Truth is fallen in the street! 

The truth had a place in the homes of the city. It had a place of honor in these homes and was a welcome guest. It was the speech and judgment of these homes, so that there was life and peace in these homes. Truth was loved and embraced for the health and peace that it brought. 

But love of the truth turned into hatred of the truth. Formerly honored, the truth came to be despised. Love turned to sin. “In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood” (Isa. 59:13). This could only mean hostility toward the truth, which is always the enemy of the lie. So these words follow: “And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off” (v. 14). Likewise, the same treatment was accorded to those standing for the truth, still seeking to honor it. “Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey” (v. 15). 

So was the truth rejected, driven out, and then deprived of all strength to stand. Thoroughly, it was made into an outcast and banished from its home, from its hearth, and from its board. 

No place for truth! 

No place for true doctrine, the truth of God’s word. No place for true sanctification and true good works, from the heart, by faith alone without works and motivated by pure gratitude for salvation. Neither any place for the truth that is the sovereign work of God’s counsel in the church and church history. Neither any place for the truth of what has been said and done. Fabrications and deceit are the order of the day. Charges and accusations, from slander and schism to the heresy of antinomianism and hyper-Calvinism, are hurled with vicious anger. Truly, “he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey.” 

In three different ways in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), besides the essential, doctrinal controversy about the role of good works in salvation, the truth has been denied its proper place and driven out to lie fallen in the street. 

The first way is the broadest and has to do with the history of the PRC, with particular attention to the controversies that have taken place in those churches: the beginning in 1924, the schism of 1953, and the present condition of apostasy. 

We can think of a simple line and direction that has been understood and embraced by the churches of the denomination. This line and direction has been drawn from the denomination’s beginning and can be identified in two ways. 

First, the line can be identified as being clearly out of the Protestant Reformation and as being specifically in line with the Reformed doctrine of the three forms of unity. According to the understanding and application of this line, the Protestant Reformed denomination began out of a controversy regarding common grace. Because three ministers stood against common grace and were determined to stand in line with the Reformed creeds on the truth of sovereign, particular grace, they were deposed from the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) by their respective classes. Thus those ministers began a new denomination, the Protestant Reformed Churches. The three ministers’ stand and their churches’ support were clearly doctrinal in character. There was no other distinction between the PRC and the CRC, not in worship and not in practice. 

The same Reformed line was evident in the controversy over conditions in the covenant that led to and followed the schism of 1953. On the basis of the doctrine of the three forms of unity, the Declaration of Principles was composed and the judgments of First Protestant Reformed Church and Classis East were made against the erroneous doctrinal statements preached by Rev. H. De Wolf that directly led to the schism of 1953. It became evident as the controversy developed on the pages of the Standard Bearer that the question facing the denomination was whether the line of 1924 would be followed or whether differing lines would be entertained. Following the controversy, preaching and teaching in the Protestant Reformed Churches emphasized the doctrinal issues. Even those who left the PRC and eventually returned to the CRC admitted that those doctrinal issues were paramount in the controversy.

Second, this same line runs beyond the denomination into the history of the church long before the Protestant Reformed denomination came into existence. It is the line of the division that always runs through church history between salvation by grace and salvation by works. This was the line between the Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholicism, the line between the Synod of Dordt and the Remonstrants, the line between the corrupt state church of the Netherlands on one side and the Afscheiding (1834) and the Doleantie (1886) on the other. That line continued between the PRC and the CRC in 1924. It is the line not only between grace and works, between the truth and the lie, but also between apostasy and faithfulness to the truth. It is the line between the liberalism of the lie and the conservativism of the truth.

What about this line? It is a line of orientation. It is also a line of demarcation that demands commitment. As drawn from the past into the present, so it must continue into the future as a standard to be maintained by churches and Christians that desire to be faithful to the same truth of the everlasting, infallible word of God. What does it mean to be faithful? It means to keep to the same Reformed line that has been drawn through the past into the present. For this reason the line must be straight.

The truth is both a proper understanding of this line and a proper understanding of this line as straight.

The lie that is destruction of the truth to drive it out of its place must have reference to the very same Reformed line. The lie lays hold on that line, definitely claims fidelity to that line, and declares the straightness of that line. But, as with all deceit, the lie does something else. At the very same time that the lie declares faithfulness to the line as a straight line, in reality the lie bends or curves the line.

The lie bends or curves the line in two ways.

The first way the lie works is to lay out all kinds of credentials for authority. These credentials are meant to suppose faithfulness in the minds of the hearers or readers. An ordained minister or professor has formal credentials, even of a conservative, Reformed or Presbyterian denomination. Deliberative assemblies are assumed to be always led by the Spirit into the truth. This first way is the use of the position of authority to bend the line of truth by introducing subtle changes. At the same time, authority will insist that the line is just as straight as it ever was. Honoring authority, and invoking the fifth commandment to that end, must mean agreeing that, yes, the line is as straight as it ever was.

The second manner of the lie is first to cause confusion and within the caused confusion to bend the line. The lie makes the line fuzzy and indiscernible to the hearers or readers. Then false doctrines are slyly introduced to bend or curve the line in a different direction. False statements are introduced, surrounded with all kinds of true. These false statements can be supported, retracted, changed, and presented again, even numerous times. They are claimed with authority to be truth, even with apologies for confusion that might have been caused, confusion often attributed to the hearers or readers rather than to the authors of the false statements.

At the same time, the purveyors of the lie garner the power of institutions and assemblies for their own protection. At first this power is used to grant toleration for the lie to bend and curve the line, later on this power is used to support and maintain the lie, and still later on it is used to destroy and cast out those who try to show the bend or curve in the line. “He that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey.”

The second way in which the truth is driven out is by a rewriting of history. The terms of a controversy as officially and authoritatively reported are changed, often into the very opposite of what is true. The nature of the controversy is changed. Analysis is drastically changed. Ends and means are completely overturned.

At this point it may be exceedingly hard to understand, but the recent controversy in the PRC was originally about the role of good works in salvation and about those good works displacing the perfect work of Jesus Christ. So had a minister preached. So had a consistory supported that preaching against protestants. So had a special committee of classis supported that preaching. So had a classis supported that preaching against appellants. But a synod said no. That synod sustained the appellants against the classis, against the special committee, against the consistory, and against the pastor. That synod ruled that the controversial statements indeed displaced the perfect work of Christ.

There was also a middle point in the historical proceeding of the controversy, with Synod 2018 of the PRC. This middle point was one of forgiving and forgetting. Good decisions had been made, it was said. It was time to move on for the sake of peace and unity. 

To speak further about the controversy, or to implicate individuals in terms of the controversy, would bring charges of slander and schism.

Bygones must be bygones. This controversy must not be spoken of, for it wasn’t very much at all, just a little confusion about terminology. Certainly nothing approaching a heresy trial. Judgment was strongly expressed in the Standard Bearer following Synod 2018. To speak further about the controversy, or to implicate individuals in terms of the controversy, would bring charges of slander and schism. Those who brought those charges were not kidding.

Once that middle point was given room and time to work, the process of overturning the clear history began. It was time to drive the truth out into the street. No longer were the decisions of Synod 2018 to uphold the doctrine of salvation by grace alone without works. The history was revised. What really happened at the synod was not a condemnation of certain statements as displacing the perfect work of Christ with good works done by believers. It was not about a minister being wrong, or a consistory or a classis being wrong about good works. It was not about any threat to the doctrine of justification by faith alone without works or to the doctrine of the unconditional covenant.

Instead, the controversy was about the importance and necessity of good works. It was about the positive relationship between good works and following blessings and benefits of God. The believer’s good deed of faith is indeed necessary and required for receiving from God the assurance of justification. The believer’s good works are necessary and required for receiving following blessings from God: peace and prosperity, ordered home and family, and much more.

What happened to the truth of this history? The truth was gagged: “Speak no more of this!” Then the truth was driven out: “No displacement by good works, just the necessity of good works.”

There is another line of the controversy that was also rewritten, another way in which the truth was driven out to fall in the street.

Antinomianism.

The best defense is a good offense.

This was an earlier work of rewriting, one that had happened nearly from the start of the controversy. In fact, the argument has some merit that this rewriting had been going on for many years in the denomination.¹

This rewriting had to do with answers to protests. Protestants and those agreeing with protestants had their documents and statements analyzed. Those people were found to be antinomians. Thus charges of antinomianism were maintained. These charges of the heresy of antinomianism, laid by the same consistory which had supported the statements that displaced the perfect work of Christ, were also supported by the classis involved.

When appeals were made to synods, as before, the synods overturned the charges of antinomianism, denying that the individuals in question were antinomian. The Acts of Synod for the years 2016 and 2017 can very easily be consulted to show this.

However, just as with good works, this additional line of antinomianism would also be rewritten and re-presented. The lie was published. The lie was welcomed. Really and truly, the authorities have reported, the controversy was about antinomianism. Antinomians have always been at the root of unrest and controversy. The antinomians tried to drive out the preaching of the necessity and importance of good works in the life of the believer. The antinomians tried to drive out the preaching of the necessity and importance of faith. The antinomians tried to drive out the call of the gospel and the use of the law to guide the believer in a life of gratitude. But the church assemblies joined forces to repel the attack for the sake of the unity and peace of the church.

So has the truth been driven out and left fallen in the street, and the lie is welcomed to stand and to stay.

Yet a third way in which the truth has been driven out is by the use of deception, rumor, and innuendo. “They deny the necessity of good works.” “They deny the will of the regenerate.” “They deny the call of the gospel.” “They deny that the Christian can repent.” “They deny regeneration.” “They deny sanctification.” “They deny the reward of grace.” “They deny the authority of the assemblies.” “They deny the way of Matthew 18.” “They deny the promises and threatenings of the Bible.” “They are bitter.” “They are jealous.” “They are angry.” “They are desperate.”

No matter how much these falsehoods are proven false by what has been preached and written by those laboring to depart from evil (Isa. 59:15), it makes no difference. For at bottom, the lie is really one: departing from the PRC can only mean leaving the kingdom. There can be no reasons of conscience. Such a departure can only mean getting further involved in all kinds of errors of antinomianism and hyper-Calvinism.

Or, there are other rumors afloat. One: “Oh, we know that some pretty awful things have been done. The leaders of the denomination at present are not on the right track in many ways. But there are younger ministers who see through these things. They see the duplicity. They see the misuse and abuse. They see the distortions. When they have their opportunity, they will work hard to set things right. They will speak up. They will sort out the confusion. They will see that protestants and appellants are treated fairly. They will put things back on track.”

Another: “Yes, things are certainly in deep turmoil now. There is a great deal of pain and agony. Not everything has been done well, and for some not-very-good reasons. But that is no reason to leave. It is the nature of the case to have things like this go on. But when this is all finished and the bad actors on both sides are gone, then everything will be as it should be. Confusion will be gone, and the truth will shine brightly and clearly again. We will find ourselves in full possession of our heritage, and the assemblies will protect it. God’s eternal grace will be on the PRC and will always be on the PRC.”

How can these rumors possibly be true? Can men, even young men, who are presently busy holding their peace at all these things, be expected or relied upon to open their mouths later on? Can it possibly be expected that when the truth has been so badly savaged, cut off, starved out, and driven out to fall in the street, that the truth will find its legs, rise up, go back in, and take its rightful place? The true history of the church tells a far different story. Apostasy remains apostasy. The truth remains as a distant memory, once in the homes, once honored and welcomed, but now only lies there, where it fell, in the street.

But church history is also a history of reformation. There are those who depart from evil. And, according to Isaiah 59:15, they make themselves a prey. They are pursued, hunted, caught, and pilloried. They must be made to serve as examples.

Yet they find their way out, happy and blessed to have the truth that has been driven out before them. They know the happiness of Psalm 94:15: “Judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.” To them is spoken the beatitude that Christ spoke for John the Baptist’s encouragement while he sat in Herod’s prison: “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.”