Reward for Good Works or Reward of Grace?

Program Introduction

Welcome to the Good-Works-Rewarded Loyalty Program (hereafter referred to as the “Program”). Every member of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (hereafter referred to as “Members”) has been automatically enrolled in the Program. The following terms and conditions govern the Members’ participation in the Program.

Terms and Conditions

Members have been given a measure of grace in a preapproved amount, a beginning balance to get the Members started as they set out on their lifelong paths to obtaining their rewards (hereafter referred to as the “Rewards Pathways”). Be advised that along the Rewards Pathways, Members can properly and simultaneously pursue both eternal rewards (higher degrees of glory and richer and deeper experiences of their places in heaven) and temporal rewards (special privileges, greater responsibilities and opportunities, distinguished honors, godly friendships, and personal character development in the area of witnessing).

Note, as Members proceed along the Rewards Pathways, they can choose their level of participation in the Program and even enlarge their capacity for rewards. If Members choose a lower level of participation, be assured that they will not lose membership in the Program, but their capacity for rewards and their experiences of the rewards will be commensurate with their level of participation. Do not be discouraged—Members can develop in their capacity for rewards and pursuits of these rewards, and perhaps special opportunities for accelerated Rewards Pathways will arise, so be on the lookout for those!

Some things to remember about the Program are the following:

First, Members in need of more grace always can access available grace along the Rewards Pathways.

Second, while we do not advise Members to compare themselves with others within the Program, we do want Members to be motivated to receive more capacity for rewards and greater and richer experiences of their rewards. Members may expect their rewards to be proportionate to their walks of holiness, lives of obedience, and good works, which are always performed by grace, of course.

Third, as previously mentioned, accelerated Rewards Pathways and bonus rewards do exist within the framework of the Program and can be pursued in the way of suffering and spiritual works that publicly serve the church and the gospel.

Fourth, be sure to listen closely for updates each Sunday as the Program leaders provide instructions on the terms and conditions. Terms and conditions are grounded in the law as stated in the ten commandments or as interpreted by the Program leaders.

Fifth, as a warning, there are certain ex-Program leaders who refused to promote the Program and its terms and conditions and who have been excluded from the Program. Any presentation of an entirely free and gracious reward is not to be confused with the Program. Please consult your Program leaders for more details.

The Protestant Reformed Doctrine of the Reward

The occasion for this article is renewed discussion and attention brought to the doctrine of the reward of grace, as Prof. Brian Huizinga presents that reward under the theme “Crowning His Gifts.” Both his book, which originated as a ThM thesis submitted to Calvin Theological Seminary in 2022,¹ and his recent Reformation Day lecture² develop the current Protestant Reformed doctrine of the reward. A brief examination of that doctrine of the reward in contrast to the doctrine of the reward as proclaimed by the Reformed Protestant Churches reveals the dramatically antithetical character of these two different theologies and is an occasion once again for the truth of the reward to be established against the lie.

Professor Huizinga’s doctrine of the reward of grace is faithful to and consistent with current Protestant Reformed conditional covenant theology and the place and function the denomination assigns to good works. The method of both his book and speech is a presentation of quotations that he contends represent the majority of the body of Reformed work and development on the topic of the reward, along with a brief commentary. The quotations in this article are mainly from the speech, as the speech is a summary of his book.

Professor Huizinga prefaces his speech with an acknowledgment that there is the perception of tension between a gracious reward and the good works of a believer.

The fear is that when we start talking about a reward and we know it’s a reward of grace and God’s rewarding the believer’s good works, we have to try to bring together in one picture now God’s grace and our good works, and we start feeling some tension there.

Professor Huizinga assures everyone that there is only a misunderstanding of some unidentified sort. Since he never clearly elaborates on the nature of that misunderstanding, he leaves the listener with the subtle message that to believe that any perceived conflict exists is in fact the misunderstanding. A conflict is simply not there! Voilà, the magician flashes his hand over the coin, and it is gone!

Professor Huizinga generously employs terms like grace, grace-wrought, and gifts of grace. Initially, he appears to give a grand place to grace. With another flash of the hand, the coin reappears in the hand of the magician.

As Professor Huizinga elaborates on his position, he ends up presenting a doctrine of the reward that is dominated by the works of the child of God, which works influence and precede the reward. And with a final flick of the wrist, the coin disappears forever.

In brief Professor Huizinga teaches that there is a gracious reward and that the reward is eternal life. He grounds the reward of grace in the doctrine of justification, the merits of Christ apart from works. Huizinga goes on to teach that the reward is according to and proportionate to the unique good works of the believer. It is at this point that he begins to take back all that he previously attributed to grace.

Now, in this expression “crowning his gifts,” his gifts refer to our good works. Our good works are all of these good things that we do. They come out of a heart of true faith; they are done according to the law of God; and they are aimed at his glory. You know the Heidelberg Catechism. We’re talking about all these acts of loving obedience at home, at church, at school, at work, at play, among the ungodly—our good works. From one point of view, we could properly say that our good works are our gifts to God.

Professor Huizinga’s false doctrine becomes apparent especially where he teaches the variation and proportion of the reward as more enjoyment, deeper happiness, and larger capacity. In his speech he elaborates on this point by providing the following explanation:

In heaven, though everyone’s glass will be full, some glasses are bigger. Some capacities are bigger. And in heaven, though everyone’s glass will be full, some glasses are bigger, some are smaller, some will have deeper experiences of blessedness. Some will radiate with a brighter glory. This capacity for enjoying blessedness and glory is organically connected to this life on earth, so that greater faithfulness on earth corresponds to greater blessedness and glory in heaven. Already here on this earth, we all have our own unique capacity for future blessedness and glory. We have a capacity, and that capacity can even expand through the course of our life. And the more one is faithful now, the greater glory in heaven, for God rewards according to our works.

Huizinga writes more about proportion in his book:

There is some proportionality between good works and the eternal reward, because Scripture teaches each will be rewarded according to his works. There are degrees of glory in heaven according to each saint’s body of faithful service. However, there is still a great disproportion between our puny good works and the eternal weight of glory. If each believer’s complete body of works were piled up as a mound here on earth, we could walk among the mounds and see variation in size.³

Here Huizinga takes back every bit of the graciousness of the reward that he described earlier. He gives to the law and the believer’s living in obedience to the law a place and function as the way to influence the reward of grace. Connecting the obedience of the child of God to the reward in this way means that an act of obedience to the law of God by the regenerated child of God, even obedience performed by grace, both influences and precedes the blessing of God.

I note also that Professor Huizinga teaches that there are both intrinsic and extrinsic temporal rewards that are distinct from the eternal reward. He creates distinction upon distinction, and at every distinction he muddles works and grace.

Now, in addition to an eternal reward, there are temporal rewards, and I’d like to address that yet for a few moments this evening. The Bible makes the eternal reward the main thing. Nevertheless, there are temporal rewards, and we confess that in the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 24 when we confess that God rewards “in this and a future life.” The rewards of this present life, they don’t consist of saving benefits like reconciliation with God, regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, preservation unto final glory. But Reformed theologians explain temporal rewards as special privileges, greater responsibilities and opportunities, or distinguished honors.

Professor Huizinga ends his speech by very briefly presenting the idea that alongside love for and gratitude to God, a desire for the reward is a motivation for a life of holiness and obedience to the law of God. In his book Professor Huizinga had time and space to elaborate on motivation, and there he was at pains to demonstrate that “the tradition” often used synonymously the terms motive, incentive, and stimulus.

While the tradition in its use of terminology consistently stops short of identifying the hope of a reward as a motive for obedience, there is no ground for concluding that the tradition makes a hard and fast distinction between motive and incentive or stimulus so as to teach or imply that anyone who makes the reward a motive for obedience is transgressing the boundaries of orthodoxy and in error. It could even be argued that some of the terms employed instead of motive are synonyms of motive, or at least very nearly synonyms. Also, although it is not very common, some Reformed theologians have employed the term motive to describe the reward, and their use of the term and explanation of it in no way undermines love for and gratitude to God as motives.⁴

Professor Huizinga’s theology of the reward loads a terrible burden on the back of the hearer. His theology is devoid of the gospel of the free reward of grace in Christ and is cut loose from election, so that though there might appear to be glimpses of truth sprinkled throughout both his speech and book, in the end the terms and conditions of the Program bind up the Members with steel-like ropes and steal the joy and hope of the reward.

Rev. Nathan Langerak describes a series of articles also written by Professor Huizinga, and the theology of those articles is that repentance in all its distinctions precedes the remission of sins. Reverend Langerak’s apt description of those articles fits Professor Huizinga’s theology like a glove.

Besides being barren, misleading, and condescending, the articles are oppressive. The author labors mightily to convince us that what he writes is the Reformed faith, the gospel of the scriptures, the old paths, and historical Protestant Reformed truth…In all of that he oppresses the heart of the believer with works.⁵

Although Professor Huizinga claims that the Reformed tradition and the historical Protestant Reformed truth support his theology, he revises history. Concerning the relationship between election, good works, and the reward—which is eternal life—Rev. Herman Hoeksema in a sermon on Romans 11:6 taught that 

the glory of God must shine forth in Christ; and the glory of Christ must radiate in the Church. That Church as a whole, and that in organic relation in connection with the whole of His work as it will be perfectly manifested in the new heavens and the new earth, God has foreordained. And the election of those that are saved and ordained unto glory is dominated by that one purpose. The whole determines its parts…

For, personal election is also personal predestination, foreordination unto the particular place each one of the elect must occupy in the whole, and the specific purpose each one must serve in showing forth the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…

And election also implies that the infinitely wise Architect has assigned to each of the elect his own place, and that he has determined to prepare each one for his particular place and purpose in the whole…

Even from the foregoing it already follows that when the apostle writes [in Romans 11:6] “it is by grace,” this “it” of the text also refers to salvation as it is actually accomplished and applied unto us. If you keep the fountain pure, the stream must be pure. If you confess that election, whence flows the entire stream of our salvation, is by grace and not of works, you cannot mix works with grace anywhere along the line of the process of our salvation…

Now, it is evidently also to that accomplished salvation of the remnant that the apostle refers in the words of our text. We may, therefore, read the text as follows: “And if salvation is by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more of grace: otherwise work is no more work”…

You are, perhaps, inclined to ask, whether anyone could be so foolish as to deny this, and to maintain that even this objective redemption through the blood of Christ, this reconciliation of the world, is of works. And to that I would answer that the cross of Christ has, indeed, been changed into a work of man by many. What else do they teach than salvation by works, who picture the cross of Christ as a mere disciplinary measure on the part of God to show us what He might justly do with us all, and thus to bring us to repentance in order that we might be saved? In that case we are saved, not because Christ bore our sins away and atoned, but because we are good enough to repent. And then it is not of grace but of works…

Salvation is not accomplished by its objective realization in and through the blood and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It must be applied to us, given in our possession, carried into our very hearts…

Also this belongs to that glorious work of God whereby we are saved. And also this part of the work is referred to in the words of our text: “And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.”

Are there, then, [those] who teach that a man is regenerated, called into the light of God, brought into a saving fellowship with Christ, liberated from the power of sin and sanctified,—all of works? I answer that they do not express it so bluntly, for it would appear too absurd. How could a man regenerate himself, or how could he deliver himself from the shackles of sin, or how could he bring himself into a saving connection with the living Lord? It is self evident that all this must be the work of God. No more than the dead can rise in their own power, no more can a sinner liberate himself from the prison of sin and death. Besides, Scripture teaches all too plainly, that by grace we are saved, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. And so, even the Arminian must admit this. He will emphasize that man can do nothing of himself, nothing to accomplish his own liberation and quickening. It is all of grace. By grace we are reborn and by grace we are called; by grace we receive the justifying faith and by grace we are sanctified. But, he insists, whether God will give this grace to anyone and thus save him, that depends upon man’s own readiness and willingness to receive it. And by this he overthrows and denies all he ever said before. For in last instance it depends on us, on man, on his goodness, on an act of his will and choice, whether he shall be quickened and called into the eternal kingdom of God’s dear Son, or not. And then salvation is not of grace, but of works…

Again you ask: are there, then, those who teach that the preservation of the saints is of works? I answer: there are, and they are the very same that also hold that election is of works, that redemption is of works, that salvation in the subjective application of it is of works, that make the whole of salvation in last instance and final analysis dependent upon an act of man. They adhere to their principle to the very end, and apply it also to the preservation and perseverance of the saints. And again they would fain leave the impression that they attribute everything to grace. Strongly they emphasize that the Christian is surrounded by mighty powers of temptation and destruction, over against which he would not be able to stand for a moment if it were not for God’s preserving grace. Without Christ the child of God can do nothing. Continually he must receive grace from God in order to stand. But whether he will receive this preserving grace continually, that depends once more upon an act of his own will. He must be willing to preserve [sic], to stand, to fight the battle of faith. He must earnestly seek that preserving grace of the Lord. Then God will keep him. And then he will persevere. God helps those that help themselves! And thus they overthrow once more all they first confessed concerning the grace of God. It is of works, not of grace!⁶

 

The Reformed Protestant Doctrine of the Reward of Grace

In distinction to Professor Huizinga’s doctrine of the reward stands the doctrine of the reward of grace as it is taught in the Reformed Protestant Churches. Rev. Luke Bomers ably defends the doctrine of the reward as a reward that is free, that gives no place of influence to the works of men, and that does justice to the decree of election. This doctrine is also faithfully preached from the pulpits of the Reformed Protestant Churches as her ministers bring the gospel from week to week, the good news of the free reward of grace.

The definition that Reverend Bomers provides is as follows:

The reward of grace is the wages of Jesus Christ, which is freely bestowed by God in election and which superabundantly replaces all that the children of God lose in this life as they follow after Christ.⁷

This doctrine of the reward is grounded upon the merits of Jesus Christ and flows out of election; election is the sole, determining influence of the reward in every aspect. The reward is eternal life; the reward is to have God himself in Christ. The reward is the eternal kingdom of God and a name and place in that kingdom as it is made up of many members.

In addition to receiving a name and place above all men, Christ received “a portion with the great”—that is, a kingdom—together with power and authority to execute God’s counsel. He also received posterity—“his seed”—and eternal life—“prolong his days.”⁸

The kingdom and its members, including their special names and places in that kingdom, were decreed in eternity, and the kingdom is a reality in the eternal decree of God and in time. The kingdom is not influenced and affected by man or man’s works, and in the kingdom there is no work of man that precedes the blessing of God. In time we see the unfolding of the eternal decree of God, and every elect child of God already possesses the reward in principle. Each elect child possesses the kingdom, has his or her name and place in the kingdom, has eternal life, and has God himself by faith; and the elect will receive the full perfection and culmination of the reward upon God’s realization of his kingdom at Christ’s return.

Therefore, we expect the coming of the great day of the Lord with a most ardent desire, to the end that we may fully enjoy the promises of God that are yes and amen in Jesus Christ our Lord, unto the glory of God by us!⁹

There is no essential, principal difference between the reward in time or in eternity. This reward is proportionate to Christ’s perfect work, and not at all proportionate to the works of the child of God. The good works and the lives of obedience of the elect are fruits of faith, and they are demonstrations of the efficacy and reality of God’s kingdom; they demonstrate the name and place of the child of God in the kingdom. Therefore, any concept of the place of good works in relation to the reward of grace may not give to works a place that God never assigned and must do justice to the decree of election.

Reverend Bomers explains the proper relationship between good works and the reward this way:

I reiterate my main contention: when the reward of grace is taught as the place that each elect child of God possesses in the eternal kingdom and everlasting covenant of God, it must be taught from the viewpoint that this reward has already been determined in eternity. This reward is not determined by good works, but it is determined by election.¹⁰

Note well that every rational, moral creature will be judged according to works, not by works. When scripture speaks of according to works in connection with the judgment, it highlights the specific function that men’s works have in the theodicy of God. God will use the works of men to demonstrate and vindicate his righteous judgment, such that his glory and honor are acknowledged by every rational, moral creature.

The simple teaching of these texts [that the Protestant Reformed assemblies cited in order to attempt to prove that the reward is proportionate to the good works that believers perform in this life] must be mangled in order to draw out that the reward is according to works, such that the believer receives more or less glory based on his deeds. What these texts set forth is the nature of God’s judgment, not the nature of heavenly life. And the natural contrast in these texts is between elect and reprobate, not between different kinds of believers.¹¹

Neither the law nor obedience to the law can give one a name and place in the kingdom. Neither the law nor obedience to the law can give more and more of the reward of grace or can influence the reward in any aspect, including the experience of the reward. Neither the law nor obedience to the law precedes the blessing of God.

As to variation in the body of Christ, hear the instruction of Reverend Langerak:

There is great diversity in the church of Jesus Christ. It belongs to the church’s perfection of catholicity that membership in the church of Jesus Christ is not limited by any earthly criteria but by the election of God, out of which comes faith in Jesus Christ. God chooses out of every tribe, tongue, and nation under heaven. The church is not boring sameness but a marvelous diversity.¹²

And again:

That diversity of gifts, works, and effects is the proper work of the Spirit means that diversity is not a threat to the unity of the church. Diversity is the will of the Spirit of Christ, who divides “to every man severally as he will” (1 Cor. 12:11). This means that the particular gifts a man receives has nothing to do with his will or abilities. For instance, that one receives the word of wisdom is not the result of his natural intelligence. That one receives the office of mercy is not the result of his natural abilities with money. Rather, the gift, work, and effect that a man has in the church are the result of the Spirit’s will. Man has nothing the Spirit needs. He sovereignly distributes, just as sovereignly as he distributes salvation. He chooses men, women, and children in eternity; he appoints them not only to salvation and membership in the church, but also to their particular place in the church, gives them their particular work in the church, equips them for that work, and fruitfully blesses that work for the church’s sake. All diversity proceeds solely from his will and is the result of his work.¹³

The reward of grace was sovereignly appointed and decreed in eternity; the child of God possesses this reward in time; and he knows it already by faith. In fact the child of God is even known by his reward, so much so that the devil and the world make every effort to identify, ostracize, and defame him for the sake of it; and if they could take it from him, they would love to do so. The child of God suffers mightily for that reward, and yet that reward is never in danger of being lost, for it depends entirely on the finished work of Christ, who fully merited it. In this life the child of God hopes and looks forward with a sure knowledge and trust that the full perfection of the reward will come upon Christ’s return and that the beauty and glory of the reward will be revealed to all men for the glory of the King.

Conclusion

Having studied both the current Protestant Reformed doctrine of the reward and the Reformed Protestant doctrine of the reward, it is clear that the two doctrines stand diametrically opposed to one another. One doctrine, using cunning sleight of hand, leaves the people without a prize at all, free or otherwise; and instead, as natural men and natural wisdom are wont to do, that doctrine relies on tricks, false advertising, and time-tested ploys to sell its cheap wares. The other, the true doctrine, is a theology of pure grace, with riches upon riches poured out upon the heads of the elect.

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isa. 55:1).

9. As it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:9–16)