Introduction

In the heat of controversy, “A Brief Declaration of Principles of the Protestant Reformed Churches” was forged.¹ In the crucible of ecclesiastical conflict, the Declaration decided the controversy over the unconditional covenant that had been raging in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). The Declaration made its clear, unmistakable stand on the word of God and the Reformed confessions. That document drew out the opponents of the truth and sent them into a fervor of hostility. And the official adoption of the Declaration by the Synod of 1951 was a harbinger of the inevitable schism that would result in 1953.

In reflection upon the seventy-year anniversary of the schism of 1953 in the PRC, it is entirely appropriate then to consider this significant document in the history of the church of Jesus Christ. The battle is the Lord’s in the preservation of his church that he might be glorified. Jahaziel said, “Hearken ye, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat, Thus saith the Lord unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God’s” (2 Chron. 20:15).

Today the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) have the Declaration as part of her heritage. Although being a synodical decision of the PRC, in the providential care of God for his church, this document is “the expression of the Three Forms of Unity, with regard to certain fundamental principles.”² And if it is correct that the Declaration is the expression of the Reformed confessions, all Reformed churches, including the RPC, are bound to confess the doctrine of the covenant set forth in the Declaration.

It was this question of the binding character of the Declaration that the RPC wrestled with early in her history. It was an occasion for scoffing by detractors, but I intend to set the record straight. The Declaration of Principles is binding upon the RPC, not by adopting it as her own at a classical assembly but by the fact that the document is a faithful expression of the Reformed confessions, which are binding upon Reformed churches, as the confessions “do fully agree with the Word of God” (Confessions and Church Order, 326).

A Brief History

The Declaration of Principles was provisionally adopted at the Protestant Reformed Synod of 1950 and officially at the Synod of 1951. But what led to the adoption of this document by the PRC? Why did the PRC need such an expression of the Reformed confessions? What doctrine was under assault from without and within the PRC? What effect did the adoption of the Declaration have upon the denomination and her relationships with churches outside the PRC?

In order to answer these questions, we ought to give a brief history of the events surrounding the adoption of the Declaration. In the late 1940s members of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated), affiliated with Dr. Klaas Schilder, began immigrating to Canada. Along with them they smuggled in the conditional covenant doctrine of the liberated churches, which was that the covenant promise of God is for every baptized member of the church. The grace of God is to more than just the elect. The subjective reception of the covenant for the baptized infant is conditioned upon the will and working of that baby. It was the doctrine of common grace applied to the covenant. It was “Arminianism injected into the covenant.”³ It was a doctrine of the covenant divorced from God’s decree of election.

In response to the influx of immigrants who were requesting membership in the PRC and organizing as Protestant Reformed churches, the Protestant Reformed mission committee requested the Synod of 1950 for a “form that may be used by those families requesting organization into a Prot. Ref. congregation.”⁴ The synodical committee of pre-advice recommended that synod adopt a clear expression of the covenant. That proposed expression was one simple paragraph, which did express the distinctive Protestant Reformed doctrine of the covenant. The synod, not satisfied with that simple paragraph, recommitted the material and added Rev. Herman Hoeksema and Rev. George Ophoff to the committee. Synod then recessed for the weekend; the committee drew up the Declaration of Principles on Saturday; and on the following Monday, the committee submitted the material for the synod to consider. This resubmitted material was almost exactly what would later be officially adopted at the Synod of 1951, which added a section affirming the responsibility of man in a thankful life in the covenant.

The Declaration was provisionally adopted at the Synod of 1950 with little opposition. This document was to be a working hypothesis for the mission committee of the PRC. But in the time between the provisional adoption in 1950 and the decisive adoption at the Synod of 1951, a fervor of opposition had swelled against the Declaration. By the time the Synod of 1951 convened, controversy was raging in the denomination. Classis West of the PRC, almost unanimously against the Declaration, and Classis East of the PRC, almost unanimously in favor of the Declaration, packed the Synod of 1951 with delegates who would vote respectively either against or in favor of the Declaration. It was by the providential care of God that one member of Classis West was sick on the day that the recommendation to adopt the Declaration came to the floor of synod. The secundi delegate of Classis West, Rev. P. De Boer, voted in favor of the Declaration. The recommendation passed 9 to 7. The Declaration was officially adopted to be the expression of the three forms of unity on the doctrine of the covenant.

The immediate effect of the adoption of the Declaration was that it stopped the influx of liberated immigrants who were peddling their doctrine of a conditional covenant in the PRC. The adoption of the Declaration also ended any lingering hope of a relationship with Schilder and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated). Schilder said as much when he wrote an article in his Reformatie magazine entitled “De Kous Is Af” (The Stocking Is Finished).⁵ The relationship between the PRC and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated) was decisively and definitely severed.⁶

The other effect of the official adoption of the Declaration in 1951 was the schism of 1953. Opponents of the document had repeatedly warned that officially adopting the Declaration would result in a split in the PRC. Opposition to the Declaration reached the pulpit of First Protestant Reformed Church via Rev. H. De Wolf, who preached two sermons that amounted to rebellion against and outright rejection of the Declaration and the doctrine of the unconditional covenant that the Declaration expressed.

At Classis East in April to May 1953, the two sermons that Reverend De Wolf had preached in First church were condemned as heretical. The first was a sermon preached in April 1951 on Luke 16:19–31, in which De Wolf declared, “God promises everyone of you that, if you believe, you shall be saved.”⁷ Classis East’s judgment follows:

In our opinion both the statements which the protestants condemn are literally heretical regardless of what the Rev. De Wolf meant by them, regardless of how he explains them because:

The first teaches a general promise of God unto salvation to all that externally hear the preaching of the gospel, head for head and soul for soul, limited by a condition which man must fulfill, while Scripture and our confessions plainly teach:

1. That, indeed, the proclamation of the gospel comes to all to whom God in His good pleasure sends it.

2. That, however, in our proclamation of the gospel, we may never say that God promises salvation to everyone of the hearers, on condition of faith, for the promise itself is particular, unconditional, of and only for the elect; for it is an oath of God which He, in His everlasting mercy and grace, swears by Himself to His beloved elect; which He, by sovereign grace, fulfills only to and in them, without any condition or prerequisite to be fulfilled by them; and which promise implies that, by His Holy Spirit, He causes them to receive and appropriate salvation by a true and living faith.⁸

The classis rejected the well-meant offer of the gospel that Reverend De Wolf taught, which was only a development of the conditional covenant theology of the liberated churches that the promise of God is for every baptized child of the covenant, conditioned on the faith of the child.

Between 1951 and 1953, protests were being lodged against the Declaration. Because the Synod of 1951 had met late into the year, protests against the decision to adopt the Declaration were allowed to be treated at the Synod of 1953 instead of at the Synod of 1952 to allow time for the protestants to compose their protests. In September 1952, as these protests against adoption of the Declaration were being prepared, Reverend De Wolf preached a sermon on Matthew 18:3, in which he declared, “Our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter into the kingdom of God.”⁹ The classis condemned that statement by judging that

the second teaches that our act of conversion is a prerequisite to enter the kingdom of God, which means that we convert and humble ourselves before we are translated from the power of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, while Scripture and the Confessions plainly teach:

1. That the whole work of our conversion, regeneration in its narrower as well as in its wider sense, in virtue of which we humble ourselves, is sovereignly wrought by God, by His Spirit and Word through the preaching of the gospel in His elect.

2. That this entire work of conversion is our translation and entering into the kingdom of God. Hence, it is not, cannot be before but THROUGH our conversion that we enter the kingdom. We humble ourselves IN the light, never IN darkness; we humble ourselves, whether initially or repeatedly, IN the kingdom, never OUTSIDE of it. Hence, our ACT of conversion is never antecedent to our entering in, but always is performed IN the kingdom of God, and there are no prerequisites.¹⁰

Simply stated, an elect child of God is already in the kingdom, and no activities of man are necessary to perform before he enters into the kingdom of grace.

The decision of Classis East that condemned De Wolf’s two sermons was brought on June 1, 1953, to the consistory of First church by an appointed classical committee. Rev. G. Vos, the appointed spokesman of the committee, gave a speech to First’s consistory during the meeting, which is recorded in Hoeksema’s editorial in the Standard Bearer entitled “What Happened at Classis East?”¹¹ Reverend Vos’ pleading with the consistory did not change a thing. Reverend De Wolf offered his false apology in a sermon on June 21, 1953. On June 23, 1953, the consistory of First church met and summarily suspended Reverend De Wolf and deposed the elders who supported him and his false doctrine. By October 1953 the split had become a reality and was spreading through the denomination like a disease. Reverend De Wolf and his supporters had withdrawn from the denomination, and Classis West had condemned the actions of Classis East.

Two-thirds of the members, ministers, and congregations left the denomination. Congregations were tattered. The Christian schools were decimated. Family relationships were ripped apart and divided. And by 1961 those who had left the denomination returned to the Christian Reformed Church, a mere seven years after leaving the PRC. Yet the truth of the unconditional covenant as expressed in the Declaration stood firm by the sovereign grace of God.

Unconditional Covenant Experience

The PRC today has rejected the Declaration, though not by any official decision, as the churches shrewdly “assume to themselves the name of the church” (Belgic Confession 29 in Confessions and Church Order, 62). But the PRC has rejected the Declaration by continuing to teach by preaching and writing that there are prerequisites for the enjoyment of the covenant. Protestant Reformed ministers and professors continue to teach that by the working and willing of man, by grace, he obtains the conscious enjoyment of the covenant. But the covenant is unconditional even its experience.

The covenant of grace is one of friendship and fellowship with God in the Lord Jesus Christ. “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The Hebrew word for covenant in Jeremiah 31:33 is berith, which means to clasp or to bind, and it conveys the idea of two lovers clasping one another in intimate fellowship. Fellowship and friendship is communion. Communion is tasting, knowing, enjoying, and experiencing God’s favor as his friend-servant. How can this simple truth be openly denied by those seeking to introduce God-wrought activities of man into the covenant? God walked with Adam in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8). Noah and Enoch walked with God as his friends over against the world and the apostate church of the line of Seth (5:24; 6:9).

The great symbol of the covenant recorded in scripture is marriage between a husband and a wife, who share intimate communion with one another as one flesh (Eph. 5:32). That marriage bond itself is fellowship and communion as a reflection of the divine truth of the covenant. Is it true that a man is married to his wife, but he does not intimately experience or enjoy that marriage bond? That a man is married (union), but there are activities of the spouse that are necessary for enjoyment of that marriage bond (communion)?¹² It is no wonder that the sin of spousal abuse against the sixth commandment is rampant in the PRC, not to mention sexual abuse of children. The PRC’s doctrine of the necessary way of obedience in order to experience God’s covenant fellowship breeds abuse and conditional relationships.

The other great symbol of the covenant is the parent-child relationship (Hos. 11:1). The Father unconditionally loves his children and does all things for the benefit of his children. He declares his love unto his children, even in their folly and sin, by chastising them in love (Prov. 23:13). Always the covenant is unconditional in its establishment, maintenance, enjoyment, and perfection. God is the covenant-keeping God (Deut. 7:9).

The work of conditional covenant theologians in the late 1940s and early 1950s was to divorce the covenant promise of God from election. That was the primary task of proponents of the conditional covenant and of those who opposed the Declaration: get election out of the covenant, because as soon as that was accomplished, a whole truckload of man could be introduced into obtaining the subjective reception of the covenant and its blessings. It is fundamental to the doctrine of the conditional covenant that election is denied as governing the covenant. The doctrine of election is hated because it takes man’s willing and working entirely out of the equation and places the covenant and its experience on the sovereign God who shows mercy (Rom. 9:16).

Election is the eternal source and fountain of the covenant and its enjoyment. This is exactly what the Declaration expresses and therefore is what our confessions teach regarding the issues involved in our controversy with the PRC today. Does election govern the experience of the covenant? Absolutely it does. Canons 1.6–8 especially teach election as the source and fountain of every saving good.

This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace. (Canons 1.7 in Confessions and Church Order, 156, emphasis added)

This article of the Canons of Dordt, expressed in the Declaration, teaches election as governing the covenant, which in its essence is fellowship and communion.

Canons 2.8 similarly teaches the truth of the unconditional covenant and its relation to election.

For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and, having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever. (Confessions and Church Order, 163–164, emphasis added)

All of the blessings of salvation are bestowed upon the elect alone by virtue of their saving union with Jesus Christ, the head of the covenant. God promises salvation to the elect sinner, and that promise is absolutely sure because of Christ’s perfect work and Christ’s perfect obedience. Covenant grace and covenant salvation are simply not conditional. The covenant does not depend on the sinner or on what that sinner must do. And to teach that faith is a condition for salvation or that activities of faith are prerequisites to enter into the kingdom is heresy and false doctrine. Grace by definition stands opposed to works, even works performed by grace.

Covenant life is salvation itself, and the elect are given the enjoyment of the covenant. The last clause of Canons 2.8 establishes the truth of the enjoyment of the covenant. In principle the child of God has that enjoyment of glory even now; and in the perfection to come, he will have that enjoyment in body and soul without blemish and will dwell, commune, and fellowship with God in Jesus Christ (Rev. 21:3).

Its Significance

The Declaration is a significant document. Its significance for the PRC in 1951 was that it decisively settled the internal controversy regarding the unconditional covenant, even though schism would soon follow. The synod, which was called to judge righteously, did exactly that by bringing the Reformed confessions to bear on the issue. The Spirit of truth led his church into all truth (John 16:13).

The more widespread significance for the entire Reformed church world is that the Declaration also settled the four-hundred-year controversy about the covenant that had been fought since the time of the Reformation. The Reformed doctrine of the covenant up to that point was the doctrine of the pactum salutis. The doctrine of the covenant was taught as a pact or contract hammered out between God the Father and God the Son in eternity, while the Holy Spirit essentially sat out on the sidelines.

The covenant of God the Father with the Son is a mutual agreement, by which God the Father exacted from the Son perfect obedience to the law unto the death which he must face on behalf of chosen seed to be given him; and promised him, if he gave the obedience, the seed in question as his own perquisite and inheritance; and in return the Son, in promising this obedience to God the Father and producing it in the literal act., demanded of Him in the turn the right to demand this seed for himself as an inheritance and perquisite (Heidegger XI, 12).¹³

And that pact or bargain between the God the Father and God the Son necessarily means that the covenant of grace is also therefore a contract between God and man in Jesus Christ. God requires faith and obedience as the conditions that God fulfills in man.

The covenant of grace is the gospel pact made in Christ after the fall with the first parents and their descendants. In his name it was renewed to the father of believers and to his posterity. And at length it was published to every nation, God fulfilling the condition required in the elect, in order that the credit for our salvation might be His entirely, and the inheritance of eternal life pass freely to those who walk according to the Spirit on account of the merit of the single Jesus Christ to display His glorious mercy.¹⁴

Early on in his ministry in the Christian Reformed Church, Rev. Herman Hoeksema had developed the idea of the covenant positively as a relationship of friendship and fellowship. And Reverend Hoeksema and Reverend Ophoff had been teaching this idea of the covenant to their congregations and to the seminary students since the inception of the PRC in 1924. The peculiar treasure and distinction of the PRC at that time, the reason for the denomination’s existence, was her view of the covenant.

It [the PRC’s particular conception of the covenant] teaches that God realizes His eternal covenant of friendship, in Christ, the Firstborn of every creature and the first begotten of the dead, organically, and antithetically along the lines of election and reprobation, and in connection with the organic development of all things.¹⁵

The Declaration expresses the teaching of the Reformed confessions. The Declaration is not a fourth confession, as was always charged. The significance and weight of the Declaration is that it demonstrates that the Reformed confessions teach a definite doctrine of the covenant. The Declaration brings the confessions to bear on this longstanding debate in the Reformed tradition over these two different and conflicting doctrines of the covenant.¹⁶

There is an important principle that was established by the adoption of the Declaration. A Reformed church can and must settle controversy with the Reformed confessions. An ecclesiastical body—whether consistory, classis, or synod—never needs to open scripture to settle controversy. The Declaration was, in the main, quotes from the three forms of unity, and a common accusation against the document was that it did not appeal to the scriptures for its doctrine of the covenant. In response to that accusation, Classis East advised synod to declare that

c)…when the Confessions are interpreted or applied, as was the case with the Declaration of Principles, appeal is made and should be made solely to the Confessions.

d) When a question arises in Reformed Churches as to what is Reformed, no one is supposed to appeal to Scripture, but appeal is made solely to the Reformed Symbols. They and they only decide what is and what is not Reformed.¹⁷

It is not that a Reformed church only may settle controversy with the Reformed confessions, but a Reformed church must do so with confessions.¹⁸ Binding by the confessions is scriptural binding, because the confessions “do fully agree with the Word of God.” As Reformed churches we must stand on the Reformed confessions as our bulwark!

Our Heritage

The Declaration of Principles is our doctrinal heritage as members of the Reformed Protestant Churches. The Declaration was drawn up by a pre-advice committee of the Synod of 1950 and adopted officially by the Synod of 1951 to be the faithful expression of the Reformed confessions. All who subscribe to the three forms of unity—officebearers by their vows and men and women in the office of all believer by their membership in a Reformed church—are bound to confess the unconditional covenant as it is outlined in the Declaration. It is not optional for members of the RPC.

It was this question of the binding character of the Declaration that was posed by the office of believer at a congregational meeting of First Reformed Protestant Church on May 18, 2021. The purpose of the congregational meeting was to vote whether or not to federate with Second Reformed Protestant Church and form a denomination. The agenda included adopting the Act of Federation, which stated that the churches’ common basis was the scriptures as the infallible word of God as summarized in the three forms of unity. The question brought to the floor was whether the churches would be bound by the Declaration of Principles or not. This question was a weighty and significant question, and it was brought to the Act of Federation meeting on May 28, 2021.

Article 16. The Chairman then discusses the agenda for the first meeting of classis. This agenda will include reports from the following committees: Ministerial training, Outreach, Finance, and Incorporation. First RPC also brings to the attention of the joint council that we will be investigating and bringing to classis advice regarding the Declaration of Principles and its standing within our own denomination.¹⁹

The consistory of First Reformed Protestant Church took up this question and assigned a committee to work on answering this question. The committee of First wrestled with this question for months. What was the status of the Declaration in the RPC? A recommendation from the committee was finally brought to the meeting of classis that convened on May 13, 2022. At the classis the following decision was taken:

Article 24. Motion made to approve the recommendation of First Reformed Protestant Church to view the Declaration of Principles as a historical document that may be consulted as an orthodox declaration of the truth of the unconditional covenant (Supplement 9). Motion failed.²⁰

The decision of the classis was the correct one, although for failing this motion the RPC continued to be the object of scorn by detractors, who tried to use this decision as evidence that the RPC was not the true continuation of the churches of Herman Hoeksema. But one must correctly understand that for the RPC to adopt the Declaration as her own document would open up the denomination to examining and adopting every right decision of the PRC since 1924. The classis also recognized that whether or not the Declaration was adopted by the RPC officially, the doctrine that the Declaration expresses is the doctrine of our Reformed confessions, which is binding.

The Declaration of Principles is a witness of great weight and significance for all Reformed churches. The Declaration is the expression of the Reformed confessions, and all Reformed churches that teach contrary to the truth of the covenant that the Declaration expounds live in disobedience to the teaching of the word of God. The Declaration is our heritage, and the truth of the Declaration continues to be faithfully taught in the RPC. The Lord preserves his church, and his Spirit leads her into all truth. God preserved his church in the year of our Lord 1953, he preserved his church in the year of our Lord 2021, and he continues to preserve his church today. He preserves his truth of sovereign grace. He preserves the truth of the unconditional covenant. He preserves the wonderful truth of justification by faith alone apart from works. He preserves the truth that he makes his covenant promise to the elect and he sovereignly carries out his promise to them alone. Glory be to God that the battle is not ours but belongs to the Lord.