Confession and wrote,

Article 26 speaks of “access to the divine Majesty, which access would otherwise be barred against us,” talking about what happened in the garden as a result of Adam’s sin. The truth is that as our head Adam would, indeed, otherwise be barred, and we in him. But thanks be to God that the second head, Jesus Christ, is Adam’s head and our head and that God has revealed this truth to us to believe and confess…that we have no access unto God but alone through the only Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous…If our access to God is not in Jesus Christ alone….our access would be in our works. Works are the condition, therefore, to having fellowship with God if we are, indeed, otherwise barred from that access…

At face value, Adam was put out of the garden…in reality he was clothed in a higher, saving fellowship with God in Jesus Christ, no more to return to the typical pictures in the Garden of Eden. (354)

Neil’s reasoning was perfectly sound. But Professor Cammenga keeps repeating his lie about it.

Synod 2018 sustained “the protests of Rev. A. Lanning and M. Overway…and rescind[ed] this statement [of Synod 2017]”: “Properly done, the preaching of the law is the preaching of the gospel, and the preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (89). Regarding the statement of Synod 2017, “God does not provide our obedience…” Synod 2018 decided to “sustain the protests of Rev. A. Lanning, N. Meyer, and M. Overway…and rescind” that statement (89–90).

Now Professor Cammenga can say all he wants that Synod 2018 “on purely technical and legal grounds” said that Synod 2017 erred when it entered into the substance of his protest, but the decision of Synod 2018 was far more than that. It was a thorough vindication of Mr. Meyer as not antinomian and a thorough vindication that Mr. Meyer’s statements to which Professor Cammenga objected were not antinomian either.

What makes this even more remarkable and clear is that the 2018 case against Synod 2017, which had called Neil’s statements antinomian, was so compelling that even those who hated him had to vindicate him. So Professor Cammenga’s dishonest rewrite of history is contradicted by the decisions of Synod 2018 black on white. Further, he shows that in so construing history, he is militating against the settled and binding decisions of his own synod. He is also then a hypocrite when he preaches that decisions of synods are settled and binding and when he says that the only way to deal with those decisions is by way of protest. He is not only a hypocrite, but also he is himself lawless. He is one of the Pharisee-antinomians, or as Paul said, a “whited wall” (Acts 23:3). He shows and has shown that he does not know what the gospel is. He has made the gospel his enemy, and he slanders it constantly as antinomian.

A Shocking Protest

This may explain his own atrocious protest to Synod 2017, in which he quoted favorably from the book Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? by Mark Jones.⁹

Mark Jones was the supposed expert on antinomianism by whom Professor Cammenga was going to instruct the Protestant Reformed synod and churches in their controversy.

The PRC has good works as part of the way of salvation. The Reformed Protestant denomination rejects good works as part of the way of salvation.

I will remind the reader who Mark Jones is. As a basic premise, Mark Jones holds to a conditional covenant and salvation, and connects the denial of conditions in the covenant and salvation with antinomianism.

They [antinomians] were so concerned to maintain the graciousness of salvation that they not only denied that there are conditions for salvation…but also suggested that even in the application of salvation man does not “act”…Faith is an antecedent condition to receiving the blessings of justification, adoption, and sanctification…That is to say, Christ’s death would be meaningless apart from a covenantal agreement between the Father and the Son…The covenant of grace may be unconditional in its origin, but ultimately it requires that conditions be met on man’s part…If faith is an antecedent condition required of sinners in order to receive pardon of sins…then as Reformed theologians insisted, good works…are consequent conditions for salvation.”¹⁰

The quotes from Mark Jones that Professor Cammenga used to substantiate his protest against Mr. Meyer are shocking in their denial of the truth. Mark Jones said that the more moderate antinomians

blur the distinction between impetration [Christ’s work for us] and application [Christ’s work in us], and so make Christ totally responsible, not only for our imputed righteousness, but also for our imparted righteousness. On the surface, such a view appears to honor Christ. But on closer inspection, this view obliterates human responsibility to the point that antinomianism ends up becoming a form of hyper-Calvinism. (Acts of Synod 2017, 273)

Professor Cammenga had so little understanding of the gospel that he was fine with Mark Jones’ savaging of Christ and his perfect work at the cross and in us. Jones was going to be the PRC’s instructor regarding antinomianism.

Anyone who desires can read my book review of Mark Jones’ book from which Professor Cammenga quoted to substantiate his protest against Mr. Meyer.¹¹

The Protestant Reformed synod—the Protestant Reformed synod!—was getting instruction from its sitting professor of dogmatics about antinomianism, and the authority the professor cited was Mark Jones. Mark Jones! 

Was anyone appalled by that? 

Did the Theological School Committee even question its professor on that? 

Did anyone ever raise even so much as an eyebrow?

Mr. Meyer wrote to Synod 2018,

As Protestant Reformed theology distinctively witnesses to the truth of the unconditional covenant, by his teaching Mark Jones must condemn Protestant Reformed theology as antinomian. By quoting favorably from this book Prof. Cammenga also demonstrates his condemnation of the unconditional covenant as antinomian. By synod’s acknowledgment of three key points made in Prof. Cammenga’s protest, synod also demonstrates condemnation of the unconditional covenant as antinomian. (347)

Neil was right.

Professor Cammenga’s use of Jones is shocking because Mark Jones is a conditional covenant theologian. One might say that he has made it his business—his raison d’être—to ridicule the unconditional covenant as antinomian and to teach that the conditional covenant is the only antidote to antinomianism. Jones will grant that the covenant is unconditional in its origin, but it is destined to become conditional.

This is Professor Cammenga’s theology too, but he is too cowardly to come out with it, and he hides behind the tactic of labeling the truth that he hates with being antinomian and instructing us on what antinomianism is by means of the books of those who hate the truth too. 

If Mark Jones is your authority on antinomianism, then you have a conditional covenant, and whether you use the word condition or not is completely immaterial. Mark Jones calls the gospel antinomian, and if he is your authority on antinomianism, you, too, have likewise called the gospel antinomian. Professor Cammenga will continue to teach this to his seminary students and thus corrupt the pulpits of the PRC.

When Mr. Meyer pointed out to Synod 2018 that the sitting professor of dogmatics in the Protestant Reformed seminary, in a theological controversy of life or death importance, quoted a man who says that by definition the unconditional covenant is antinomian, one of the delegates—Howard Pastoor—said that the protestant had “pointed a gun at the professor’s head” with his protest. A legitimate protest was pointing a gun at the professor’s head! Perhaps—more than likely—the delegate was parroting a phrase he had heard earlier and was carrying someone else’s water.

The synod surely did not express gratitude to Neil for the thankless task of protesting to synod yet again about a danger to the denomination and a danger this time at the very seminary of the denomination.

Is not a protest a right of believers in the church? 

Are we not excoriated by Professor Cammenga for not protesting?

But he sat mutely as the delegate so maliciously maligned the protestant. 

No matter, the comment stood—most of the delegates hated Neil Meyer—and encouraged by the delegates, the synod duly rebuked Mr. Meyer as being “inappropriate and uncharitable,” which is about the only crime Protestant Reformed synods know of these days (98).

Synod 2018 should have investigated Professor Cammenga, for he had given abundant evidence that he contradicted the creeds. He continues to do so to this day and shows himself to be lawless in that sense too. He does not uphold his oath of subscription but violates it constantly.

He chides us for “mischaracterization, misrepresentation, and slander” and calls it “a hallmark of this group and its leaders.”

I have shown that he is guilty of it himself. He should be quiet about antinomianism or condemn himself. He is the real antinomian. The gospel and the people that Professor Cammenga ridicules, slanders, and maligns in preaching and writing are Reformed, not antinomian. By casting them out, the Protestant Reformed denomination has shown that she is not Reformed but Arminian.

Next time I will deal with his slander against the truth as being schismatic.