Why don’t they just give up?

The Protestant Reformed Churches have spoken. Synods have decided. They have treated protests and appeals. According to article 31 of the Church Order, those decisions are settled and binding. It is simply understood that those who are bound together in denominational ties submit to the decisions of synod.

If anyone complain that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical assembly, and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by the general synod. (Church Order 31, in Confessions and Church Order, 390)

So why don’t they just give up?

Why continue as if those decisions were not made or are not settled and binding? Why is there a continual “witch hunt” for offenders against these decisions? Why such a readiness to pin the labels of “heresy” and “heretic”? Why be schismatic in stirring up trouble, as if there were those who contradict those decisions? Why not be agents of healing? Why not promote peace and unity?

What decisions?

B. Recommendation: That synod sustain the appeal of Mr. Meyer against the charge of Hope’s consistory, and the decision of Classis East, that he “maintains and teaches antinomianism.” (Acts of Synod 2016, 53)

That synod not sustain the protest of Prof. Cammenga to overturn Article 38 [of Synod 2016].

Grounds: 

a. To overturn Article 38, a protestant must prove conclusively that Mr. Meyer maintains and teaches antinomianism. This Prof. Cammenga does not do. He alleges that these statements are “indications of antinomianism,” “indicative of antinomian leanings,” “sweeping statements,” and examples of “typical antinomian reasoning.” However, these do not conclusively confirm the charge of maintaining and teaching antinomianism.

b. 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.

c. 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 and overturn Article 38. (Acts of Synod 2017, 89)

That synod sustain the protest of Mr. N. Meyer to rescind the decision of Article 88, B, 1 in 2017 (Acts 2017, p. 88). Ground: Synod 2017 erred when it entered into the statements of Mr. Meyer while at the same time not sustaining the protest of Prof. Cammenga which charged these statements with antinomianism. Carried. (Acts of Synod 2018, 97)

Three different synods decided.

A consistory had charged one of its elders with the heresy of antinomianism. Classis had rejected this elder’s appeal against his consistory, upholding that charge. Synod 2016 sustained the elder’s appeal and cleared him of the charge of antinomianism. A professor protested that decision of Synod 2016 to Synod 2017, and his protest was not sustained. Even though Synod 2017 made decisions on several statements the professor brought to its attention, the following Synod (2018) recognized that Synod 2017 had erred when it “entered into the statements.”

A consistory said antinomian and antinomianism! A classis agreed. A seminary professor insisted it was so and protested a synodical decision. But synod said no. Synod said no twice, if not thrice.

A settled and binding decision?

A settled and binding decision against which one may not agitate?

A settled and binding decision against which public agitation should be considered mutinous, if not downright schismatic?

Consider the material presented in the November 15, 2020, issue of the Standard Bearer.

Publicly, on the ground of statements made in his letter, a brother in good standing in one of the Protestant Reformed churches is charged with antinomianism, his statements said to be antinomian. This charge comes from no less than a seminary professor. Not the first time.

What did this brother in good standing write that brought upon him this charge of antinomianism? He wrote in rejection of free will. In that rejection of free will, he took exception to article 9 of the Second Helvetic Confession. And it must be observed that the brother took exception to that article of the Confession as interpreted and applied by the professor.

Because of that rejection of free will, the disagreeing brother brought these words upon himself:

By denying that the regenerate will the good and do the good, brother Doezema is making the same kind of error as saying that Noah did not build the ark. It is the error of contending that either God built the ark or Noah built it, rather than Noah by the grace of God working in him. And both these denials are symptomatic of antinomianism, which denies the “can” and the “must” of good works because it fears that good works then somehow contribute to our salvation. (Ronald Cammenga, “Response,” Standard Bearer 97, no. 4 [November 15, 2020]: 85)

These words are then followed by a more general warning: “Antinomianism in all its forms is a grievous error that the Reformed faith recognizes and repudiates. It is an error that the Protestant Reformed Churches must guard against and reject in all its forms” (“Response,” 85).

Look at the phrase that is attributed to the brother: “By denying that the regenerate will the good and do the good.” Where did the brother write these words? I read something completely different. What I read is this: “so such willingness to will the good in the third regenerated stage…” He does confess and state that the regenerated child of God in this life is given by God’s grace and Spirit “such willingness to will the good.” His disagreement is whether “such willingness to will the good” is “a freedom that is ‘restored’” or “the freedom that Prof. Cammenga teaches is restored.”

Why were the brother’s words confused? I don’t believe they are confusing at all.

I suppose that some confusion over the term free will is possible. Certainly rejection of free will itself cannot be condemned as antinomian. In such a case Martin Luther, for writing The Bondage of the Will, must be charged with antinomianism just like Agricola, against whom Luther wrote. In such a case the Canons of Dordt also must be charged with antinomianism for denying the free will of the Remonstrants. And certainly the Protestant Reformed Churches, standing in the line of Dordrecht, must be condemned as antinomians.

I cannot believe that a seminary professor would be unable to distinguish between the will of the regenerated person who is freed from the bondage of the will to the delightful service of his redeemer and the free will of Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism, and full Pelagianism.

But what to believe?

I believe this misunderstanding stems from a failure to understand and apply the settled and binding decisions of Protestant Reformed synods in 2016, 2017, and 2018. It is appropriate here to reference part of the grounds of one of those decisions by Synod 2016 in article 38. Synod had something to say about the need to define antinomianism properly before charging a man with it. In the following quotations synod gave several concrete examples of antinomianism:

1) “Antinomianism…reduces all salvation to and equated it with its acquisition, thereby eschewing all works.”—Herman Bavinck

2) “The antinomian claims that the preaching of the law is dangerous because, according to him, it tends to create a certain superficial idea of righteousness, and must inevitably leave the impression with the people of God that they can keep the law perfectly. It is dangerous, too, because it tends to leave the impression that somehow we must be saved by our works, rather than only by the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Herman Hoeksema

3) “…it cannot be denied that Antinomians of every shade are inclined to minimize, to say the least, the significance of the law of God for the Christian, and the calling of the people of God to walk in sanctification of life.”—Herman Hoeksema (Acts of Synod 2016, 53)

Perhaps if the professor had been mindful of these descriptions of antinomians, quoted by Synod 2016 as part of its settled and binding decision, he would have been restrained from concluding that the brother was displaying symptoms of antinomianism.

Yet there was an even greater restraining force in the same decision of synod. The following grounds provide a sharper warning:

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

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

c. Hope’s consistory prejudices itself against Mr. Meyer simply because he disagrees with their pastor’s preaching. (Acts of Synod 2016, 54–55)

Especially that last point is noteworthy. Disagreement with a pastor or seminary professor is no reason to suspect the orthodoxy of a brother, let alone to level a charge of antinomianism against him.

Should not this settled and binding decision of Synod 2016 be taken as a warning against hastily applying the label “antinomian”? Do not misrepresent! Do not overstate! Do not be prejudiced!

Yet there should be more than simply accepting these synodical decisions as settled and binding. There should also be a willingness to receive the brother’s grievances hospitably and charitably. Then it might have been easily recognized that the brother is no antinomian at all, but that he has a deep and abiding love for sovereign, particular grace, the grace that indeed justifies and also sanctifies, the grace that not only enables the will to believe but also gives the act of believing. His use of Canons of Dordt 3–4.14 is the clearest indication that the label of antinomian in no way applies to him.

Then the discussion or controversy could be centered about not what antinomianism is or is not, but what the real issue is with article 9 of the Second Helvetic Confession. The real question worth debating and discussing is whether or not the Second Helvetic Confession is at odds with the Canons of Dordt.

The possibility may not be ignored. It is possible that the Second Helvetic Confession—written in 1566, prior to the rise of Arminianism in the Netherlands and the powerful answer to it by the Synod of Dordt—has a defective view of the relationship between the grace of God and the will of man. It is possible that just as the Protestant Reformed Churches reject and repudiate the Westminster Standards’ doctrine of the covenant of works and remarriage after divorce that they might also reject and repudiate what the Second Helvetic declares about the will of man in article 9. Such a rejection and repudiation ought not to be thought “extremely presumptuous” but abiding with and honoring the doctrine of salvation by grace alone.

(Philip Schaff, a Lutheran church historian, says that the Second Helvetic “is rather a theological treatise than a popular creed” [Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper and Row, 1931), 3:233]. And it can be kept in mind that in the Bolsec controversy in Geneva, Heinrich Bullinger, author of the Second Helvetic Confession, refused to support Calvin’s stand on reprobation at Calvin’s pleading.)

In short, it is not difficult at all to lay out what the standard certainly must be, the standard by which article 9 of the Second Helvetic must be judged. It is the standard adduced by the brother, our standard of the Canons of Dordt, 3–4.14. It is the standard that there is no good thing done by the will of itself, but only by the continual working of God’s grace, giving both the willing and the doing of faith and of every good work of faith following. That grace of God in Christ never leaves the will to do anything of itself.

I believe it is possible to come to some conclusions by looking carefully at the Latin adverb sponte in article 9 of the Second Helvetic, which translates sponte as “of its own accord.” If this adverb is taken to mean of itself, then the declaration of this article must be rejected as unorthodox. It must be clearly rejected on the basis of John 15:5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”

However, perhaps sponte means that the graciously restored will can then act in harmony with its own nature, that is, in accordance with itself. In this case the meaning is orthodox. It means then that the grace of God does not do violence to the will but sweetly and mysteriously restores it. It is the same truth confessed in Canons of Dordt 3–4.12. If sponte means this, we find it represented in that article in these words: “Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active” (Canons of Dordt 3–4.12, in Confessions and Church Order, 169).

However, what follows in the same issue of the Standard Bearer gives us great pause. For his declaration that this grace of God makes the will of man active, Bullinger brings out a quotation from Augustine: “God is said to be our helper. But no one can be helped unless he does something” (Ronald Cammenga, “Of Free Will, and Thus of Human Powers,” Standard Bearer 97, no. 4 [November 15, 2020]: 90).

Can this be?!!! Has Augustine turned into Pelagius? We can hardly imagine. In his Anti-Pelagian Writings, Augustine in a multitude of ways overturns and overthrows the doctrine of his adversary. Over and over Augustine declares that the will of man cannot be merely assisted by God in order to will anything good. Grace must entirely renovate the will of man before man can will or do anything good. We must think it impossible that Augustine could write in the sense of a time relationship—man must do something before he can receive help from God. Instead, Augustine takes up the same line of argument found so often in John 14–16, arguing from result to cause. In this case the cause is God’s help. “God is said to be our helper.” The effect of God’s help is that “he [man] does something.” Again, this is represented well in the Canons of Dordt 3–4.12. God’s irresistible grace heals and restores the will, so that with the will the believer himself believes. That same truth of sovereign grace is carried into the fullest scope of the believer’s life of faith, so that by sovereign grace alone he both wills to believe and actually believes. God is so man’s helper that man, being helped by God, does actually believe.

But the question faced in the professor’s response to the brother is, where is this truth of sovereign grace applied?

The response applies it to antinomianism and charges a brother with that heresy. But that leads to the further question: what kind of antinomianism?

Is it the antinomianism identified specifically by the decisions of the Protestant Reformed synods? Or is it the misapplication and false charges of antinomianism that were rejected by the decisions of those synods?

As the statements in the brother’s letter come nowhere near the descriptions of antinomianism adduced by article 38 of Synod 2016, the charge may not stick but must fall away. It seems to this writer that the charge is the result of misrepresentation, overstatement, and prejudice. The reader of the Standard Bearer must wonder whether the decision of the synod is truly considered settled and binding.

But wonderment is only one implication.

Implied are the further questions: What exactly is the difference between the corresponding brother and the responding professor? Is it only over the label “antinomian,” or is there something larger at stake? What is the orthodoxy that is the opposite of antinomianism?

It may be helpful here to take note of the charge that has been laid against the Protestant Reformed Churches by their detractors in neighboring Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. Through all its history the Protestant Reformed Churches have been accused of antinomianism, as well as of hyper-Calvinism and rationalism. I remember that Professor Hanko informed his seminary students in a class that Rev. Herman Hoeksema had been accused in the Banner of pantheism.

Why the accusation of antinomianism? Because the Protestant Reformed doctrine of sovereign and particular grace was accused of denying the responsibility of man to willingly choose to believe the gospel. Because the Protestant Reformed Churches denied the necessity of man’s believing in order for a man to be saved. Because these churches taught and preached that man’s obedience and good works are all the result of sovereign grace alone, not of the cooperation of God and man. Because these churches denied that God brought man so far in salvation but left something for man to do. Because the Protestant Reformed Churches denied conditions in the covenant of grace.

So it was charged, “The Protestant Reformed Churches make men into stocks and blocks.”

Is the charge of antinomianism against these churches true? Has it ever been true?

In spite of every strenuous denial and every careful explanation by the Protestant Reformed Churches, the charge is still maintained.

Might it be that the brother’s letter featured in the November 15, 2020, issue of the Standard Bearer was taken as an opportunity to explain that, no, these churches are not antinomian? Might it be that, in the service of that explanation, the Protestant Reformed brother had to be labeled as an antinomian in order publicly to demonstrate that the professor answering him cannot be an antinomian?

However the above may be, the implication is that of a shift or movement. The danger involved in shifting and moving the label of antinomianism is not in the label. The Protestant Reformed Churches have borne that label for the duration of their history without damage. The danger is that when the label is shifted and moved in these churches themselves, the definition changes. But not only is the definition of the heresy of antinomianism changed; the even greater danger is that what previously was defined as orthodox must also change.

What must also change?

Is the change in the opening up of room? Must we now have a distance? Must God’s grace bring the regenerated elect child of God so far? So far in faith? So far in obedience? So far in good works? So far in life? So far in will? So far in deed? So far in activity? So far in fruit?—so far, so that now something is left up to man really to will or choose? Left for him actually to act upon and perform? Left for him to sacrifice? Left for him to accomplish? Left for him to increase or neglect?

The synods of the Protestant Reformed Churches in 2016, 2017, and 2018 expressed themselves decidedly on these questions. The definition of antinomianism is not to be changed. The definitions of orthodoxy are not to be changed. All the good the regenerated believer has is from the grace of God in Jesus Christ, the complete savior. Grace and grace alone, without his works, brings the believer completely to heaven, gives him all assurance and confidence of heaven, and is the ground of every reward that he receives. Simply put, “Obedience never gains us or obtains anything in the covenant of God” (Acts of Synod 2018, 73).

May God grant us grace actively, fervently, and arduously to cling to his grace alone, the grace that frees us, body and mind, heart and soul, to serve him with wondrous, boundless gratitude for that blessed grace!