Introduction

Prof. David J. Engelsma has made it his mission in his ninth decade upon the earth to damn the doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches. The professor’s condemnation of Reformed Protestant doctrine is that it makes men impenitent, debauched, and profane. His condemnation is that Reformed Protestant doctrine is essentially the antinomian cry, “Let us sin!” The title of one of his latest email articles to his family, intended for wider distribution, states the charge: “The Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC): Sin Freely!”¹

The professor must condemn the RPC because the RPC teach that justification is by faith alone. Justification by faith alone! Not justification by repentance. Not justification by faith and repentance. But justification by faith alone, which is to say, justification for the sake of Christ alone. Professor Engelsma’s doctrine of justification, on the other hand, is justification by repentance. Therefore, Professor Engelsma must damn the doctrine of the RPC as making men impenitent and profane.

I, for one, welcome Professor Engelsma’s condemnation. His condemnation is the slander that must always be hurled against the gospel of grace. Wherever the gospel of grace is, that gospel inevitably draws the charge that it makes men careless and profane. Therefore, it makes me very glad that men would cast out the name of the RPC as evil in this way, for so did they to the prophets before us. No one anymore is charging the doctrine of Professor Engelsma or the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) with making men careless and profane because Professor Engelsma and the PRC no longer teach the gospel of grace. But every few weeks Professor Engelsma pokes his head out of his window to shake his fist at the RPC and to condemn our doctrine as antinomian. So much the better for us. And, let Professor Engelsma remember, so much the worse for him.

Phantasmagoria

Professor Engelsma’s description of Reformed Protestant doctrine is like an old-time phantasmagoria. The charlatans of the late eighteenth century used theatrics, lanterns, mirrors, smoke, clever contraptions, and other special effects in darkened rooms to project all manner of specters and ghosts and ghouls and horrors to their credulous audiences. The images in the phantasmagoria were not real but were only projections made by the hucksters who had gulled their customers out of their money. Professor Engelsma has set up a modern-day theological phantasmagoria in which he projects all manner of theological horrors, to the shuddering delight of his readers. With great solemnity he informs his readers that what they are about to witness is the grotesque doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches. With a showman’s flourish he unveils the flickering horrors of the RPC, to the gasps and whimpers of his audience. But just as the ghosts of old were nothing but smoke and mirrors, so the professor’s description of Reformed Protestant theology is not reality. What he projects on the wall as Reformed Protestant doctrine is nothing but the contents of his own fevered imagination, assisted by some theological sleight of hand. Just like the phantasmagorists of old, Professor Engelsma is a fraud.

In fact, the professor’s claims by now are so outlandish that I have a hard time believing that anyone continues to be taken in by the professor. Professor Engelsma himself admits that his charges must seem far-fetched. “At this early stage in their history, this charge may, I hope, seem far-fetched to the unsuspecting people.” Yes, I should say it seems far-fetched! Phantasmagoric, even. Nevertheless, there are very many who are all too willing to take what Professor Engelsma writes as truth, not because it is the truth but merely because Professor Engelsma says so. So we must once again enter the professor’s phantasmagoria to point out the deceitful contraptions by which he has overthrown many.

Here is the phantom that Professor Engelsma presents as Reformed Protestant doctrine: “It is inherent in the doctrine of the RPC that they allow, and essentially encourage, their congregations, including the ministers, to sin freely, without the conviction of guilt.”

Is that so? Is that what Reformed Protestant ministers preach? Sin freely without the conviction of guilt?

Is that what Reformed Protestant doctrine teaches? Sin freely without the conviction of guilt?

Is that how Reformed Protestant members think and live? Sin freely without the conviction of guilt?

That seems far-fetched!

What is the professor’s proof for his charge? Where can the RPC be found to teach that we must sin freely without the conviction of guilt? Ah, here is where the professor’s sleight of hand begins. He cannot quote any Reformed Protestant sermon, article, or other material in which the RPC teach “Sin freely, without the conviction of guilt.” He cannot quote this because the RPC have not said it. The RPC simply do not teach “Let us do evil, that good may come.” The RPC do not teach “Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound.” To every suggestion “Let us do evil” or “Let us continue in sin” or “Let us know the depths of Satan,” the RPC respond with all vigor, “God forbid!” To the suggestion that we are allowed to sin freely or that we are encouraged to sin freely, the RPC respond with all vigor, “God forbid!”

Because he cannot quote the RPC’s encouraging God’s people to sin, the professor instead must maintain his charge through a couple of deceitful contraptions.

Contraption one: “The basis of the charge that the RPC teach that it is permitted to sin freely is the teaching of the RPC that repentance for sins is not necessary for forgiveness.”

Ah, yes, here we are back at the only thing that the professor knows anymore: repentance for forgiveness. In the whole church world today, Professor Engelsma has become the foremost champion of prerequisite repentance for forgiveness. According to the professor, because the RPC deny that repentance is necessary (requisite) before (pre-) forgiveness, as though God waited upon our repenting before he will forgive our sins, then the RPC must teach that man should continue in sin freely.

But this is just a clever mirror box. The phantom isn’t real. I can deny that repentance is a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness and at the very same time deny that I may sin as I please. To both I can say a vigorous “God forbid!” In fact, the two things are inseparably connected. Because God has forgiven my sin freely for Christ’s sake without any prerequisite whatsoever, including repentance, I can delight in good works and do good works, including the good work of repentance, as my holy life of gratitude to God. Jesus connected the two in his gracious word to the woman taken in adultery. Though the woman never repented in the passage, Jesus forgave her: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Jesus’ own doctrine and practice was forgiveness without prerequisite repentance. And that did not make Jesus a teacher of impenitent living any more than it makes the RPC teachers of impenitent living, for Jesus continued, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).

Contraption two:

In the same issue of the magazine [Sword and Shield, March 15, 2022], with characteristic vitriol, an editor defends the unreformed and unbiblical doctrine that repentance does not precede forgiveness, and that it is heresy to teach that it does…

This amounts to denying that they any longer have sins at all; they have no sins with regard to the guilt and shame of sinful thoughts, desires, words, and deeds. For if they still sin, these sins would have to be repented of.

And again: “The members of the RPC confess as semi-official church doctrine that they have no sins.”

Here again we still must deal with the only thing the professor knows anymore: prerequisite repentance for forgiveness. According to the professor, because the RPC deny that God’s activity of forgiveness is contingent upon man’s activity of repentance, the RPC must teach that its members are not sinners and that they do not sin.

The professor has actually come very, very close to the gospel here. The professor does not know it as the gospel, and he means something different by it, but he has come very close to the gospel. Here is the gospel that the professor has come close to but which he ridicules: I am not a sinner, and I do not have any sin. That is true! I am not a sinner, and I do not have any sin…in Christ. This is the beautiful doctrine of justification by faith alone. Justification by faith alone means that I have no sin in God’s eyes. None! Justification by faith alone means that I have no guilt, no shame, and no debt before God. None! Justification by faith alone means that I have the perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ counted as mine. Justification by faith alone means that when God looks at me, he looks at me in Christ, judges me in Christ, and deals with me in Christ. He has not dealt with me after my sins, nor rewarded me according to my iniquities (Ps. 103:10). He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor has he seen perverseness in Israel (Num. 23:21). In the blood and the sweat and the tears and the obedience of his Son, Jehovah has smelled a sweet savor and has not destroyed me but blessed me.

So much is Christ’s righteousness my righteousness that as far as God is concerned in his dealings with me, I am Christ. I am a member of Christ’s body, and the head and the body are one. All the things of my head are mine as a member of his body. My righteousness is not something different than Christ’s righteousness, but Christ’s righteousness is my righteousness. My obedience is not something different than Christ’s obedience, but Christ’s obedience is my obedience. Jesus Christ has suffered my curse and has obeyed God instead of me and in place of me, without my obeying God being any part of it. Jesus Christ himself personally is now my righteousness, entirely independent of anything I have ever done or will do.

This is justification! This is the gospel! And this is the doctrine and confession of the RPC. “But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness” (Belgic Confession 22, in Confessions and Church Order, 50).

So if Professor Engelsma wants to charge the RPC with teaching that we have no sin, then he is only charging us with teaching justification and with teaching the gospel. I like that charge. Let’s have more of it. And let Professor Engelsma and all men know about the RPC that it is not merely our “semi-official church doctrine that they have no sins,” but that it is our official church doctrine that we have no sins in Christ. It is our official church doctrine according to the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 23, Q&A 59: “I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life” (Confessions and Church Order, 106). It is our official church doctrine according to Q&A 60: In Christ it is “as if I never had had nor committed any sin.” And in Christ it is “as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me” (Confessions and Church Order, 106–7). It is our official church doctrine according to the Lord’s supper form: “The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed and freely given him as his own, yea, so perfectly as if he had satisfied in his own person for all his sins and fulfilled all righteousness” (Confessions and Church Order, 268).

Yes, Professor Engelsma comes very close to the gospel with his charge against us. But that is not what he means to do. In his article Professor Engelsma is not interested in Christ or in what it means to be in Christ. See if you can find Christ taught with any meaningful substance in his entire article. Rather, what the professor means to do is set up another mirror box and smoke screen to make it seem that the RPC teach that in ourselves we are not sinners and in ourselves we have no sins. When the professor writes, “The members of the RPC confess as semi-official church doctrine that they have no sins,” he means that we confess as semi-official church doctrine that we have no sins in ourselves.

Well, balderdash, baloney, and malarkey. Aren’t the RPC supposedly the ones who are too strong on total depravity? That is, aren’t the RPC supposedly the ones who teach too much sin in the believer? The RPC teach that even the regenerated child of God is still totally depraved in himself. For this we have been falsely accused of denying regeneration. We have been falsely accused of teaching that the child of God is spiritually inactive. We have been falsely accused of denying the powerful work of the Holy Spirit in a man. Professor Engelsma has made this charge publicly against the RPC and her ministers for some time now. Professor Engelsma has helped make the RPC famous (or infamous) for the denomination’s teaching that the regenerated man is still totally depraved by nature. But now the professor would have everyone believe that the RPC also teach that the believer has no sin in himself? On the one hand this: the believer is totally depraved in himself. And on the other hand this: the believer has no sin in himself.

Is anyone really taken in by this? When the professor one night at his show says that the RPC are too strong on the total depravity of the believer in himself, and the people all say, “Ooooooh!” then when the professor the next night at his show says that the RPC teach that the believer has no sin in himself, only the gullible can all say, “Aaaaaah!” Like an old-time charlatan who doesn’t even bother hiding the lanterns and mirrors by which he conjures his phantasms, Professor Engelsma is not even trying to hide his theological contraptions. Don’t be taken in by such an obvious fraud. And that’s not “vitriol,” as the professor claims it is. It’s just plain sound advice. Heed it or don’t heed it, but at least know that when you go to Professor Engelsma’s show, you are dealing with a humbug.

Free Forgiveness

If Professor Engelsma’s specters of Reformed Protestant doctrine evaporate like smoke, what is the actual substance of Reformed Protestant doctrine? When one exits the dark theater of the absurd and comes into the clear light of day, what do the Reformed Protestant Churches actually teach?

Not this: Sin freely!

But this: Free forgiveness!

The doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches, as it is the doctrine of the gospel and the doctrine of the Reformed faith, is that God’s forgiveness of the sinner is absolutely, sovereignly, and graciously free. There are no conditions that the sinner must fulfill in order to be forgiven. There are no prerequisites that the sinner must meet in order to be forgiven. There are no payments that the sinner must make in order to be forgiven. There is simply nothing that the sinner must do, nothing that the sinner must bring, and nothing that the sinner must be in order to be forgiven of his sins. God forgives the transgressions of his elect people without any regard to any activity that they have performed. God forgives the transgressions of his elect people strictly because it is God’s will to do so, strictly because it pleases him to do so. God forgives the transgressions of his elect people solely with an eye to what Christ has accomplished by his obedience and atonement and without any eye whatsoever on what they have done. God forgives, and that utterly freely.

Especially with regard to the elect sinner’s repenting, God’s forgiveness is absolutely free. God does not check to see if the sinner has repented before God forgives the sinner. God does not withhold his mercy until the sinner has acknowledged his sin and shown sufficient sorrow for his sin. God does not wait upon the sinner to repent before God forgives. God does not even wait upon God’s own work of bringing the sinner to repentance before God forgives. God forgives the sinner freely, without regard for the sinner’s repenting but only with regard for God’s own will and the righteousness of his Son.

There are many ways to describe this free forgiveness: justification by faith alone, salvation by grace, unconditional salvation, sovereign salvation, the Reformed faith, the gospel, and so on. At their heart all of these describe this reality: free forgiveness of sins.

We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied; as David and Paul teach us, declaring this to be the happiness of man, that God imputes righteousness to him without works. And the same apostle saith that we are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. (Belgic Confession 23, in Confessions and Church Order, 51)

The truth of the gospel that forgiveness is truly free for the child of God without condition of repenting or any other work or activity of the sinner is truly liberating for the child of God. Without that gospel the child of God is not free but is in terrible bondage. He is in bondage to the law with all of its requirements. He is in bondage to all of the accusations of his conscience and all of the accusations of the devil that he has not obeyed perfectly. He is in bondage to fear and to selflove, which are the only motives that he can find to try to obey God’s law. In the doctrine that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness, the sinner will never know forgiveness. He will forever be bound by his own imperfect repenting.

But when he is set free by the gospel of free forgiveness, the child of God is free from every demand of the law for righteousness (Gal. 3:13). He is free from every accusation of his conscience that he has disobeyed the entire law of God (LD 23). He is free from every charge of the devil and the false church that he is condemned (Rom. 8:33–34). He is free to live his life before God’s face in faith and without terror (Ps. 130:3–4). He is free to obey God in gratitude, free from self-love and the fear of damnation (Belgic Confession 24). He is free to approach God in prayer without any terror or dread (Belgic Confession 23). He is free to decide boldly and to do boldly those things that God requires, even knowing that he will sin in doing them because of his old man, and knowing also that God does not impute to him those sins (Ps. 103:12). And he is free to sin boldly in doing those things (let the reader understand) without it ever becoming license for him to sin. This is some freedom!

The gospel of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ also frees the sinner to repent. Without the gospel of free forgiveness, the sinner would never repent. Without the gospel of free forgiveness, the sinner would only do what Adam did: flee from God and hide from God. If the sinner must repent before he hears that he is forgiven, then the sinner would never, never come to God. He would never come to God in prayer. He would never come to God with the petition “Forgive us our debts.” He would never come to God in sorrow for his sins. He would never come to God with a broken heart and with a contrite spirit. He would never come to God with his tears and his groanings over his sin. He would only run from God as fast as he could! Why? Because there is no mercy with God! Not as far as the sinner knows. The sinner has no knowledge that the righteousness of Christ is his. The sinner has no knowledge that God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. The sinner only knows his sin. Professor Engelsma will not permit the sinner to know anything other than the sinner’s sin until the sinner first repents. Professor Engelsma will not permit the sinner to hear the blessed declaration of God in Christ, “I pardon your iniquity,” until the sinner completes his necessary, prerequisite repentance.

The believer must hear God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” Without forgiveness, daily, he cannot live. To know this saving word and act of God experientially, the believer must repent, and God calls for, and works, this necessary repentance.

According to Professor Engelsma, until the sinner repents he has no knowledge of the pardon of his iniquity. Until he repents he never hears God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” In Professor Engelsma’s doctrine the sinner is not free!

But knowing his forgiveness in the blood of Christ according to the eternal and unchangeable good pleasure of God, the sinner is free to repent. Knowing his forgiveness in the blood of Christ, the sinner will certainly and inevitably repent. He will be sorry for his sins and abhor his iniquities. The forgiven sinner is a repentant sinner. Not because he must repent in order to be forgiven but because his whole life before God arises out of and stands upon God’s mercy in Christ. Knowing God’s mercy in Christ that justifies him independently of all of the sinner’s repenting and working and obeying and loving, the sinner will hate and mourn his sin as contrary to the God who has so mercifully received him. He will cry out to God and flee to God, who receives sinners for Jesus’ sake. God’s mercy in Christ has made the sinner free to do so. By God’s mercy in Christ, the sinner is free to approach unto God. He is free to beseech God, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant” (Ps. 143:2). Only knowing the mercy of God in Christ that forgives his sins—only after knowing the mercy of God in Christ that forgives his sins—is the sinner free to repent.

This [obedience of Christ crucified alone] is sufficient to cover all our iniquities, and to give us confidence in approaching to God; freeing the conscience of fear, terror, and dread, without following the example of our first father, Adam, who, trembling, attempted to cover himself with fig leaves. And, verily, if we should appear before God, relying on ourselves or on any other creature, though ever so little, we should, alas! be consumed. And therefore every one must pray with David: O Lord, enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. (Belgic Confession 23, in Confessions and Church Order, 51–52)

Freedom from the guilt, shame, and curse of sin—in Christ! Freedom to repent—because of Christ! That is some freedom!

Professor Engelsma noticed that the doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches is a doctrine of freedom. He saw that what we preach, write, and confess has to do with being free. It is evident that he saw this because he describes our doctrine this way: “Sin freely!” There it is: “Freely!” Yes, Reformed Protestant doctrine has to do with being free. It is the gospel of free forgiveness. But when Professor Engelsma saw the gospel of freedom, it scared him. Professor Engelsma is afraid of the gospel. He is frightened by the prospect that God’s forgiveness of sins is absolutely free, without regard to the activity of the sinner. For Professor Engelsma such a free gospel must inevitably make men impenitent. When the little children are taught that free gospel, it breaks the professor’s heart because he thinks those little children will not repent. Therefore, Professor Engelsma charges the free gospel with making men careless and profane. The professor charges the gospel of sovereign, gracious, free forgiveness as being the teaching “Sin freely.” And Professor Engelsma goes to work to make the gospel safe for people by stripping the gospel of its freedom. He takes away the grace of the gospel and replaces it with a condition: prerequisite repentance.

Well, Professor Engelsma can keep his safe and conditional gospel. I want nothing to do with it. And let Professor Engelsma be warned that his is not a safe gospel, for he will go to hell with it if he truly believes it. Let him repent of his safe gospel, let him believe the true gospel of free forgiveness in Christ, and let him be saved.

As for me, let me have the gospel that makes my salvation to be all of God and all of Christ and nothing of me. Let me have the gospel of the Reformed Protestant Churches, whose doctrine is not this: “Sin freely, without the conviction of guilt”; but whose doctrine is this: free forgiveness! And this: live freely without the burden of guilt for Jesus’ sake, who is your righteousness!

Election Theology versus Repentance Theology

In all of Professor Engelsma’s writing, there is a true horror present. That horror is not the phantasmagoric and falsely projected doctrine of the Reformed Protestant Churches. Rather, that horror is the actual and substantial doctrine of Professor Engelsma. Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is that God’s forgiveness of the sinner (in the sinner’s conscious experience) waits upon the sinner’s repenting of his sins (by the power and operation of God).

Here is Professor Engelsma’s doctrine in his own words from his “Sin Freely!” article.

The believer must hear God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” Without forgiveness, daily, he cannot live. To know this saving word and act of God experientially, the believer must repent, and God calls for, and works, this necessary repentance.

And a little later, referring to Psalm 51, the professor writes: “For the psalmist puts confession of sin and repentance ‘before’ forgiveness.”

Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is that the sinner’s repentance is necessary (requisite) before (pre-) God will say to that sinner, “I pardon your iniquity.” Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is that the sinner’s repentance is a prerequisite for God’s forgiveness of the sinner. The fact that God himself works the repentance of the sinner does not change the fact that the sinner’s God-worked repentance is a prerequisite for God’s forgiveness.

For Professor Engelsma repentance functions with all of the conditional force of a prerequisite. Professor Engelsma will not say condition. He will not say prerequisite. But he does not need to say condition and prerequisite in order to teach a condition and a prerequisite. The question is how repentance functions in what he does say. And in what he does say, repentance functions with all of the conditional force of a prerequisite. God’s forgiveness of the sinner is contingent upon the sinner’s repentance. God’s forgiveness waits upon the sinner’s repentance. God’s forgiveness cannot proceed until the sinner repents. The issue is not merely that repentance is necessary. Rather, the issue is that repentance is necessary in order to know God’s forgiveness. “To know this saving word and act of God experientially, the believer must repent, and God calls for, and works, this necessary repentance.” This is a conditional theology of prerequisite repentance.

What is striking about Professor Engelsma’s development of prerequisite repentance is that it is so thoroughly saturated with man. Professor Engelsma’s theology of repentance is so filled with man that God’s counsel and Christ’s cross and God’s gift of faith can hardly make an appearance. You will not find election in Professor Engelsma’s article. Even though the subject of the article is essentially justification—that is, how the sinner may be forgiven all his sins in his conscious experience—there is no mention of God’s sovereign decree and good pleasure. If you want to find Christ in Professor Engelsma’s article or if you want to find faith in the article, you have to arm yourself with an Acme Corporation industrial-strength fine-tooth comb. And even then you will only find a passing reference to Christ and to faith. Even though the subject of the article is essentially justification, that truth is not developed out of the cross of Jesus Christ.

What you will find on every page and in almost every paragraph is man’s repentance, man’s repentance, man’s repentance. When the reader finishes the article, the one message that he has heard is this: for justification man’s repentance is the thing! Not this: for justification God’s eternal and electing mercy is the thing! Not this: for justification God’s gift of his Son is the thing! Not this: for justification the shed blood of Jesus Christ is the thing! Not this: for justification faith that repudiates all its own activity and works and clings alone to Christ is the thing! But this: for justification man’s repentance is the thing.

Professor Engelsma’s theology is a repentance theology. It is not an election theology. It is not a theology of sovereign grace. It is not the theology of the cross. It is not the Reformed theology of justification by faith alone. Rather, it is a repentance theology: justification by repentance, forgiveness by repentance, comfort by repentance, and peace by repentance.

Having a repentance theology, Professor Engelsma abhors election theology. He will not suffer the doctrine of God’s sovereign, gracious election to govern the sinner’s experience of the forgiveness of his sins. The professor will not suffer the shed blood of Christ and Christ’s substitutionary atonement at the cross to govern the sinner’s experience of the forgiveness of his sins. For the professor the sinner’s experience of the forgiveness of his sins must be governed by the sinner’s repentance. First the sinner must repent! And God’s whole gift of forgiveness and assurance and comfort and salvation waits upon the sinner’s repenting.

Because he abhors election theology, Professor Engelsma condemns as antinomian Rev. Nathan Langerak’s clear and comforting confession of election theology. In the March 15, 2022, Sword and Shield, Reverend Langerak made God’s election of the sinner to be the sinner’s comfort regarding the forgiveness of his sins. Reverend Langerak made the cross of Christ to be the sinner’s comfort regarding the forgiveness of his sins. In election there is nothing of man. In election God is first. At the cross there is nothing of man. At the cross Christ is first. Reverend Langerak’s election theology is that because the forgiveness of the sinner is the gracious decree of God and because the forgiveness of the sinner is accomplished by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, the sinner’s assurance of his forgiveness has nothing to do with his repentance. In election and at the cross, the sinner already has the righteousness of Christ, without the sinner’s first repenting. Reverend Langerak summarized his election theology thus: “This is the gospel message of the Reformed Protestant Churches. The sinner has forgiveness without repenting.”²

Professor Engelsma hates that confession of election. He hates that confession of the atonement. Why? Because Professor Engelsma does not have an election theology. Professor Engelsma has a repentance theology. For Professor Engelsma the sinner’s experience and comfort of forgiveness may not be governed by God’s election and Christ’s cross but by the sinner’s repenting.

The believer must hear God say, “I pardon your iniquity.” Without forgiveness, daily, he cannot live. To know this saving word and act of God experientially, the believer must repent, and God calls for, and works, this necessary repentance.

Not having an election theology, Professor Engelsma also abhors the doctrine of justification by faith alone. For Professor Engelsma the sinner may not know and have comfort in his justification until the sinner first repents. The sinner’s comfort is not found in Christ alone, who is known by means of faith alone, but the sinner’s comfort is found by means of his repenting of his sins.

Because Professor Engelsma abhors election theology, he condemns as antinomian the undersigned’s confession of justification by faith alone and the undersigned’s rejection of justification by repentance or any other work of the sinner. My election theology is that faith alone is the instrument of justification because faith’s object is Jesus Christ, who is the sinner’s righteousness. My election theology is that repentance is not at all the instrument of justification but is the fruit of faith and the inevitable and sure result of the sinner’s salvation. In the March 15, 2022, Sword and Shield, I wrote regarding the means of justification: “Repentance has no bearing whatsoever on that man’s remission of sins or his justification.”³

Professor Engelsma hates that confession of faith as the sole means of justification. For Professor Engelsma repentance does have a bearing on a man’s remission of sins and justification. Repentance is first as the necessary prerequisite to a man’s justification. Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is not justification by faith alone but justification by repentance. Professor Engelsma’s doctrine is not election theology but repentance theology.

Conclusion

Professor Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed Churches with him are drunk on man. They are drunk on man’s repentance. They are drunk on man’s prerequisites. They are drunk on man’s activity. They are in a stupor in which they cannot see, hear, or think anything but man and his prerequisites. The Protestant Reformed Churches as an institution will not wake up from her stupor. The denomination is beyond reform. God has shown this by bringing reformation to the PRC. But when God brought reformation, he brought it outside the denomination and not within. Within the PRC there is only increasing spiritual madness and blindness, as Professor Engelsma’s articles attest. The PRC as an institution will go to hell with her prerequisites, after she has made as many other men as possible drunk with the wine of the wrath of her theological and spiritual fornication. If there are any spiritual sons and daughters of God in the Protestant Reformed Churches, flee the wrath to come. “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities” (Rev. 18:4–5).

Away with Professor Engelsma’s phantasmagoria. Away with his repentance theology. Let us have Reformed Protestant doctrine, which is the gospel: free forgiveness.

We believe that our salvation consists in the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake, and that therein our righteousness before God is implied; as David and Paul teach us, declaring this to be the happiness of man, that God imputes righteousness to him without works. And the same apostle saith that we are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. (Belgic Confession 23, in Confessions and Church Order, 51)