The church has battled over the doctrine of the antithesis from the very beginning in the garden until now. The antithesis was a key doctrine that led to the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) in 1924–25 and was also fundamental in the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC) in 2021.1
During the battle over common grace, Protestant Reformed ministers often sounded the warning that the doctrine of common grace would tear down the antithesis and bring worldliness into the church.2 Protestant Reformed church fathers argued against a common grace of God for the wicked that it would break down the antithesis between the elect and the reprobate. Because the doctrine of common grace teaches that the reprobate can do some good by this so-called common grace, the ministers concluded that there would be some cooperation between the church and world.3
Those early Protestant Reformed church fathers often argued the above points from the logical implications of the false doctrine of common grace. The truth always divides. I contend that it is an absolute fact that all false doctrine tears down the antithesis: If you are not for the truth, you are for the lie. If you are not in the camp of God and his truth, you are in the camp of the devil, who is the father of lies, and his lies. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8:44).
The term antithesis has the idea of a stark contrast. This contrast is shown in scripture between light and darkness, good and evil, God and the devil, grace and work, and free and meritorious. More than ever before we are in an age where the mention of the doctrine of the antithesis has fallen silent.
Herman Hoeksema experienced that silence in his day, and he wrote,
Of late this principle of the antithesis has generally been denied or silenced into oblivion. For a time those that were not at all in favor of the antithetical life-view still pretended to defend it, only claiming, that in this present time the antithesis is never absolute but only relative in actual manifestation. It is absolute in spiritual principle, but by virtue of the operation of a common grace there is also a certain practical synthesis in this world between the children of light and those of darkness. But lately one does not hear any more, even of this so-called relative antithesis. The antithesis is forgotten, both in theory and in practice.4
If that abandonment of the antithesis was true for Hoeksema in 1928, how much more is it true today.
With that aspect of the doctrine of the antithesis explained, the purpose of this article is to show how the truth of the gospel divides, how those who do not believe the gospel are forced by God and his truth to be outright enemies of the gospel, how the truth tears off the masks of hypocrisy from those who pretend to be sympathetic to the truth but are haters of it and lovers of the antichristian kingdom, how that same truth drives unbelievers who are close to the truth to the camp of the enemy and to become friends with that enemy, and how the truth of the gospel divides the unrighteous from the righteous and divides the kingdom of darkness from the kingdom of light and preserves God’s elect in the true church of Jesus Christ.
Herman Hoeksema beautifully explained that antithetical effect of the gospel:
The effect of the course of the white horse through the world is not only positive, but also antithetical. The running of this horse has its effect upon the enemies of the church. For a while the influence of that white horse enlightens them also. They even taste the beauty of the kingdom. The word of God has general enlightening influence and even a certain civilizing power…But the chief trouble with those who understand the gospel intellectually is that they deny that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, they constitute the power of Antichrist. They aim at the establishment of a kingdom without Christ and without God, a kingdom of man, the same kingdom Satan has tried to establish ever since man subjected himself unto the power of darkness. For this purpose they use all the institutions God has given and instituted in the world. More and more the state, in combination with other states, must serve the purpose of realizing this antichristian kingdom. Toward the establishment of this kingdom the church must also cooperate, as she has fallen away from the truth and is the apostate and the false church. The church must preach a social gospel. It no longer must speak of sin and guilt, of righteousness and holiness, of the need of atonement and of regeneration. But it must preach the gospel of human love, the gospel that man is not impotent but divine, that he is not guilty but a child of God by nature. Thus the church must help to realize the antichristian world kingdom. The church also must become increasingly a world church, the attempt at which is plainly seen in the ecumenical movement of our day. The same is true of the schools, both higher and lower, which are pressed into the same service: to realize the kingdom of Antichrist. All of this is the antithetical side of the effect of the running of the white horse through the world.5
In Genesis 4:3 we read, “In process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” It is of high importance that we understand the phrase “process of time.” Cain knew the truth. He knew that he was required by God to bring a bloody sacrifice. And that truth of the gospel forced Cain, as a reprobate, to bring a different offering to the Lord, a sacrifice of his own works and will. It must be abundantly clear that Cain’s sacrifice was not much different than Abel’s. It was not that Cain held to a religion that was an outright denial that God existed; the difference was very slight. According to the counsel of God, Cain brought a very similar offering to Abel, and Cain claimed that in his offering he was worshiping the one true God, but Cain knew full well that he brought the work of his own hands, which was antithetical to the offering he was called to bring. Cain knew the promise and what the bloody sacrifice represented. Over the process of time, the gospel of salvation found in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice alone and shown in the sacrifice of Abel brought out Cain’s unbelief and hatred for that full and free salvation. Abel’s sacrifice drove Cain, who was an outwardly religious man, to align himself with the kingdom of the devil and to carry out the wicked act of murdering his own earthly brother, Abel.
The warning that the gospel-truth of salvation in Jesus Christ alone drives men into false doctrines and associations with enemies of the truth must be applied to our day. The Reformed truth held to in the RPC has not only driven the PRC into the conditional doctrine of repentance unto forgiveness, that God cannot forgive man unless and until man repents. But the truth also has driven the PRC into the camp of the enemy to join forces with the enemy, those with whom she once contended against the lie. What else explains the fact that many in the PRC who once confessed to hold to the doctrine of the antithesis now sing at Men Sing Grand Rapids alongside those whom they once opposed? In the October 2025 program, many Protestant Reformed men joined their voices with men from other Reformed denominations to sing antithetical lyrics such as “Let my foes assail in vain…False and faithless are my foes, in their mouth no truth is found; deadly are the words they speak, all their thoughts with sin abound.”6
This used to be the confession of the PRC against the Canadian Reformed Churches, the Free Reformed Churches, the United Reformed Churches, the Heritage Reformed Congregations, and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations; now these opposing denominations sing together in one confession. As they sing together against their common enemy, it should become apparent that the enemy is not the various false doctrines they hold to among their denominations, such as the conditional covenant, the well-meant gospel offer, conditional fellowship, theistic evolution, justification by faith and repentance, and the federal vision. The enemy cannot be those false doctrines because the men also sang psalter number 370 together: “How good and pleasant is the sight, when brethren make it their delight to dwell in blest accord.”7 If the enemy is not the false doctrines that abound in these denominations, who is the enemy?
The truth of the word of God that is preached in the RPC and written on the pages of Sword and Shield drove the PRC—in men’s eyes in remarkable haste—into the hands of those who were once the PRC’s enemies. This truth is the full and free salvation of the elect child of God without man’s works, repentance, or even one sigh of faith for his justification. This is the same truth that confronted Cain, which said, “Thou shalt not bring of the works of thine own hands before God for your justification,” and Cain was angered by it to the point of slaying his earthly brother, Abel.
The same gospel that drove Cain to kill Abel drove Esau to hate his own brother, Jacob, as found in Genesis 25:19–34. Esau did not care about the birthright blessing; he was willing to sell it for a bowl of pottage. Esau had always hated Jacob, as is always the reprobate’s attitude toward the elect, but it was the truth that brought out of Esau the expression of that hatred. As soon as that blessing was bestowed upon Jacob, and Esau heard it, Esau hated Jacob and desired to kill him.
Sword and Shield has often warned of the danger of joining the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). I will not reference the articles because of their vast number, but one can visit the Reformed Believers Publishing website and search “NAPARC,” and one will find at least twenty different articles that have referenced it. The truth that has been written about NAPARC is driving the PRC to join this antichristian institution.
For a long time many in the PRC have desired to join NAPARC as a member denomination, but they have not been bold to express their desire outright. But in a recent Standard Bearer article, Prof. Barry Gritters is bolder. Although Professor Gritters does not come right out and say that he desires the PRC to join NAPARC, he lays out a masterpiece of questions about joining NAPARC for the readers to answer for themselves. It is not difficult to see that Professor Gritters desires the PRC to be a member of this wicked organization. The professor writes that the PRC needs to face these questions:
Which erroneous teachings would, and which would not hinder the PRCA from becoming a member of an ecumenical council? A form of theistic evolutionism in some of the denominations forbids us to join a council, but allowance of divorce and remarriage does not preclude a (closer) corresponding relationship. What is the difference?8
The professor goes on to show how the constitution of the contact committee of the PRC allows for the denomination to join NAPARC. What becomes very apparent is that Professor Gritters is using his tricks again to push his agenda. Without coming out and saying that he desires to join NAPARC, he uses questions to get his message across. It should also be stated that the NAPARC meeting that the professor references was held in November 2025. Is it just a coincidence that his article was published two months before the meeting of the Protestant Reformed Synod 2026, at which the synod would be discussing that topic?
The final passage I would like to point out regarding how the truth creates an antithetical effect is Numbers 14:40–41, which is quoted at the opening of this article. In the context Israel had come to the edge of the land of Canaan, and Moses sent out spies to search the land to see if it was a good land and to search out the strength of the people in the land.
We then have the familiar history of the report of the ten spies versus the report of Joshua and Caleb. After the Israelites had sided with the wicked report of the ten spies, which said that Israel was not strong enough to take the land, God said that all the people ages twenty and up, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, would be slain in the wilderness over the next forty years, and the succeeding generation would enter the land (Num. 14:29–31).
What was the reaction of the Israelites to this word of God? “They rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the Lord hath promised: for we have sinned” (Num. 14:40).
After the Lord had promised the Israelites the land, they rebelled and said, “We are not strong enough.” This shows that the doctrine of the Israelites was a doctrine of works. It was not going to be God’s mighty hand and outstretched arm that would gain them the victory; it would be their own works and strength that would gain them the land of Canaan.
As soon as the Lord said that the Israelites would not enter Canaan for another forty years, the truth of the gospel that God, not their own might, would gain them the victory drove the people to say the very opposite of what they first had said. Instead of saying “we are not strong enough” anymore, the truth forced them into attempting to take the land by their own works, and they were destroyed.
So the question is, how is it that the PRC is holding hands with those who used to be her enemies? How is it that Reverend McGeown can say that the nominal Reformed and Presbyterians are his brothers and that their false doctrines are not salvation issues?9
How is it that Zion Protestant Reformed Church is doing evangelism—approved by the consistory, I would assume—with Frontline Street Ministry and Truth on Fire? From Frontline’s March 2026 Facebook post:
Brothers and sisters from Zion PRC along with saints from OPC, HRC, and URC, stood shoulder to shoulder filled with joy to bring the gospel to an otherwise spiritually dry corner.
According to Zion’s March 2026 Facebook post, Reverend Guichelaar and some of his congregants, in collaboration with Frontline and Truth on Fire, stood side by side along the road holding up signs that said, among other things, “Stop and hear how your sins can be forgiven.” A quote from Frontline’s Facebook page on April 7, 2026, summarizes its theology as follows: “Christ is available, but you must trust him or perish.” It is understandable then that members of Zion can stand shoulder to shoulder with Frontline, since that is the PRC’s theology too.
How is it that Professor Gritters can say that the churches of NAPARC are committed to scripture and the Reformed confessions?
On the one hand, our synod wrote into the CC’s constitution that the PRCA desires to participate in interdenominational councils: “The Committee shall participate in ecumenical councils.” The constitution defines what a Reformed ecumenical council is: a gathering of churches who are committed to Scripture and the Reformed creeds, who recognize each other as true churches, but who have “significant differences in doctrine and practice that keep them from forming into one denomination.” In other words, our synod recognized the possibility and legitimacy of joining a council of churches who both hold the Reformed creeds and yet have significant differences from us.10
The following quote demonstrates from recent history how the PRC used to refer to the doctrines of those whom the PRC now calls brothers and sisters:
With its pointed reference to the defense of the gospel of grace in the Canons of Dordt, the “Formula of Subscription” makes plain that it would be wicked for the PRC to yield to the temptation to regard the truth of particular grace as secondary, and what this wickedness would be. The doctrine that the grace of God in Jesus Christ in the preaching of the gospel and in the covenant is particular, not general, is fundamental to the gospel of salvation by the sovereign grace of God alone. It is not a “distinctive” of the PRC. It is not a parochial teaching. It is not of merely historical interest. It is not Western. It is the gospel of Holy Scripture as confessed in the Canons of Dordt and in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Insofar as a church abandons or attacks the truth that the grace of God in Jesus Christ in the gospel is particular—for the elect in Christ alone—that church abandons or attacks the gospel and the God of the gospel. “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:15, 16).
Denial of particular grace in the covenant of grace explains why Reformed and Presbyterian theologians in reputedly conservative churches are now advocating the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by faith and the works of faith. To avoid restricting grace in the covenant to the elect children of believers, Reformed and Presbyterian churches have adopted a covenant doctrine that conditions a general promise, universal grace, and a salvation intended for all the children without exception upon the faith of the child. Today, perceptive theologians are taking the doctrine of a conditional covenant to its logical end: justification and salvation in the covenant are by faith and faith’s works. The error, it should be noted, is not only the addition of “faith’s works.” The error is also that faith itself is made an obtaining or meriting work of the sinner, rather than the mere instrument, given by God to His elect in Christ, through which the sinner receives, as pure gift, the righteousness of Christ.
How foolish it would be for the PRC to yield to the temptation to set the issues involved in the common grace controversy of 1924 aside as insignificant when they see where the doctrine of common grace has brought the CRC.11
I have often wondered how it is that the PRC so quickly is leaving the truth. But this should not come as a surprise to us. The truth has not only the power to save but also the power to damn. The truth has the power to gather and to drive away. It is not only the power of a savor of life unto life but also a power of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16).
The call to those in the PRC and all their brothers and sisters in other Reformed and Presbyterian churches is to repent! The call is to flee! Flee from the lie! Join yourselves to the true church where the gospel is faithfully preached, which is found in the RPC, that you may find rest for your souls. Open your eyes to see how the truth has driven you to the camp of the wicked and to regard as your brothers and sisters people in denominations against whose false doctrine you once battled. You are not reforming; you are joining with the antichristian movement. These alliances Satan is using to unite these churches against the truth and the kingdom of light, which will come to its fullest manifestation in the last days.
Time and time again, scripture shows that the antithesis is between the elect, those who truthfully profess the name of God, and those who are closest to them, even members of their own families, and not those first of all who are the most outwardly wicked. To deny this and to broaden the antithesis is against scripture and the confessions and is un-Reformed.
Q. 30. Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?
A. They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Savior. (Confessions and Church Order, 95)
Share on
Footnotes:
