How could it have gone so wrong, so badly wrong?

How could the situation in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) get to the point where a professor emeritus, a professor emeritus of theology, can write what he wrote and speak as he spoke?

We might expect such writing and speaking from the men who supported Rev. David Overway and his teachings from the beginning of the doctrinal controversy: Rev. K. Koole, Rev. C. Haak, Rev. R. Van Overloop, Rev. G. Eriks, Rev. J. Slopsema, et. al. We might expect such writing and speaking from the authors of the doctrinal statement that the consistory of Hope Protestant Reformed Church adopted as its response to the protest of Connie Meyer against sermons by Reverend Overway. We could not only expect such teachings, but we have also read and heard such teachings. For a while those men tempered their support by criticizing with sadness the pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church and admitting that he was confusing in his preaching.

However, when Synod 2018 gave its judgment that the pastor in his preaching had compromised the doctrines of grace and justification, the Protestant Reformed leaders reacted badly. They saw all their own preaching and teaching under attack by synod’s judgment. But more importantly, they saw their control of the most major assembly of the Protestant Reformed Churches slipping from their fingers. How they scrambled and strove to gain back that control! We might well congratulate them on their success.

How did they manage to pull it off?

First, they knew they had the hearts and minds of the majority—the majority of the influential people in the PRC, the ministers and elders who served on the denominational committees and who were regular delegates to synod. The leaders also had the majority of the Protestant Reformed members, who had a simple, unconditional trust in their leaders and who viewed any kind of controversy or trouble as immoral because of the discomfort it brought. This combination allowed the members to maintain trust in their leaders when they told the people that the troubles in the church were caused by radicals, officebearers and members who were causing trouble for trouble’s sake. The members of the PRC continued to trust their leaders when they were further told that those troublemakers were really antinomians and hyper-Calvinists, who were making elect, regenerated children of God into stocks and blocks with their teachings.

There was, however, a problem. That problem was Prof. David J. Engelsma. Not only did he express himself very openly and publicly in opposition to the course that was being charted by the leadership, but his expressions of opposition could not be so easily written off as hyper-Calvinistic or antinomian or slandered as making men into puppets or robots. He continued to express himself sharply on the issues, demonstrating his vast capabilities and orthodoxy on the subjects of grace and church polity. While others of lesser stature in the denomination might be derided and deplored as antinomians, hyper-Calvinists, or radicals, respect for the professor emeritus made him exempt.

Up to a limit. A definite, fixed point.

Oh, this limit! Did the leadership in favor of Reverend Overway, in favor of good works unto salvation, and in favor of conditional theology know this limit? Did the leaders anticipate it? Did they plan for it?

We may never know.

But Satan knew.

In retrospect it is frighteningly obvious.

This fixed, definite limit is a sharply defined boundary. It is the point up to which there is life, security, and air to breathe. It is the point beyond which there is no life but only death, no security but only ruin, no air to breathe but only an empty void. In front of the point is the hand of God, but beyond it is Satan’s hand.

That boundary is the fixed point of membership in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

However, the PRC do not apply that boundary to the leaders and members of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). With respect to member denominations in NAPARC, the Protestant Reformed leaders consider the PRC to be at the sharp point of the wedge. That is, they consider the PRC to be at the forefront of the arrangement of true churches into degrees of faithfulness. The member denominations in NAPARC are only behind the PRC, according to this thinking. These denominations should comfort themselves that the PRC recognize them as true churches, just not as true as the Protestant Reformed denomination. These member denominations of NAPARC can be recognized and engaged with. These denominations have some air to breathe, some security to enjoy, some measure of God’s grace. They should be relieved to know that the limit of church membership as described above does not apply to them.

However, the limit does apply to those who were formerly Protestant Reformed and who have now formed the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC). They have been removed into the realm of the damned. They are under God’s wrath. Officebearers are no longer to be recognized as officebearers. Members can no longer be recognized as Christians. They ran afoul of the hierarchical system. They can have no air to breathe, no security to stand, no grace to enjoy. They must suffocate and fall under the heavy weight of God’s eternal wrath. Outside the PRC, they must be reprobate. That is, unless they repent and apologize to the PRC, the church that disciplined them.

To be clear, this process began when these persons were still in the PRC. When it became evident that they were not going to roll over like they were supposed to, they became targeted. First they were targeted with slander and innuendo. Then they were accused by individuals, ministers, editors of the Standard Bearer, church visitors, and consistories. Some had these charges brought to broader assemblies, which approved the charges. When that approval was protested to Classis East and appealed to synod, Classis East declared the protests illegal, and synod made a fine show of dealing with the appeals but ignored the appellants’ true concerns.

But the true force of membership in the true church that is the PRC came into play when these individuals were no longer in the PRC. Though organized into churches and even into a denomination, and even though an organized congregation was dismissed from the Protestant Reformed denomination, all of them are under condemnation. In the Reformed Protestant Churches is God’s wrath in operation. Grace within the PRC, wrath without.

Such was the point of division, not only for Professor Engelsma but also for many in the PRC. Empathy, sympathy, and especially agreement could not go beyond that point.

But empathy, sympathy, and agreement could not remain in the air as lingering sentiments. The point demands far more. The point also demands further accusations and charges. Those accusations and charges can no longer be merely schism and slander. The PRC is not a morally constituted denomination. Because it is doctrinally constituted, the former schismatics and slanderers must have new labels put on them. New trials must be held. New edicts of condemnation must be issued with a doctrinal orientation. So the Reformed Protestant Churches must be branded as antinomian and hyper-Calvinistic. These brands must also be grounded in things said and written by members of the RPC, especially by the three ministers laboring in the fledgling denomination.

As an aside, wonder of wonders, these are the very same labels that leaders in member denominations of NAPARC have affixed to the Protestant Reformed Churches. Is it only a coincidence that these same labels are applied to the troublemakers now outside the PRC? Can you hear the testimony of a Protestant Reformed minister to NAPARC? “Yes, I know you thought the PRC denied man’s responsibility, conditions, the call of the gospel, etc., and that we were antinomian hyper-Calvinists. But look at what our ministers are now writing and speaking. The PRC is now rid of the radicals who had been denying these truths. The PRC no longer has those hyper-Calvinistic antinomians in the denomination, so you can now remove these labels and accept us into your club.”

Back to the point: these new labels need glue for them to stick. There is a lot of glue to be found, or, to be more accurate, glue to conjure up. The Reformed Protestant denomination rejects the necessity of good works, rejects the preaching of the law, rejects commands and calls to repent of sin and believe on Jesus Christ, rejects the reward of grace, rejects faith as active and insists that faith is only passive, and rejects that in a certain sense man’s actions precede God’s.

What brought Professor Engelsma into the label-printing and sticking business with the other leaders of the PRC? What brought him into agreement with those whom he formerly opposed? With Reverend Koole, with whom Engelsma carried on a disagreement on the pages of the Standard Bearer? With Reverend Overway, whose preaching Engelsma protested, standing together with such individuals as Rev. Andy Lanning and Mr. and Mrs. Neil Meyer? What brought him to such an agreement with those whom he formerly opposed, not only to declare his former comrades-in-arms antinomians but also to declare that man’s activity is first, before God’s in a certain sense?

The same question must be asked without reference to former foes or former friends. Why the doctrinal stance that man’s work must be first in a certain sense? Why not agree with the whole of Reformed theology, the theology with which before he stood in complete agreement, that grace is the beginning, middle, and end of all of salvation? Why find this point of disagreement with Philippians 2:13: “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”? Why substitute “of his good pleasure” with the activity of man’s being first in a certain sense? Why toy with the teaching of John 1:16, of “grace for grace,” exclusive of all works, to interpose man’s activity in some sense?

Why not grace and grace alone?

Because grace and grace alone is what the RPC is teaching. Because the members of the Reformed Protestant Churches are no longer in the PRC. Because the RPC, being now separated from the PRC, simply cannot be orthodox. Since the PRC is orthodox and alone is orthodox, the RPC cannot be orthodox. It just needs to be explained how the RPC is unorthodox.

Professor Engelsma saw where the truth of salvation by sovereign grace without works led. He saw that the truth was leading outside the PRC. He blinked, and he blinked hard.

He could not follow others who did not blink.

There were those who did not blink, those who did not fear to cross the boundary of the denomination. Members and officebearers knew their obligations to stand for the truth and to follow the truth in spite of the cost. There was to be no compromise. They certainly knew the pressure, each in his own circumstances. On the line was a comfortable place in a denomination that takes care of its own. On the line were the comfortable esteem of fellow officebearers and a network of support and care. On the line was the office of minister. On the line were emeritation and a comfortable, financed retirement for the ministers and their wives. What was there not to understand?

The blinking and subsequent judgments of Professor Engelsma and others are certainly understandable. In their comfort and peace, which they have refused to leave, they must now join together in condemning those who followed the truth. In this condemnation must be found the doctrinal reason for the entire controversy. Those ejected from the PRC and those who left voluntarily must alike share in the condemnation of the whole Reformed Protestant denomination as being antinomian. The ground of the judgment must be that these antinomians reject man’s activity being first and God’s second, albeit in a certain respect.

This condemnation itself must not be sufficient. It must also be grounded in scripture. The antinomians are antinomian because they deny James 4:8. But why stop there, as if these antinomian hyper-Calvinists have denied only one verse in all of scripture? If James 4:8 is denied, then included should be all the commandments, prohibitions, and exhortations delivered by scripture to the people of God. There should be included all the points of the three forms of unity that touch on obedience, sanctification, and good works, especially the third section of the Heidelberg Catechism, on thankfulness.

Hardly daring to go so far, lest the whole argument fall to pieces on its own absurdity, the limit of a passage here or there must be observed. But there is another reason for this limit. It must become apparent to the careful observer that all this has been done before. Numerous passages like James 4:8 have been collected before and marshaled into apparently powerful arguments. James 4:8 simply does not exist by itself, as a single verse that provides a complete bulwark against this supposed antinomianism. The consistory of Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Walker, Michigan, had its collection of verses in an attempt to answer the protest of Mrs. Connie Meyer against many sermons preached from its pulpit. The Arminians had their collection in their efforts against the doctrines taught in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, the standards of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. The Roman Catholic Church collected its passages from the Bible against the Reformed. The unifying theme of all those efforts was the same. All of those passages were brought together to deny the teaching that salvation is by grace alone without works.

It must be granted that Professor Engelsma is certainly not willing to go as far as Professor Cammenga in hunting antinomianism. It should also be crystal clear that the professor emeritus will not stand in complete agreement with the doctrinal statement or with the proposition entertained by Hope’s consistory and by Classis East, that because Mr. Neil Meyer had objections to the preaching and teaching of Reverend Overway, he must be guilty of antinomianism. But the pathway, the method, and the abuse of scripture are nonetheless identical.

However, there is another, even more basic agreement lying at the bottom of the doctrinal unity of the leadership of the PRC. It is the agreement that the denomination is more valuable than the truth of salvation by grace alone without works.

This agreement comes from different sources. For some, this agreement is one of sheer power. The denomination must be at the command of its leaders, moving where they want it to move, going in the direction they indicate. This gratification of power has become evident at meetings of classes and synods where the entire room of delegates shifts and moves its thoughts at the mere hints of men in leadership.

But for such men as Professor Engelsma, the above is not the source of his agreement. For him it is what he has stated and stressed so many times that it has become his specialty. It is an argument he has often repeated, two irrefutable truths that form a logical syllogism, premises leading to an irrefutable conclusion. Major premise: one must be a member of a true church for salvation. Minor premise: the PRC is the true church. Conclusion: within the PRC is salvation; outside the PRC there is no salvation.

This syllogism must be believed and followed through. So much has it gripped the mind and heart of the professor that it has become absolute. In this grip he is not alone. This grip is reflected in the mindset that has been operating in the PRC for years, that the Holy Spirit so guides the broader assemblies of the denomination that their deliverances are the deliverances of the Holy Spirit. This mindset was brought to the foreground especially as the recent controversy engulfed the PRC. This mindset has been featured in sermon after sermon in the PRC, in article after article in the Standard Bearer, in speech after speech sponsored by churches, and in officebearer conferences prior to meetings of Classis West.

The mindset dominated by the above syllogism stands in an absolute way. It is unconditional. It has come to such a point that the foundation of scripture for decisions of classes and synods is entirely wanting. As long as there is a majority vote, the decisions are settled and binding and are the work of the Holy Spirit. Though the decisions at times are so confusing as to be nonsensical, still they are the product of the Holy Spirit’s guiding the church into the truth.

Yes, fundamental doctrines were and are being compromised. Yes, the heritage of the unconditional covenant has been thoughtlessly tossed out in favor of man’s responsibility, available grace, and two tracks to heaven. But the PRC must be the true church.

This mindset is also the reason those who dig down and point out a lack of foundation in the PRC must be treated the way they have been and will be treated. It is the reason leadership in the PRC must now be united in its abhorrence of the RPC and must now find so many reasons for judging the denomination heretical. It is why the pot must call the kettle black. It is why those labeled hyper-Calvinists must now accuse others of hyper-Calvinism. It is why those labeled antinomians must now charge others with antinomianism. It is why now it has become a terrible heresy to deny that good works have any role to play in obtaining salvation.

Will the Reformed Protestant Churches receive instruction from these judgments of Professor Engelsma in particular? Coming from him they have a distinct force, distinct from the condemnatory shouts and cries of so many others in the PRC. Professor Engelsma’s judgments must be incorporated into the church reformation that must take place in the ongoing development of the RPC. Paying close attention to them in particular must yield much profit for the future. When judgment is sharp and severe, those fearing God must take note and humbly receive instruction from the mouth of the Almighty!

How often scripture calls us to prove and to test! “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21–22). Acts 17:11 commends the Berean Jews with the words, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Matching these exhortations is the warning of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 7:4, “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these.”

In this same respect, from the lesson of Professor Engelsma in particular, we must humbly learn the wisdom of Proverbs 27:2: “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.”

The lesson: Say not, “The temple of the Lord.” Say not, “The true church of Christ.” Be the temple of the Lord. Be the true church of Christ. Let true churches be true churches. Let false churches be false churches. Let true churches be so diligent and forthright in demonstrating their marks that it need not be declared at all that they are true. If we truly subscribe to article 29 of the Belgic Confession, we ought to trust and agree with its conclusion: “These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other” (Confessions and Church Order, 64). So easily known and distinguished that there is no need to exclaim, “The true church!” or “The Holy Spirit!” The word itself will speak. The Holy Spirit will bring God’s people to hear the voice of Christ, their shepherd, to follow him alone.

The lesson is also that the snare is easy to fall into. It is easy to compare, to pick and choose elements of comparison. It is easy to so explain the distinction between the true and false church that one is able to find one’s own denomination “at the point of the wedge.”¹

However, such a comparison is not only the temptation of pride, but it is also the pathway of folly that leads to certain destruction. For it is looking in the wrong direction. It means inevitably straying from the pathway of faithfulness.

There is only one standard, the word of God. There is only one place to look, holy scripture. Only when the foundation is the word of God is the church the pillar and ground of the truth. Only then is the church true. Only then do churches and congregations, officebearers and members, freely serve their Lord and one another in the joy of their salvation.