(March 31, 2022)

Dear Family,
This is a response to you concerning the attack on my person and on the theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) in the latest issue of the magazine, “Sword and Shield” (March 15, 2022).
I do not respond to the angry personal attacks. Always, in the long history of doctrinal controversy in which I have been compelled to engage, I have left attacks on the persons of the adversaries to my combatants. This is because, first, it is a well-known rule of controversy that resorting to attacks on the person of one’s adversary is evidence that one has no substantial argument in his arsenal. Second, all authorities agree that the very weakest argument in debate is the argument ad hominem, that is, the attack on the person of one’s foe. And, third, I have substantial arguments against those writing in “Sword and Shield” against the PRC.
What alone is important to me is the doctrinal issue. The latest writings of the editors of the magazine promote and defend a doctrine that is unchristian, to say nothing of un-reformed. I refer specifically to their denial of the necessity of repentance in order to receive from God the forgiveness of sins. That this is their doctrine is not a matter of implication. They themselves state that this is their doctrine. I quote:

Repentance has no bearing whatsoever on that man’s remission of sins or his justification (“Sword and Shield,” March 15, 2022, p. 27).
This is the gospel message of the Reformed Prot-estant Churches. The sinner has forgiveness with-out repenting (“Sword and Shield,” March 15, 2022, p. 43).

My insistence on the necessity of repenting of sin is what brands me as an Arminian, according to the editors of the “Sword and Shield” (“S&S”). In truth, this insistence shows me to be an orthodox Christian.
“Forgiveness without repenting”—how does this affect the disciplinary work of elders? “Forgiveness without repenting”—how do godly parents implement this “fundamental rule of the gospel” in their calling with regard to a wayward child? “Forgiveness without repenting”—how does the missionary proclaim this as the message of the gospel on the mission field to the heathen idolaters?

“God forgives you continuing impenitently in your idolatry and heathen practices of life, so that you may then repent”?
The necessity of repentance for the reception of pardon is not an unbiblical teaching (being compelled to state this is indicative of how far the theologians of the Reformed Protestant Churches [RPC] have already strayed from orthodox, biblical Christianity). The truth of the necessity of repentance for forgiveness is not a dark and difficult implication of Scriptural teaching, but explicit biblical doctrine. I quote a few such clear passages.

II Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

I make only two observations. First, if a PR theologian or church assembly had said this, the men of the RPC would pounce with the charge of “conditional heresy,” fiercely charge him or it with the Arminian heresy, and devote a full issue of their magazine to a denunciation of him. Any statement that dares to use “if” is suspect, or condemnable out of hand, to the theologians of the RPC, which of course condemns many passages of Scripture. Second, the text denies that “the sinner has forgiveness without repenting.” “If His people repent, then God “will forgive their sin” (“if/then,” and if not/then not). The Bible says so. Granted, not the theologians of the RPC. But a statement by God should carry some weight in the dispute.

Isaiah 55:6, 7: “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”

The men of the RPC will preach this passage, if they preach it at all, under the theme, “The Sinner has Forgiveness Without Repenting,” regardless of the exact wording of their theme. If they do not repent of this blatant twisting of the Word of God, they had better hope that their false doctrine were true.

Luke 13:3: “…except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

Now Jesus Himself falls under the hyper-orthodox hammer of the RPC: repenting is necessary for not perishing. How dare Jesus contradict the theology of the RPC! Lest His warning be overlooked, or set aside by critics of His theology as an unfortunate misstatement, Jesus repeats it in verse 5.

Acts 2:38: “Repent…for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Forcing the text to mean, “Have the remission of sins for [a following] repentance, and ye have received the gift of the Holy Ghost,” seems not to be what the text is saying. One can emerge from this forcing of the text with a sound theology. But he does not do justice to, and honor, the text itself, which is, “repent first, and receive the remission of sins as that which follows. The order of this saving work of God is repentance/remission. This is the way God works.

I John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,” etc.

Confession of sin is an essential element of repentance. In the inspired text, the sinner’s confession precedes God’s forgiveness. It will not do for the theologians of the RPC to rave against this doctrine as obvious evidence that the PRC are now “accursed” heretics, whose heresy is that they put the sinner before God in the work of salvation. For the order, our confessing our sins preceding God’s forgiveness of our sins, is not the order of a PR theologian but the order of the inspired apostle John. Read the text! To the response that there is an orthodox explanation of this order, an order that maintains not only that God is first, but also that God is the only Savior in this order, of course, there is.
And the PRC give this explanation as they always have. But their explanation does not abolish the order of the text, much less place it under the suspicion that John here was a Pelagian heretic. The orthodox explanation lets the inspired order of the text stand—and teach us something.
These texts are not isolated passages of Scripture, although even if they were, they would have their authority. But they are the current doctrine of Scripture on repentance and forgiveness.
One fundamental error of the editors of “S&S” in this debate over repentance, against which shoddy work in exegesis I and the other professors in seminary warned them, is their confusion of “concepts.” Election and redemption are not the same as the forgiveness of sins. Election is the eternal decree appointing some to salvation (which salvation according to the decree will be by way of repenting of sins). Redemption was the saving work of Jesus especially on the cross, of purchasing the elect from their guilt unto God by the offering of Himself as the sacrifice that atoned for their sins and obtained for them the right to be the children of God (which redemption God would apply to them in the forgiveness of their sins in the way of their repenting). Forgiveness, in distinction from election and redemption, is the living Word of the gospel to the elect, redeemed, and now by grace penitent sinner absolving him of all his guilt. It pleases God to forgive by way of bringing His child to repentance. The fact is that apart from repentance, forgiveness has no meaning to the believer. My response to an act of God forgiving me, apart from my repenting of my sins, would be, “No doubt, I am to be thankful to Thee, but for what?”
The editors of “S&S” must not themselves confuse election, redemption, and forgiveness, nor must they leave this confusion in the minds of their audience. When orthodox Christianity confesses, with Scripture, that repentance precedes forgiveness, it is not saying that repentance precedes election or redemption. And even if the men of the “S&S” insist that Christ forgave the sins of His people by His act of redemption on the cross, so that forgiveness there does precede repentance now, they are compelled to acknowledge that the Bible teaches, and emphasizes, a forgiveness by the gospel in the consciousness of the elect sinner, so that repentance in this important respect precedes forgiveness. “Repent for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). This acknowledgment nullifies all their rash, unbrotherly criticism of the PRC as being guilty of making repentance a prerequisite, a la Arminianism. Even when dealing with those who are “accursed” of God, a Christian theologian is called to be truthful.
The editors of “S&S” also show serious church historical weakness, which contributes to their blindness to the divine order of forgiving by way of bringing elect sinners to repentance. The weakness is that they suppose that the Reformed churches objected to Arminianism on the ground that Arminianism called humans to repent as a requirement unto forgiveness of sins. How these editors are ready to charge “Arminianism” against the teaching that God requires repentance of the sinner for forgiveness!
But the Synod of Dordt did not object to the doctrine that God requires repentance of sinners, or to the doctrine that repenting is the way to forgiveness. Not a chapter or a line in a chapter in the Canons can be adduced to prove such an understanding of the Reformed polemic at Dordt. Rather, the synod objected to the teaching that a saving work of God, here forgiveness, depended upon a work of the sinner, here repentance, that was an act of his free will. Not the necessity of repentance, but whether repentance was a condition to be performed by the free will of the sinner was the issue at Dordt. To misrepresent this issue, as do the theologians of the RPC, is serious church historical error. And the result is schism in the church of Jesus Christ!

Here, I note a curious act on the part of the RPC. They have rejected, or are in the process of rejecting, the PR “Declaration of Principles,” although, as is characteristic of their ecclesiastical conduct, they do so in a deceptive manner. They decide “not to adopt the ‘Declaration.’” The wording of this decision, or proposed decision, is strange. Claiming as they do to be the legitimate succession of the PRC, they were bound by the “Declaration,” one would have thought. Disavowal of the “Declaration,” then, would not take place by a decision not to adopt, but by a decision to reject it. In any case, the decision was, or would be, a rejection of the “Declaration.”
But the question, and in light of the importance of the “Declaration” in the PRC tradition an urgent, unavoidable, significant question, is, why this rejection, or proposed rejection, of the “Declaration” by the RPC? Why do they at an early stage in their history put distance between themselves and the “Declaration of Principles”? Especially in view of all their bombast that they, and they only, maintain the unconditional theology of the “Declaration,” their rejection of the “Declaration” is curious in the extreme.
Although one who is not privy to the discussion of the motion “not to adopt” the “Declaration” cannot judge with certainty what it is in the “Declaration” that displeases the RPC, it is likely that the reason for the rejection of that secondary creed in the PRC is explained in the RPC’s repudiation of the doctrine that God commands all humans to repent and that repentance precedes forgiveness. For the “Declaration” not only condemns the doctrine of a conditional covenant. It also confesses that “God seriously commands to faith and repentance, and that to all those who come and believe He promises life and peace” (“Declaration,” III,B, in Confessions and the Church Order, 426). According to the confession of the PRC, there is a command of God in the preaching of the gospel to all humans. It is also the official doctrine of the PRC that life and peace are the promised benefit of coming and believing. Coming and believing are the way of having life and peace. Coming and believing include repenting. This, the RPC reject. Therefore, they reject the “Declaration of Principles” if not now, then later.
Whatever the reason of the RPC for doing so, these churches are either seriously considering the rejection of the “Declaration” as their binding creed, or have already rejected it. Thus, they reject one of the most important of all the “traditions” of the PRC and weaken their confession of an unconditional covenant.
For all the vain confidence that the members of the RPC have that they are the true continuation of the PRC and their traditions, these members have already abandoned, or are abandoning, a grand element of these traditions: the “Declaration of Principles.”

This my word to the members of the RPC is not an angry, if not hateful, outburst of personal attack.
But it is a virtually sorrowful admonition: “Hold the (PR) traditions!”
Yet another important departure of the RPC from the historic Reformed faith, if not from a significant aspect of the gospel, is its denial that repentance is an aspect of true and living faith. The reason for this denial is evident to all: the RPC denies the necessity of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. If repentance is, indeed, an essential aspect of faith, denial that repentance is an essential element of faith would mean that faith itself is not necessary for forgiveness.
But this denial that repentance is an aspect of faith is mistaken. First, the Bible repeatedly relates closely, indeed inseparably, repentance and faith. One instance is Mark 1:15: “repent ye, and believe the gospel.” “Repentance” is specifically mentioned with faith because it is an important element of faith. The same intimate relation of repentance and faith is the teaching of the creeds. Canons, 5.7 is representative:

By His Word and Spirit, [God] certainly and effectually renews them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies…

In this article of the Canons, the way to seek and obtain remission of sins is a “sincere and godly sorrow for…sins,” that is, repentance. And at least one theologian in the RPC will be surprised to learn that the creed states that this sorrow over sin, which is repentance, brings about that the repentant sinner “may”—may! may! may!—experience the favor of God, that is, be forgiven.
I make something here of the Canons use of the word “may,” because one of the editors of “S&S,” criticizes my use of the word, “may,” as though I were suggesting that our activities permit God to act (“S&S,” March 15, 2022, 38, 39). My critic forgot, apparently, that I was quoting the Canons, which uses the word “may” in the context of forgiveness following repentance, and ignored the use of “may” as expressing the mood of a verb. Or, in his frenzy to throw stones at me, he aimed hastily to hit me and struck the Canons of Dordt instead. The Canons state, “may again experience the favor of a reconciled God.” According to the judgment of the editor, on the basis of the Canons’ use of the (harmless) word, “may,” it is the theology of the Canons of Dordt “that man’s activities are the may of God’s activities.” That is, in the thinking of this editor, the Canons “put the creature first before God” in the matter of repentance. At least, if I taught such a doctrine, which I do not, as the editors of “S&S” know well, I would be in good company. Both the Canons and I use the verb form, “may.” One should restrain the frenzy to throw stones. Both the Canons and I will survive the pitiful stone.
Such is the intimate relation of repentance and faith in Scripture, particularly with regard to the forgiveness of sins, that justifying faith is always accompanied by repentance. Therefore, even if repentance is not an element of faith, but “only” an inseparably related spiritual perfection, there is never the forgiveness of sins without repentance. And this refutes the contention of the RPC that there is “forgiveness without repenting.”
Conclusive in the creeds is Question 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism. It defines faith, in part, as the assurance that to the believer is freely given “remission of sin.” Implied is that the faith, that is this assurance, is sorrow over the sins that need and receive this assurance. What sense is there to an assurance that one’s sins are remitted if one does not grieve over these sins with the sorrow of repentance. Apart from the sorrow of repentance there is no need in the sinner’s mind for assurance that sins are forgiven. To put it differently, faith neither knows Jesus as one’s Savior nor trusts in Him for salvation unless one is burdened by the guilt of sin, which burden is that of repentance.
To illustrate by an earthly example, I will not go to the doctor if I have no knowledge of my illness. My spiritual illness is my sin, and my knowledge of my illness is repentance. The question to those who reject the doctrine that repentance is an aspect of faith and, in fact, dismiss the doctrine out-of-hand as Arminian heresy is, “Why do you believe on Jesus Christ?” Or, “why does the Holy Spirit direct you to Jesus Christ in a true faith?” If you answer, “because I am sorry for my sins and desire forgiveness in Jesus Christ,” you have acknowledged that repentance is an aspect of the faith that knows and trusts in Jesus Christ as Savior. If you do not give this answer, I like to know why you believe in Jesus whatsoever. Or, “why does the Holy Ghost lead you to Jesus at all?” “Apart from your knowledge of and sorrow over your sins, you have no need of Jesus the Savior.” Going to Jesus for forgiveness of sins without repentance over these sins is like going to the doctor without any knowledge of or concern over an illness.
Should I meet a member of the RPC at the feet of Jesus, I would readily explain my presence there as repentance over my sins, including sorrow over my sins against God and longing for the healing of forgiveness from the Great Physician. I would then ask him or her, “Why are you here? What brings you here?” He or she would be speechless. But, in fact, none of them, believing the theology of the RPC, would ever be at the feet of Jesus. For they have “forgiveness without repenting.” And it is repenting by which the Spirit of the Great Physician brings sinners to Jesus for the healing of forgiveness. “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick…I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9:12, 13).

In addition, if more evidence regarding the relation of faith and repentance is called for, Calvin scholars, in addition to myself, agree that for the Reformer repentance is an aspect of true faith.
The conclusion is that the doctrine that “the sinner has forgiveness without repenting” contradicts the Reformed tradition, the Reformed creeds, and the Bible. To continue to affirm this is sin. That the theologians of the RPC may be forgiven this sin, I call them to repent.
P.S. I call attention to one important, serious misrepresentation of an event involving myself in the article by Editor Andy Lanning in the issue of “S&S” of March 15, 2022. Correctly he recalls that I called him to my office upon having heard that he had preached a sermon that was forbidden by the Reformed Church Order, that was injurious to some of his colleagues in the ministry, that promised to be divisive in the PRC, and that was certain to jeopardize his ministry. That was an act of mine of which he ought to have been appreciative, as demonstrating love for him and regard for his ministry, instead of dismissing it, as he does. In fact, on my initiative, we met twice. But he errs in his article in his magazine when he describes the nature of our meeting and the content of my admonition of him (p. 16). I did not tell him “that [he] may never criticize [his] own denomination from the pulpit.” I never suggested such a thing! His description of my admonition at our meeting is false. What I did tell him, with some vigor, was that he may not accuse his colleagues in the PR ministry of grievous sins on account of which they are judged by Andy Lanning as whores of Babylon and other vile, damning epithets. Charges of sin against one’s colleagues in the ministry must be brought to the churches for judgment by the churches—judgment by the churches, not by Andy Lanning—at the church assemblies. When he appealed to Jeremiah and other OT prophets, I gently reminded him that he was not an inspired prophet. And when he objected that he would “get nowhere” by this course of action, the PRC being so far gone, I responded that God did not call him to be successful, but to be faithful in following the church orderly way. Needless to say, he disregarded everything I told him. And this is why all his play on the emotions of his readers and followers by decrying the discipline of himself by the PRC does not move me: he never followed the way of the church order, the way of protest and appeal, although upon entering the ministry, he promised to do so. His behavior, whether substantively right or wrong, was revolutionary.
Also, it is my firm intention that these are the last written comments I will make to you, my family, on the present schism in the PRC. From now on I will restrict my help of you to spoken comment. I feel no compulsion to assist the editors of “S&S” in filling the pages of their magazine, especially not with misleading, false, and violent attacks on the PRC.