Introduction

In my rubric this month, I publish and respond to two letters. The first letter comes from Rev. Clayton Spronk, a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches. It is good to see that people in the Protestant Reformed Churches still are keeping an eye on what is written in Sword and Shield, although they rarely admit that they read it for themselves. As a writer for Sword and Shield, I welcome letters from friend and foe who acknowledge and interact with what has been preached or written in order that the truth may be sharpened and further proclaimed. The second letter was sent out by Mr. Tom Bodbyl to the members of First Reformed Protestant Church shortly after he left First church. Mr. Bodbyl’s letter, which is full of deceit, gives the reasons that he could no longer be a member in the Reformed Protestant Churches. Only one month prior to the sending out of his letter, Mr. Bodbyl was filling the position of a watchman on the walls of Zion as an elder, so it is hypocritical and unloving for him to send his letter out now, after he has left. My intent is to unveil the cloak of deceit and hypocrisy that covers his letter so that the truth of the matter may come to light.

Letter from Rev. Clayton Spronk

To whom it may concern,

It has come to my attention that I have been charged by one of your contributors with surreptitiously teaching common grace. As I understand the argument my teaching is presented thus:

1. I believe in common grace (but don’t want to tell anyone).

2. This means there is some good in everyone by common grace, including in churches and Christians outside the Protestant Reformed Churches (and the Reformed Protestant Churches)

3. Therefore, it is legitimate to have fellowship with churches and people outside the Protestant Reformed Churches.

I openly admit that I affirm the conclusion that it is legitimate (even the calling) of members of the PRCA to have fellowship with churches and people outside of the PRCA. But I deny premises 1 and 2. I don’t believe in common grace. I don’t believe that there is a little good in everyone because God is the Giver of common grace.

No the issue is far more serious than common grace. I affirm only one kind of grace – sovereign, saving grace. I believe an holy catholic church that is saved by God’s grace in Jesus Christ (9th artifice of the Apostles’ Creed)! The members of this church don’t have some good in them at all by nature, but have the forgiveness of sins (10th article of the Apostles’ Creed) as the gracious gift of God to them only for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ. Who belongs to this holy catholic church, which is also the communion of saints? Many more people than belong to the PRCA (or the RPC). I promote and live in fellowship with saints from other churches, not because they have some good from a supposed common grace of God, but because they, like me, enjoy salvation by the saving grace of God!

Your contributor charged me with teaching all men have some good because of common grace. I deny the charge.

If you had charged me with teaching God saves many people in churches outside the PRCA by His grace in Jesus Christ, to that I would say guilty as charged!

Rev. Clayton Spronk

Pastor of Faith PRC

Member of Christ’s Universal Church

Reply to Reverend Spronk

I appreciate Reverend Spronk’s fair representation of what I wrote. I wrote as much to him in an email, but I also acknowledge that publicly to the readership of Sword and Shield. I believe the occasion for his letter was my mention that he had publicly shared an invitation to Rodney Kleyn’s colloquium doctum upon re-entering the ministry in the United Reformed Churches.¹ I charged such approval on Reverend Spronk’s part as necessarily being grounded on the theory of common grace. False ecumenism and friendship with the world have no basis in the truth but find common ground in common grace.

Over against the protestations of Reverend Spronk, I maintain my position that the ground of such ecumenical relationships must necessarily be founded on the idea of common grace.

To support his claim that such ecumenical relationships are legitimate, Reverend Spronk appeals to the Apostles’ Creed, specifically the article regarding the catholic, or universal, church. It is an appeal to the lowest common denominator of Christianity. There are Roman Catholics and Christian Reformed men and women who can agree with that. But Reverend Spronk is not Roman Catholic; neither is he Christian Reformed. He is Protestant Reformed, for now. And as a pastor in the Protestant Reformed Churches, he vowed to teach, uphold, and defend the three forms of unity. These creeds teach the explicit meaning of the phrase “an holy, catholic church.”

The universal church is the elect body of Christ as she has existed eternally in God’s counsel for the purpose of God’s glory. The universal body of Christ does not remain hidden in God’s counsel but manifests herself in the church institute. The universal church may not be pitted against the church institute in support of false ecumenism. Ecumenism apart from the truth portrays the two to be at odds with each other, that the church universal and the church institute disagree. But they do not disagree nor contradict one another. They cannot. What stands at the heart of both the universal church and the church institute is election. The children of God in the world were appointed to belief of the truth and not a lie (Acts 13:48; John 10:27). The reprobate are not of Christ’s sheep and therefore believe not the truth but believe a lie (John 10:26; 2 Thess. 2:11–12).

Lord’s Day 21 is the article in the Heidelberg Catechism on the church.

Q. 54. What believest thou concerning “the holy catholic church” of Christ?

A. That the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to Himself by His Spirit and Word, out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am, and for ever shall remain, a living member thereof. (Confessions and Church Order, 104)

A key phrase in answer 54 is that the church “[agrees] in true faith.” What does that mean to Reverend Spronk? How does he explain that? One might make an appeal and say that that refers to faith as believing in Christ. If Reverend Spronk takes it that way, then if someone says the mere words, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” we agree in true faith. But that is not true. To agree in true faith means that the universal church and the instituted church on earth agree in doctrine and are one in the truth. There is no division or separation between the two.

That this is true means that I can state without any trouble at all that if Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and David were living at this point in history, they would be members of the Reformed Protestant Churches. Some will cry out that it is prideful, but it is simply the application of the truth that the church universal and the church institute agree in true faith. If Reverend Spronk’s denomination and church cannot say that, then he ought to examine why.

The holy, catholic church, or universal church, is not a multiformity of churches that believe different things about the Bible. Faith believes all that God has revealed. Faith does not believe a lie about marriage, divorce, and remarriage; about creation in six literal, twenty-four-hour days; about the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture; or about how God blesses and saves his people. What does Reverend Spronk say about someone who does not believe all the doctrines of scripture? Does he console himself that they are good people? that they outwardly live good lives? that they say the magic words, “I believe in Jesus”? If a person does not believe all that God reveals about himself in his word, what ground for fellowship does Spronk have other than common grace? How else can he justify ecumenical relationships apart from the truth?

The Heidelberg Catechism gives the judgment in Lord’s Day 11:

Q. 30. Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?

A. They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Savior. (Confessions and Church Order, 95)

Therefore, the believer condemns those who do not believe in the God of the scriptures.

The explanation of all the different denominations and churches is not the pluriformity of the church, that every church has some truth even though they differ in doctrine and confession. The only explanation of the multitude of Reformed churches is God’s sovereign will of election and reprobation that he is carrying out in the world and a massive apostasy from the truth, upon which the antichrist will ride into the world.

Ephesians 4:5–6 is conclusive: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” There is only one universal church, one head, one faith, one baptism, one doctrine, and one way of salvation. The universal church and the instituted church agree together in doctrine. They stood as one in eternity. They stand as one now. There is no difference between the truth now, two thousand years ago, or six thousand years ago. This is the stance of Belgic Confession article 27 as well:

This Church hath been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof…Furthermore, this holy church…is joined and united with heart and will, by the power of faith, in one and the same Spirit. (Confessions and Church Order, 58–60)

By their false ecumenism Reverend Spronk and many in the nominally Christian and Reformed world really deny God’s sovereign grace. They deny God’s powerful, sovereign, efficacious grace to actually realize by his Word and Spirit confessional oneness in his church throughout all time and history. They think that they need to help God out a little. Overlook some “minor” points of doctrine. Wink at a few lies. All in the service of friendship with those who have shown themselves to be enemies of the truth.

Reverend Spronk tries to ground his reason for fellowship with members within the universal church not on the fact that there is some good in them by nature but that they have the forgiveness of sins and enjoy God’s salvation. But Lord’s Day 21 also gives the explanation about the forgiveness of sins. Whose sins are forgiven? Who has salvation? Who has God’s grace and favor? The child of God who is chosen and gathered into the church has forgiveness. By his Word and Spirit Christ “gathers” his church of chosen people to everlasting life. The answer stands interconnected with Belgic Confession 28, which, speaking of the church institute, teaches that “out of it there is no salvation” (Confessions and Church Order, 60). Only in the true church is there the forgiveness of sins. God’s elect children manifest themselves as members of the true church, having salvation and the forgiveness of sins. To stay outside the true church, to refuse to join her, and to stay in a false church, is the manifestation that one is an unbeliever, believes a lie, and has not the forgiveness of sins, having the kingdom of heaven shut to him. Only in the true church does Christ rule as head, speak to his people the blessedness of their forgiveness, and open wide the kingdom of heaven to them, so that as victors they may stride in.

Reverend Spronk’s ground for unity with other churches and so-called believers must be on something other than the truth. The only unity the church has is in the gospel and the truth that is expressed in the Reformed confessions, which he supposedly subscribes to. The unity cannot be sovereign grace, as he claims, because sovereign grace realizes that oneness with the universal church and the church institute. The only ground he can possibly have is common grace. God has a certain favor toward all men, and therefore a man has some good in him and some truth. You can have a relationship with him then on that ground. But grace is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit works by the Word of truth alone. The Spirit in the believer receives the Word without question, argument, or debate. How can you say that someone has the Spirit and grace of God if he believes, holds to, and promotes the lie or is a member of a church that teaches the lie? You make God a liar then, and you un-God God. And in the end, you show yourself to be of the darkness, and not a child of the light (1 John 1:5–7).

Letter from Mr. Tom Bodbyl

January 22, 2025

Dear fellow Saints of First Reformed Protestant Church,

It has been a burden of heart and conscience that I need to confess my sin of participating in rescinding the membership of Brandon and Alana in our church. Also, I participated in the sinful deposition of a faithful elder, Henry Kamps. I have confessed this before God and he has forgiven me and these fellow saints have also forgiven me. God has given me no peace in this whole matter of the Oostras. What I had believed from the very beginning has never left me, no matter how I tried to suppress it.

In the deposition of elder Kamps, the charge was that he separated the people from Christ. Schism. However, if the consistory unjustly removed these members from the church, then the sin lies with the consistory. Brandon and Alana had clean papers when they asked for membership in First.

Many of you are not aware that after the consistory rescinded the membership of Brandon and Alana, I submitted a protest (see attached) to the consistory. I was deeply troubled by this decision as the consistory can attest to. In the interest of unity in the work of the consistory I withdrew my protest. God and my children are witness that I did everything to convince them and myself that the consistory’s decision was right and just.

I believed that in some way this couple could work out what was separating them from being allowed membership in the church. I encouraged Brandon to go to Second and in love for him they would work toward reconciliation. However, it became plain that Second had no interest in reconciliation. Why would Second ask them what sin they committed? What did Second expect for an answer from this couple? Brandon and Alana didn’t believe they had sinned in anything. Was this Second’s approach because they knew that they were never members of their congregation, and they knew they had no authority over them? If they were under the authority of Second, then Second surely would have called Brandon and Alana to repent for the sins Second believed they had committed. After all, they must answer to Second’s consistory. This is love for the member that sins. What a cruel way to treat the people of God.

There are protests before the consistory of First right now that have convinced me of the error of rescinding their membership. One protest reads in part, “As far as the creeds teach, there are only 2 ways out of the church; a member separates himself from it (Belgic Confession Art. 28) or the member is excommunicated out of it (Belgic Confession Art. 30).” The main ground for rescinding membership was a precedent in the PRC’s history in the early nineteen sixties. The precedent that was set in the PRC had no creedal grounds. This decision to rescind membership has now brought controversy into our congregation. This controversy must be settled with the use of the creeds. Where in the creeds does it say you may rescind membership? It doesn’t and it can’t be found. It is not Reformed.

Second RPC communicated to First RPC that in their judgement, the matter with Brandon and Alana was finished due to their impenitence. First RPC joined in judging them to be impenitent. Brandon and Alana were never charged with sin by a consistory nor were they brought before a consistory to defend themselves regarding the charges. The Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 43 teaches that we may not, “…join in condemning any man rashly or unheard.” Where is the official record of Brandon and Alana’s testimony regarding the charges of sin that were made against them? Were they “heard” by any consistory? This was a violation of the 9th commandment in that they were denied the right to defend themselves before the church and God. I ask you, is this how Christ operates in his church? The world at least affords a man or a woman the right of defending themselves in a court of law. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

The real issue in the controversy is the doctrine of the antithesis and how this is lived out by the believer. What is being taught is that there are certain rules one must follow in living with others, especially Protestant Reformed people. If you question and discuss the real possibility that you have disagreement with the application of the antithesis as it’s being taught in the churches, then there is no room for you to hold your own view and how you believe the Spirit leads you in your personnel life with others.

In Rev. Langerak’s lecture on Belgic Confession Article 28 he taught, “…they [members of the church] attack the ministry of the word and the ministers of the word and they attack the doctrine [antithesis] of the church… they do it in their families. That’s a wicked kind of membership. They don’t have membership in the church. They’re really dead branches [reprobate families] already. They need to be cut out.” You may not disagree with how the antithesis is being applied. Proof of this is that there was a protest before the consistory objecting to the application of the antithesis as it was applied in the life of a believer. This member was immediately counter charged by First’s consistory and put under discipline. Even in the PRC they weren’t this cruel. Regarding the rescinding of membership, it was preached by Rev. Ophoff in the sermon titled Honoring Authority, that “The council stands ready to teach. But know this and this is a warning, (more like a threat—tb) if you’re obstinate in this and dig your heels in this, the consistory is going to deal with this.…and we’re going to begin disciplining.” This means that no one may disagree with the decision of the church. The consistory is right no matter what and we will put you outside the kingdom of Christ if necessary. This is lording over the people and denies the office of all believer and his right of appeal. (see Article 31 of the Church Order)

I love the doctrine of double predestination. It glorifies God as God. He alone is sovereign over all creatures and especially over all mankind. He elects and he reprobates. As Rev. Vos taught us, you cover your mouth at the doctrine of reprobation and stand in awe of it. I am not called, nor do I have any desire, to tell you who the reprobate are. This need to judge the souls of people as elect or reprobate is foundational to the antithesis in the RPC and how it affects your living with others. Once you have determined one are reprobate, why would you bother to have anything to do with them? You certainly wouldn’t fellowship with them or bring them the gospel. If you don’t agree with the doctrine of the antithesis as it’s being preached, then you are reprobate. Rev. Ophoff prayed on Sunday morning (1-22-2025) “Cast them from us. Our enemies seek our life.…Lord consume them in thy wrath.” Why? Because he believes they are reprobate. Only the reprobate are the objects of God’s wrath. One would think that a shepherd would pray that God would be merciful to these “wayward” sheep and that it’s the congregation’s heart felt desire that they return.

What the members of the RPC churches need to understand is that if you disagree with the applications of the antithesis as it’s taught in the churches, you hate the gospel. Your end is destruction. And worse, you are reprobate if you leave the RPC.

Rev. Langerak and Rev. Ophoff have no fear of taking to themselves what is only the sovereign right of God in judging souls eternally. I am not interested in a front row seat in the judgment. However, this judging of eternal souls by men will be judged by God. Whether this judging the souls of men by mere mortals will be judged in Christ or apart from Christ is God’s judgment to make.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on they just and the unjust. For if you love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?” Matthew 5: 43–46

It is for these reasons that I can no longer remain a member of these churches. 

With grief,

Tom Bodbyl

Reply to Mr. Bodbyl

I am thankful that Mr. Bodbyl finally wrote what he has believed all along. I do not intend to answer his letter point by point, not because I cannot answer but in the interest of addressing the more glaring doctrinal problems with his letter.

I thought that he was a stalwart defender of the truth and that he needed time to work through and process all that had happened in First church over the past year. However, I believed that he stood with me doctrinally. During his time in office, I highly valued his advice and counsel. I loved him as a good friend and a close companion. What is surprising and shocking to me is just how much of the truth he has pushed aside and how much of the lie he now reveals that he believes. His confession is now the deceptive, corrupt, and carnal document of the “Call to Freedom and Unity in Christ.” This document that he currently puts his name behind is not only not Reformed, but it is un-Christian and ungodly. Perhaps I will address that document soon.

Mr. Bodbyl writes as if he were not in the consistory room for the past year. He acts like he might have put up some sort of fight for what he believes is the truth. But he was there for all the discussions and deliberations in the consistory room. He read and saw all the reports. I even put him on the committee on Sunday, October 20, 2024, to draft the advice for the suspension of then Elder Henry Kamps. Mr. Bodbyl heard Mr. Kamps lie through his teeth about what happened in the consistory room all those months. He nailed Mr. Kamps to the wall for attempting to claim conscience when he refused to shake my hand after the sermon that morning, whereas the day before, Mr. Kamps of his own volition promised not to protest the rescinding of Brandon and Alana Oostra’s membership. For a time Mr. Bodbyl appeared to be one of the strongest men in the consistory room. And now he has turned around and apologized for rescinding Brandon and Alana’s membership, for his part in deposing Mr. Henry Kamps, and for being too harsh to the Protestant Reformed Churches. Still worse, he has turned his back on the preaching in the church of Jesus Christ, the preaching of election and reprobation and of the antithesis.

Duplicitous and double minded. He is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8).

Ultimately, Mr. Bodbyl has rejected the word of God as it came on October 20, 2024, in the sermon titled “The Carnal Church.” He never should have shaken my hand. Now he has to say that the sermon was not the word of God. He, along with Mr. Elijah Roberts, has to call God’s word a lie and a trap. In the consistory room on October 19, 2024, in my naïveté, I believed that we as consistory members were all one—at least that is what men spoke with their mouths. All the elders confessed that we were carnal in our decisions. We all confessed that we were respecters of persons. I confessed that I had been carnal in not preaching sooner regarding the controversy. I told the consistory that I was going to preach on 1 Corinthians 3:1–4 and preach regarding the controversy after months of fighting in the consistory room. I laid out the content of what the sermon was going to be, and there were no objections. God’s word was no trap to get Mr. Henry Kamps, but now Mr. Bodbyl has to confess that the sermon was a trap.

The spiritual reality of what happened at First Reformed Protestant Church is that men and women would not become nothing before the awesome majesty and holiness of Jehovah God. Christ made them nothing—sinners and ungodly. And men hated that word. Men were offended by Christ’s word that they are nothing, having a zeal for their names and reputations. They informally charged the preaching as being comfortless, abusive, Christless, and Spiritless. They tried to kill the prophet and to make his message ineffective. Jehovah got tossed aside by about half of my congregation at First church because in the deepest recesses of their hearts, those who sat under my preaching believe themselves to be something. They hold to their works, religiousness, well-ordered lives, and piety, but they are as shallow as mud puddles. They have no zeal for the holiness of God’s name, his absolute righteousness, his infinite wisdom, his boundless grace, and his resplendent glory. They are zealous for their own names but not for God’s truth. They are offended by the preaching but not by the lie. They are tolerant of their friends and family who worship an idol but are intolerant of the holiness of God’s name when they are exposed in their carnal relationships. That is true of Mr. Bodbyl, and it is written all over his letter.

Those who are offended by God’s holy name and blinding light are as such because they are darkness and walk in darkness.

5. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 

6. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 John 1:5–7)

Mr. Bodbyl writes,

Where is the official record of Brandon and Alana’s testimony regarding the charges of sin that were made against them? Were they “heard” by any consistory? This was a violation of the 9th commandment.

He brings this up now, after he has left, while doing nothing when he was actually an elder in the church.

What Mr. Bodbyl has conveniently forgotten is that this whole matter of stealing, which the consistory was informed of by a letter from Mr. Dillon Altena in February 2024, was actively being buried in the consistory room under the auspices of Matthew 18 up to the point of the consistory’s receiving Brandon and Alana Oostra as members. The line was, if there was a sin, it was private. And if it was private, Mr. Altena had the obligation to go the way of Matthew 18. The consistory was handcuffed in the consistory room by Mr. Kamps, and Mr. Bodbyl for that matter, from doing any investigation into the matter because in their minds that would have been entering into the case, a supposed violation of the Church Order and the principle of Matthew 18. They claimed that the consistory had no business talking with the consistory of Second Reformed Protestant Church, Mr. Altena, or Brandon and Alana Oostra. In the meantime First’s consistory should receive the Oostras as members. Then if there were any charges, they had to come to First church by way of Matthew 18. “We must not enter in” was the sound heard from the consistory from February until we finally rescinded their membership.

But Mr. Bodbyl makes an important admission in his letter to this effect, that the consistory should have received the Oostras’ testimony. And by that he admits, unintentionally, that for him it never was a Matthew 18 case to begin with. His admission betrays a double standard. What I hear in Mr. Bodbyl’s letter now is the same argument of Mr. Kamps. Just prior to taking the decision to rescind membership, Mr. Kamps finally advocated for meeting with Brandon and Alana Oostra to hear their side of the story. But that would not have been following Matthew 18. It was either a Matthew 18 case, or it was not a Matthew 18 case. Mr. Bodbyl’s line in his letter, along with Mr. Kamps’ line in the consistory room, to have the Oostras speak betrays their position that they knew that the case was not a matter of Matthew 18. This was a public case all along, and it should have been treated as such from the beginning.

Mr. Bodbyl then continues to slander the church and fuels a narrative of events that is simply unfounded.

You may not disagree with how the antithesis is being applied. Proof of this is that there was a protest before the consistory objecting to the application of the antithesis as it was applied in the life of a believer. This member was immediately counter charged by First’s consistory and put under discipline. Even in the PRC they weren’t this cruel.

I assume that Mr. Bodbyl is speaking there about Mr. Gord Schipper’s protest. Mr. Schipper’s protest was against the decision to rescind Brandon and Alana Oostra’s membership at First church. That was the thrust of his protest. But at the end of his protest, he leveled charges of sin, totally unrelated to his protest, against me, Rev. Nathan Langerak, and the consistory of First. He also charged Reverend Langerak with teaching false doctrine and bringing the church back under the bondage of the law. Mr. Schipper made those charges without any attempt to base his accusations in scripture or the confessions. At the close of his letter, Mr. Schipper wrote that if the consistory did not do what was right, may there be a mighty battle. What is unbelievable is that Mr. Bodbyl was in the consistory room for part of this case. Men explained to Mr. Bodbyl at least twice why Mr. Schipper had to retract his baseless and unproven charges of sin before the consistory could enter into his protest.

The consistory then sent a committee to meet with Mr. Schipper to tell him to retract the charges of sin in his protest. The meeting lasted fourteen minutes, and then Mr. Schipper got up and walked out. Two days later First received legal notices and a threat of litigation. At our consistory meeting the next day, the elders demanded and required Mr. Schipper to appear before the consistory. His response was, “I prefer not to meet at this time.” The consistory was not asking; the elders were demanding it, and Mr. Schipper said no to Jesus Christ. It was complete and utter defiance against the rule of Christ in his church. Mr. Schipper then proceeded to dig in his heels on the charges he had made, and by the following week he was placed under silent censure for impenitent sin.

Did we answer his protest? Did First church crush the office of all believer? No, and not at all. In Mr. Schipper’s mind, he had already judged the consistory and two ministers in the denomination as deceivers. How could he reasonably expect an answer to his protest? We simply could not enter into his protest until he retracted his baseless and unfounded claims that stood unrelated to his protest.

What about Mr. Elijah Roberts’ protest and documents? Did we trample on his right to protest? After he sent his documents to the consistory, he never shadowed a door at church, and then he left with his spurious act of separation retread.

The various other protests that the consistory of First church has received came as actual protests, not backdoor charges of sin and baseless accusations. The protest from which Mr. Bodbyl quoted we have no problem answering whatsoever. It was a well-written and well-articulated protest that deserves a response. In the meantime Mr. Bodbyl should stop spreading the lie that First church has rejected the office of all believer.

Mr. Bodbyl continues the tale that the office of all believer is being trampled on:

This means that no one may disagree with the decision of the church. The consistory is right no matter what and we will put you outside the kingdom of Christ if necessary. This is lording over the people and denies the office of all believer and his right of appeal. (see Article 31 of the Church Order)

I want to give some more facts regarding the protests the consistory has received. Mr. Bodbyl mentions that the antithesis is the issue. I agree. Over the past months my preaching and Reverend Langerak’s preaching have been slandered as legalistic or, more deceptively, as leading people to legalism. One would think there would be piles of protests on the desk of the consistory regarding driving the sheep, comfortless sermons, and legalism. Let me clarify to the readership how many protests have been received against my preaching. There have been no protests concerning the content of my preaching of the antithesis, of driving the sheep, of being Christless, or of being comfortless. The doctrine of First Reformed Protestant Church as proclaimed in the pulpit is the doctrine of heaven, and against it no man can stand. The powerful testimony is the deafening silence of the lack of protests. As such, Mr. Bodbyl and others who have left may not claim how loving and nice they are. Their actions have shown nothing but hatred for the neighbor.

I taught the calling of the antithesis as our part in the covenant in accordance with the third section of the baptism form, that we are “by God through baptism, admonished of, and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we…forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a new and holy life” (Confessions and Church Order, 258). I preached the calling of the antithesis as bring the word with all its force to your Protestant Reformed friends and family. Negatively, do not dull the edges of the truth for the sake of holding onto an earthly relationship. I preached that in the closest connection with the gospel of the antithesis that God has made you his friend in Jesus Christ and therefore an enemy of the world. I set before the eyes of the congregation the holiness of God’s name, and men rejected God.

Previously the opponents had said that the application of the preaching should be left broad and not too specific, so that the Spirit could apply the word to each individual’s heart (or so they could decide whether the sermon applied to them or not). Then they clamored that the preaching was ambiguous. That was actually the only trap being laid by anyone in all this. They wanted the preaching to give a list of dos and don’ts for them in their carrying out of the antithesis, but that would be to go beyond the bounds of scripture.

That I prayed in a congregational prayer that God would consume the church’s enemies in his wrath is a thoroughly scriptural idea. Strikingly, this language is found in many psalms. I simply was praying Psalm 59:13, which was the context for the sermon that I had preached the week before. The irony is that Mr. Bodbyl’s advice to me when I was in seminary was to “pray the psalms.” This idea is also confessional. Those who heard the word and rejected the word have been set outside the kingdom of heaven by Christ in his holy gospel, and thus are exposed to the wrath of God, so long as they are unconverted (Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 84, in Confessions and Church Order, 118). Mr. Bodbyl’s criticism is not leveled against me, but it is leveled against God’s word, and he can take up his quarrel with God. For all his claims to love the doctrine of double predestination, Mr. Bodbyl’s criticism of not praying for “wayward” sheep is a thinly veiled attack against election and reprobation. For months I prayed for unity and peace among the flock. I preached the word of God as the only thing that could unite us. God placed a division that he was determined not to heal. To believe election theology is to ground every result and action of man in the manifestation of God’s eternal will. Men took themselves out of the blessed fellowship of the church and joined themselves to a carnal organization whose only unity is the hatred of the truth.

The gospel came to men in power and in truth, and men turned their backs on it. God, throughout time and history and especially in controversy, is always realizing in his church his eternal decree of election and reprobation. That is exactly what took place at First these many months. God exposed men as carnal and hypocritical, as wolves and as goats, not as wayward sheep, as Mr. Bodbyl claims. The minister’s job at that point is to drive such men away in no uncertain terms for the protection of God’s flock over against the evil influence of such men.

The minister contents himself with God’s twofold work. Sometimes God’s commission of a minister is not to gather the multitudes but to lay waste the land in judgment, and by that same judgment to save a small remnant.

8. I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

9. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

11. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

12. And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

13. But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof. (Isa. 6:8–13)

God answered months of personal and congregational prayers but not according to my will. My will is that we all would be one together, speaking the same thing. But God exposed men and pulled the mask off many hypocrites in the church. That was the way God revealed that he was going to give healing to a congregation that was convulsing from the wicked counsels, tricks, and devices of ungodly men.

The first series I preached at First was on Hebrews 11. Hebrews was written to the Jews, who were tempted to turn back from the truth. Did Mr. Bodbyl hear and believe a word of it? Hebrews 10:38 reads, “Now the just shall live by faith, but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Mr. Bodbyl has turned back on Christ and the truth. He has put away his big, shiny sword against the lie and against the Protestant Reformed Churches. He has rejected the antithesis as it was preached and taught out of God’s word and the confessions without one time interacting with my preaching and writing.

I have an evaluation and a judgment that I must make about those who left and stand with the enemies of the truth against the church of Jesus Christ. Am I judging eternal destinies? Am I taking from God his sovereign and sole right to judge men’s souls? Not at all. But I am judging their walks according to the scriptures. I am going as far as the scriptures reveal. By the pattern of life a man lives, I can say that he is an enemy of the cross, and the way he walks is to destruction if he does not repent and remains impenitent and unbelieving.

18. For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ:

19. Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. (Phil. 3:18–19)

Those who have left the Reformed Protestant Churches over the antithesis participate in a new worship of Jehovah in Dan and Bethel after their imaginations. And appropriately, the Assyrians will descend from the north and swallow them up.

As to desiring a “front row seat” at the final judgment, at which Mr. Bodbyl scoffs, I long for that day as an object of ardent hope and comfort to me. This is confessional:

The consideration of this judgment is justly terrible and dreadful to the wicked and ungodly; but most desirable and comfortable to the righteous and the elect; because then their full deliverance shall be perfected, and there they shall receive the fruits of their labor and trouble which they have borne. Their innocence shall be known to all, and they shall see the terrible vengeance which God shall execute on the wicked, who most cruelly persecuted, oppressed, and tormented them in this world; and who shall be convicted by the testimony of their own consciences, and being immortal, shall be tormented in that everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.

But on the contrary, the faithful and elect shall be crowned with glory and honor, and the Son of God will confess their names before God His Father and His elect angels; all tears shall be wiped from their eyes; and their cause, which is now condemned by many judges and magistrates as heretical and impious, will then be known to be the cause of the Son of God. And for a gracious reward, the Lord will cause them to possess such a glory as never entered into the heart of man to conceive.

Therefore we expect that great day with a most ardent desire, to the end that we may fully enjoy the promises of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Belgic Confession 37, in Confessions and Church Order, 78–80)

Now there are only lies and slander against the church and her ministers, consistories, and members—but ultimately against Christ and his truth. But when that righteous judge shall come, our cause, which is his cause, which men declared heretical and impious, finally will be vindicated before the entire rational, moral world. That will be a day of awesome power. It will be a great and glorious day of the Lord when God will judge the world by his gospel. By faith the knowledge of that day gives me the strength to persevere and continue until the end. I want all that took place in the first year of my ministry, in the history of the Reformed Protestant Churches, and in the church of all ages finally to be revealed before all men. I want my innocence to be known to all and to see the terrible vengeance that God shall execute on the wicked. I want my cause, which is condemned by many wicked men, to be known to be the cause of the Son of God. I can say that I want to stand there confidently and boldly through faith in Christ.

Why cannot Mr. Bodbyl say that?