Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: November 2005

Volume 39 November 2005 Number 1

in this issue:

The Archives of the Protestant Reformed Churches – Russell J. Dykstra

A Review Article – David J. Engelsma

Should the Mass Really Be Condemned? – Clayton Spronk

Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times, by Martin Greschat. Tr. Stephen E. Buckwalter. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Pp. xii + 334. $34.95 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

The Two Reformations: The Journey from the Last Days to the New World, by Heiko A. Oberman. Ed. Donald Wein–stein. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003. Pp. xix + 235. [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory, by Donald G. Bloesch. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2004. 336 pages. $27 (cloth). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

The Reformation: A History, by Diarmaid MacCulloch. New York: Penguin Books, 2005. Pp. xxvii + 832. (Paper) [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

Evangelicals Then and Now, by Peter Jeffery. Evangelical Press and Services Ltd., 2004. Pp. 128 (paper). [Reviewed by Herman Hanko.]

The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, by Sigmund Mowinckel. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004. Pp. xvii + 608 (paper). [Reviewed by Herman Hanko.]

Word Pictures of the New Testament: Volume 1, The Gospel According to Matthew; The Gospel According to Mark. A.T. Robertson, Revised and Updated by Wesley J. Persch-bacher. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic and Professional, 2004. 412 pages. (Hardcover). [Reviewed by Russell J. Dykstra.]

Word Pictures of the New Testament: Volume 2, The Gospel According to Luke. A.T. Robertson, Revised and Updated by Wesley J. Perschbacher. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic and Professional, 2005. 311 pages. (Hardcover). [Reviewed by Russell J. Dykstra.]

Puritan Papers, Volume Five, 1968-1969. J. I. Packer, Ed. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing Company, 2005. 251 pages (paper). [Reviewed by Russell Dykstra.]

Editor’s Notes

With thanks to God we introduce the first issue of the 39^th volume of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. This issue reflects current trends among many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations — trends that, we are convinced, must be resisted.

This issue also contains an article on the Archives of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). In this article Prof. Russell Dykstra traces the beginning of the PRC from March of 1925 through November of 1926. The Dutch have a saying, “beginselen werken door” (principles work through). Among other matters, this article demonstrates the truth of that saying as it concerns the error of common grace.

Prof. David Engelsma’s review article will open the eyes of the discerning reader to the many faceted heresy of the so-called “Federal Vision,” which has infected so many churches in our day. It is a “must read.”

Clayton Spronk, a senior in the seminary, demonstrates with accuracy and clarity the fact that Question and Answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism must be retained.

RDD

The Archives of the Protestant Reformed Churches

Russell J. Dykstra

It is characteristic of a Reformed church that it retains accurate records of its official actions, and thus of its history. This accurate record keeping is in harmony with the Lord’s command to His church that “all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:40). Preservation of records is also due to a conviction that the history of the church is worth preserving for future generations, for it is the Lord’s church, and its history is a record of how the exalted Lord has led and governed His church in times past. The church of every age promises to show “to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done” (Ps. 78:4). If the church needs additional reason for preserving its history, there is this: Good records must be kept in order that, on the one hand, the church does not repeat the mistakes of the past, and on the other, the church retains her heritage.

The Protestant Reformed Churches are zealous for good order and the keeping of accurate church records. The Church Order, essentially the Church Order adopted by the great synod of Dordrecht (1618-19), requires that accurate records be maintained. Article 46 requires that “(i)nstructions concerning matters to be considered in major assemblies shall not be written until the decisions of previous synods touching these matters have been read, in order that what was once decided be not again proposed, unless a revision be deemed necessary.” Obviously, Article 46 can be observed only if complete and accurate records of past decisions have been maintained.

This care is demanded in all the ecclesiastical assemblies. To facilitate this, minutes are accurately kept and are approved at the end of a meeting as “script” minutes. Once more, at the beginning of the next meeting, the body approves its record of decisions as “transcribed” minutes.

The Reformed church does more than require this “on paper,” she enforces it. In the Protestant Reformed Churches, the church visitors annually peruse the minute books of the individual consistories and deaconates. The books must be in order if they are to receive the approval of the church visitors.

Like most Reformed and Presbyterian churches, the Protestant Reformed Churches have archives — a collection of records, documents, or other material of historical interest. The synod of the PRC has demonstrated concern for the archives of the churches. The Acts of the first synod of the PRC (1940) records the following (Art. 32): “Because this Synodical gathering is the first in the history of our denomination and it therefore will undoubtedly prove of great historical interest, Synod decides it proper that a photograph be taken of the delegates and officers of Synod and a copy be preserved in the archives.” A later synod assigned the stated clerk the task of “maintain(ing) the archives of synod.” This includes, in addition to the printed Acts, correspondence, supplements, agendas of synods, as well as the original copies of the first and second clerks’ minute books from each synod. For many years these records were kept in boxes and filing cabinets in the home of the synodical stated clerk. In 1977, synod appointed a committee to microfilm all the synodical records (an estimated 16,000 pages at that time) and to place the same in safety deposit boxes.

These synodical archives are currently part of a more general collection of documents of historical interest. The archives are stored in a special, climate-controlled room located in the lower level of the Protestant Reformed Seminary. The concept of denominational archives was approved by the synod of 1978, acting on a proposal that arose out of the faculty of the seminary and was brought by the Theological School Committee.

Today the archives include a wide variety of items. The records of Classis East and Classis West and of synodical committees are stored there. Documents from various individual Protestant Reformed Churches, including but not limited to minute books, are kept in the archives. In addition, personal papers of deceased ministers have been given to the archives. A complete set of the magazine Concordia, later Reformed Guardian, is preserved there, as well as Reformed Witness Hour material, photographs, sermons, and much more.

One interesting and significant set of documents in the Protestant Reformed archives is the minutes of the combined consistories in the early days of the Protestant Reformed Churches (1925 and 1926). To call them the Protestant Reformed Churches is not accurate. During those first two years they called themselves the “Protesting Christian Reformed Churches.” In November of 1926 they would form a classis and adopt the name Protestant Reformed Churches. The minutes of the classis continue through 1939. In 1940 the churches began meeting as a synod, and from that time on the (printed) Acts of synods are the record of the broadest body in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

All the minutes from 1925 to 1939 were written in Dutch, and for many years were stored in various places, mainly in the home of the stated clerk. Eventually it reached the point that no one ever referred to them, due not only to their inaccessibility, but also to the fact that few members were fluent in the Dutch.

Providentially, however, they were (largely) preserved, and Rev. Cornelius Hanko, in his later years, gave a significant gift to the PRC — he translated these minutes and the supplements into English. His son, Prof. Herman Hanko, then undertook the painstaking work of checking and editing the translation. The result is that a copy of the early minutes is available in English — stored in the archives.

For a member of the PRC, the minutes of the combined consistorires make fascinating reading! Much of the early history is recounted by Herman Hoeksema in his book The Protestant Reformed Churches in America. His account encompasses far more than these minutes. Yet the minutes convey something of the stern reality of the events and circumstances. They record the concrete struggles, the hard decisions, the daily, monthly, and yearly effort required by faithful men whom God raised up to shoulder the burden of establishing, building, and maintaining what would, by the grace of God, become the Protestant Reformed Churches in America.

This article arises out of the conviction that there is value in giving public exposure to some of the documents in the PRC archives. Some denominational archives have regular publications designed to publicize the content of the archives by publishing articles based largely on the historical documents in the archives. The PRC have no such publication. Hence, the Journal will be used for that purpose on this occasion, and probably in the future.

The following article will trace the record of the meetings of combined consistories, a small band of churches that called themselves the “Protesting Christian Reformed Churches,” from the first record in March of 1925 through November of 1926, when they decided to form a classis and adopt a new name, thus officially acknowledging their separation from the Christian Reformed Churches.

Minutes of the combined consistory

The “Minutes of the combined consistory meeting held in Grand Rapids, Mich., March 6, 1925” read as follows:

Article 1. After the singing of Psalm 89:7 this meeting was opened with prayer by Rev. H. Hoeksema.

Article 2. The minutes of the previous meeting were hereupon read, as also the report of the committee appointed at the previous meeting to draw up a common agreement.

Article 3. It is moved and supported to discuss the report seriatim.

Article 1 is read and adopted.

Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are read and adopted.

Thereupon the resolutions a, b, c, and d were read and adopted.[1]

Article 4. The committee proposes to regard this meeting as the first meeting of these combined consistories of Kalamazoo I, Hope, and Eastern Ave. This proposal was taken over by the gathering and, after being discussed, was adopted.

So begins the first preserved record of the meetings of the consistories of Hope, Kalamazoo I, and Eastern Ave. — at that time, Christian Reformed Churches all. Each of these churches was in conflict with its respective classis over the “Three Points of Common Grace” adopted by the Synod of 1924. The classes demanded of all the pastors in these churches — Rev. George M. Ophoff in Hope, Rev. Henry Danhof in Kalamazoo, and Rev. Herman Hoeksema in Eastern Ave., what the Synod had not, namely that these men formally express their agreement with the “Three Points.” Upon their refusal to do so, and having the support of their consistories, they were disciplined by their classes. The classes suspended the ministers and eventually declared that all the ministers and any of the consistory members that supported the ministers were officially deposed. (Classis Grand Rapids East met on January 28, 1925 to depose Herman Hoeksema, and took that decision on January 29.)

These first entries above indicate that this was not the first meeting of these consistories. In fact, Hoeksema writes that on January 29, 1925, “the various consistories of the expelled churches held their first combined meeting in the basement of Eastern Avenue Church. The matter of organization was discussed. The Consistory of Kalamazoo I favored immediate formation of a classis. With a view to maintaining the appeal to synod, however, the majority proved to be in favor of forming a union of combined consistories. No definite action was taken at this meeting, but a committee was appointed to consider the matter and to outline a program for future action."[2] This report, the minutes indicate, was adopted.

The three churches existed in an awkward and unsettled position for a year and a half. As they themselves acknowledged in their “Act of Agreement,” the pastors, elders, and deacons of the three churches, “together with their congregations are actually expelled from the fellowship of the Christian Reformed Churches.” Convinced that these actions of the classes were both unjust and contrary to Reformed church polity, the consistories agreed that they could not “simply submit themselves to the action of said Classes until such time as Synod shall have considered their appeal, which they made in a legal way to Synod, but were forced by circumstances to continue to function in their respective offices.” Expelled from the churches, yet appealing their unjust treatment to synod; barred from office by classis, yet having congregations that needed preaching and pastoral care; prohibited from preaching, yet being compelled by their convictions to preach the truth over against common grace and the well-meant gospel offer. These churches functioned for two years in these difficult circumstances.

At the same time, these churches were not willing to take care only of their own respective congregations. In the tumultuous circumstances, they adopted the name “Protesting Christian Reformed Churches,” voted to bring their united appeal to the Synod of 1926, and even determined to speak out on the doctrinal and church political issues. Concerning this latter, the first set of minutes reveals that the three consistories as a body,

Rev. Hoeksema soon visited northwest Iowa, where he preached and lectured indefatigably. After three weeks, a congregation was formed in Hull. B. J. Danhof, the nephew of Rev. Henry Danhof who had been refused entrance into the Christian Reformed Church for his stand against common grace, received the call from Hull to be her first pastor.

That forced the combined consistories to grapple with another question, namely, how should B. J. Danhof be properly ordained and installed in the office of minister? This was faced at the next combined meeting, held May 6. The consistories agreed to examine him as a group. Delegates were present from Eastern Ave., Hope, Hull, and Kalamazoo. The examination is recorded as follows:

The consistories approved the examination of B. J. Danhof, and instructed Hull to continue with the installation/ordination of B. J. Danhof. His uncle, Rev. Henry Danhof, was appointed by the consistories to ordain the younger Danhof.

It is evident from the above that the three consistories had a firm resolve in the conflict to stay the course and go on alone if need be. The cause was not, first of all, the church-political offenses. The unjust depositions were grievous and, unless they would be reversed, set up insurmountable barriers to reconciliation with the denomination. However, the real impetus for all these activities by the three churches was the concern for the truth of sovereign and particular grace. The very first resolution adopted by the combined consistories demonstrates this. It reads:

Whereas the Synod of 1924, assembled in Kalamazoo, Mich., adopted three points of doctrine which, according to our most sacred conviction, are in direct conflict with our Reformed Confessions and principles;

These men were convinced that their stand for the truth justified their binding together and performing various actions that would normally be performed by a classis. These officebearers had made it plain to their respective classes that they could not but maintain sovereign and particular grace and condemn common grace. Their consciences were bound by Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

It is also plain that they could not see the actions of the Christian Reformed Church classes being reversed. Only in that light can one understand that they would send Rev. Hoeksema to northwest Iowa and that he would there organize a congregation.

Another immensely significant decision, this one concerning seminary education, further demonstrated the resolve of the consistories to maintain a separate existence as needed. At the January 1925 meeting, the combined consistories appointed a committee to prepare advice in the matter of training students for the ministry. At the May 6 meeting, the consistories adopted the following program of pre-seminary and seminary instruction:

In both departments, essays and sermons would be assigned. It was decided that the “various courses… would be divided among the three ministers Hoeksema, Danhof, and Ophoff.”

These were not empty plans. The word evidently went out into the churches that seminary training would be offered. Concrete action followed at the June 4, 1925 meeting when the combined consistories considered numerous applicants for the seminary. The consistories interviewed twelve applicants, most of whom hailed from Grand Rapids, though some were from Kalamazoo and Chicago. It is noteworthy that the consistories granted student aid only to the unmarried students, thus setting a precedent that would continue in the Protestant Reformed Churches for decades.[3] Hoeksema reported that the seminary started classes immediately that June, with eight students.[4] Of those, five would be among the first ministers in the Protestant Reformed Churches, namely C. Hanko, R. Veldman, W. Verhil, L. Vermeer, and G. Vos.

At the August meeting, the combined consistories agreed with the recommendation of Eastern Ave. that a congregation be organized in Byron Center. All seventeen families of this group were already members of Eastern Ave., as were all but one of the fourteen additional individuals. In addition, the consistories agreed to organize a group of twenty families in Waupun, Wisconsin. This would bring the number of Protesting Christian Reformed Churches to six.

The minutes reveal a developing conflict over what to do with Ralph Danhof, a second nephew of Rev. Henry Danhof. He had attended Calvin Theological Seminary, but had expressed disagreement with the Christian Reformed synod’s decision on common grace. Already at the June 4 meeting of the combined consistories, he had expressed an interest in becoming a candidate in the Protesting Christian Reformed Churches, but no action had been taken. The consistory of Kalamazoo came to the meeting in August of 1925 with a proposal “to appoint an extra minister for the now existing churches, who can take the place of one of the other ministers, who then would have a free hand to preach in other places.” The minutes record that “a long discussion followed, the pros and the cons were discussed. A motion is made to adopt this proposal of Kalamazoo, namely, to call a communal pastor. This motion is defeated.” Instead, the decision was made to hire Ralph Danhof for $2000 to assist with pulpit supply in the churches as needed.

The matter was far from finished, however. The consistories of Kalamazoo and Hull both brought separate proposals to the November meeting that the churches should examine R. Danhof and make him a “common minister” in the churches, for he had no call from a congregation. The combined consistories, however, did not accede to these requests, but continued his status of candidate and unordained pulpit supply, especially for the vacant churches.

In connection with R. Danhof, the following interesting — and odd — minute is recorded.

That indicates something of the unsettled situation. R. Danhof was serving as stated supply for the churches without himself being a member of the churches, though one could argue that he was a member of the Christian Reformed Church, of which the Protesting Christian Reformed Churches were still officially a part. This was soon rectified, and it was reported to the February 1926 meeting of the combined consistories that “Cand. R. Danhof has become a member of Eastern Ave.”

This committee reported to the combined consistories meeting of February 3, 1926, as follows:

At the meeting of February 3, 1926, Hull requested that a group of families in Doon, Iowa be organized immediately. This was approved, and Rev. Ophoff went out as appointed to organize the seven families and several individuals.

In connection with Hull’s request to organize a church in Doon, though prior to it, a letter from the clerk of Eastern Ave. gives a glimpse into a significant turn of events in the continued conflict between Eastern Ave. and about 92 members of Eastern Ave. who had protested the actions of their consistory in supporting Rev. Hoeksema. Up to this time, the consistory, with the overwhelming majority of the congregation, had continued to use the church building on Eastern Avenue. The courts ruled against the consistory, giving the church building to the 92 members who did not want to be part of the Protesting Christian Reformed Churches. Note the clerk’s description of these events in Grand Rapids, in this letter to the families in Doon, Iowa.

Returning to the matter of a united protest, it was noted (above) that the ministers reported their inability (for lack of time) to meet in order to prepare a protest. It seems exceedingly strange that they would not be able to find time to meet for something as vital as writing the protest to the Synod of 1926!

However, there is more here than the minutes reveal. The Danhofs and their consistories (Kalamazoo and part of Hull) were frequently at odds with the other ministers and consistories. Rev. Hoeksema describes in some detail the various conflicts.[6] The May 4, 1926 minutes of the combined consistories indicate trouble in the school, since a committee is appointed to deal with difficulties there. As a result, two students were expelled (one from Kalamazoo, and one from Iowa), and classis adopted a censure of Rev. B. J. Danhof for his involvement in the matter. Another committee was appointed to deal with Candidate Ralph Danhof, and Eastern Avenue objected to his being given another three-month assignment to assist the churches — more indications of continued conflict.

The result was that the minutes, filled with such unedifying details, omit any reference to the protest to the Synod of 1926. It should be noted that the minutes of the combined consistories meeting of August 3, 1926 are missing. However, from the extant supplements of that meeting, it is evident that the consistories appointed a committee to make recommendations for organizing the Protesting Churches. Rev. Hoeksema relates that after the meeting in August, Rev. Henry Danhof resigned from his position in the seminary. Both he and Rev. B. J. Danhof resigned from their editorial positions in the Standard Bearer.[7]

The end was near for all three of the Danhofs. The curatorium of the school reported to the meeting of November 3, 1926 that they were unable to convince Rev. Henry Danhof that he should return to teaching in the seminary. R. Danhof, subsequent to the November 3 meeting, wrote a letter to all the consistories informing them that he had resigned from the churches. In September, Rev. B. J. Danhof wrote a public notice in a northwest Iowa paper that he and his congregation were no longer part of the Protesting Christian Reformed Churches. This would bring matters to a head.
Members of Hull lodged protests against this action of Rev. B. J. Danhof with the consistory of Hull, and, failing to receive satisfactory answers, they appealed to the combined consistories meeting in Kalamazoo on November 3, 1926. Astounding it is, but Rev. B. J. Danhof not only came to the November 3 meeting, he opened the meeting as the chairman, leading in devotions before turning the chair over to the next minister in the rotation. Several more churches had been organized in the last six months, and the churches represented were Byron Center, Doon, Eastern Ave., Grandville Ave., Hope, Hudsonville, Hull, Kalamazoo, Munster, and Waupun. Near the start of the meeting, the following article is recorded:

Since two of the three delegates from Hull left the meeting, the instruction from Hull was not discussed. Neither was the instruction from Grandville Avenue, namely: “The consistory of Grandville Ave. requests of Rev. B.J. Danhof an explanation in regard to his position that he takes toward our church group.” [Emphasis in the original, RJD.] As it turned out, Rev. B. J. Danhof was finished with the “Protesting Christian Reformed Churches.” He publicly renounced the “Protesting Churches” and took much of the Hull congregation with him back to the Christian Reformed Church.[8]

The combined consistories did treat the protests/appeals against the article written in the public newspaper by Rev. B. J. Danhof, and the actions of the Hull consistory for supporting him. The combined consistories decided as follows:

The consistories turned to the committee report on organization. The minutes record the following:

At this point in the minutes, the following appears, apparently at the insistence of Rev. H. Danhof and Kalamazoo’s elders:

However, the combined consistories chose not to treat this instruction from Kalamazoo immediately, as the same minute continues:

It is noteworthy that Rev. Henry Danhof, who had pushed for the organization of a classis at the first meeting of the combined consistories, opposed the same a year and a half later. Rev. Hoeksema relates that Rev. Henry Danhof and some of the Kalamazoo elders soon left the meeting, never to return.[9] (The minutes do not record their leaving.)

However, the combined consistories did act on the instruction of Kalamazoo mentioned in Article 11 above. The consistory of Kalamazoo wrote as follows:

Unfortunately there is no further mention found of this committee because the minutes of the February 3 meeting are missing. Rev. Hoeksema relates that at the February 1927 classis this committee reported “complete failure” in trying to resolve the differences. He wrote further:

The classis then decided to express that as long as the Reverend H. Danhof would not change his attitude, it was neither possible nor desirable to seek his co-operation. A copy of this decision was sent to the consistory of the Kalamazoo Church.

Since that time the Church of Kalamazoo has led a separate life. It is known as the Protesting First Christian Reformed Church of Kalamazoo.[10]

Rev. Hoeksema adds, “Thus, amid strife and trouble, the new denomination of Protestant Reformed Churches was born.”

The first two years of the combined consistory meetings was indeed a tumultuous period. Not only did the little band of churches face denominational and family pressures for standing for the truth of sovereign grace, endure loss of church property, and experience financial hardships, they had to deal with these bitter internal disagreements besides. Clearly, it is only by the grace of God that the movement did not disintegrate. Like the apostle Paul who in I Corinthians 15:8 described himself “as one born out of due time (literally: out of an abortion or miscarriage), so the Protestant Reformed Churches were “born out of due time” — despised and hated. Yet, adds Paul, “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” Likewise the Protestant Reformed Churches.

1. Whereas the Synod of 1924, assembled in Kalamazoo, Mich., adopted three points of doctrine which, according to our most sacred conviction, are in direct conflict with our Reformed Confessions and principles;

2. Whereas, by the actions of Classis Grand Rapids East and Classis Grand Rapids West, we are denied the right to discuss and interpret said three points of doctrine of said Synod;

3. Whereas, by the actions of said Classes, the pastors, elders and deacons of Kalamazoo I, Hope and Eastern Avenue, together with their congregations are actually expelled from the fellowship of the Christian Reformed Churches;

4. Whereas it follows necessarily from the action of said Classes, that said office-bearers and their congregations cannot simply submit themselves to the action of said Classes until such time as Synod shall have considered their appeal, which they made in a legal way to Synod, but were forced by circumstances to continue to function in their respective offices as pastors, elders and deacons of their respective congregations;

5. Whereas they are informed and know positively, that hundreds of our people outside of our own congregations share our convictions and with us cannot acquiesce in the actions of Classes and Synod, neither from a doctrinal nor from a Church-political viewpoint;

6. Whereas the above-mentioned matters concern us as appealing churches in common, and demand our cooperation and united action;

Therefore, be it resolved by the Combined Consistories of Kalamazoo I, Hope and Eastern Avenue, assembled March 6, 1925 in the Eastern Avenue Church:

a. That we adopt as our common basis the Three Forms of Unity and the Church Order of the Reformed Churches;

b. That at the same time we stand on the basis of our appeal and intend to address our appeal to the Synod of 1926;

c. That we unite as Consistories for the following purposes: (1) To unitedly bring our appeal from the actions of Classes Grand Rapids East and West to the Synod of 1926. (2) To decide on such matters as have reference to the interests of our congregations in common; (3) To decide in all matters that pertain to the furnishing of information and advice to others, outside of our own congregations.

d. That whatever shall be decided by said combined Consistories by a majority-vote, shall be considered firm and binding.

I must acknowledge that after proper consideration and constant deliberation I cannot be satisfied with the standpoint of Reverend H. Hoeksema and others. To my consciousness there are elements in Holy Scripture for the which they cannot find a place in their theological system, not, at least, the proper place according to Scripture. Therefore, I have a desire to confess that I went too far in my condemnation of the Christian Reformed Churches, also with respect to the decisions of the Synod of 1924, namely, with regard to the Three Points. And since in the past I slandered persons and churches, therefore I also make a public confession and at the same time seek forgiveness.

To my consciousness the views of Hoeksema and others can only end in dead orthodoxy and philosophical determinism. Many psychological conceptions have been discarded and I have experienced that this is true not only from a theoretical, but also from a practical viewpoint.

I am sorry that I ever went along and thus became schismatic. My prayer is that all the involved brethren and sisters in the Protesting congregations will follow my example, as several members of my own congregation already did, and return to the Christian Reformed Churches.

Asking you, Mr. Editor, to allow this a place in De Wachter, and thanking you for its publication, I am with loving regards,

The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner. Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004. Pp. 299. $21.95 (paper).

Written by several of the leading proponents of the heresy now solidly entrenched in most of the reputedly conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and spreading, The Federal Vision brazenly defends justification by works; universal covenant grace to every child of believing parents, if not to every person sprinkled with water in the name of the triune God; an election unto grace that fails to save; baptismal regeneration; and the falling away of many who were once united to Christ. Among the authors are Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Peter J. Leithart, Steve Schlissel, and Douglas Wilson.

The movement that calls itself the “federal vision” teaches justification by the obedience of the sinner. “The presuppositions undergirding Paul’s statement [in Romans 2:13 ] include the facts that the Law is ‘obeyable,’ that truly responding to the Law (the Word) in faith does justify” (Schlissel, p. 260). Romans 2:13 states that “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Schlissel’s comment on the text, that the “Law is ‘obeyable,’” affirms justification by deeds of obedience to the law.

Schlissel denies that Romans 3:28 has any and all human works in view when it speaks of the “deeds of the law”: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Rather, the reference is only to “Jewish” deeds, that is, ceremonial works done with the motive of meriting salvation (pp. 260, 261). According to Schlissel, the apostle merely excludes “Jewish” deeds from justification. Other deeds, deeds performed by the believer in the power of true faith, are included in justification. The apostle Paul concluded that a man is justified by faith without deeds—any deed and all deeds. Steve Schlissel concludes that a man is justified by faith with deeds—deeds performed by faith.

Peter Leithart charges the Reformation with distorting the truth of justification: “The Reformation doctrine of justification has illegitimately narrowed and to some extent distorted the biblical doctrine” (p. 209). The distortion is the Reformation’s sharply distinguishing justification and sanctification and its insistence that justification is a verdict (pp. 211, 213). Leithart argues that justification in Scripture has “a much wider scope of application than the strictly judicial” (p. 209). In fact, according to Leithart, “`justifying is never merely (sic) declaring a verdict” (p. 213; the emphasis is the author’s). Justification is also the sanctifying work of God within the sinner enabling him to perform good works, which then become part of his righteousness with God, as Rome has been teaching for the past five hundred years.

The “federal vision” teaches that the saving grace of God in Christ is universal within the sphere of the covenant, but that this grace can be resisted and lost. Everyone who is baptized, particularly every child of believing parents who is baptized, is savingly united to Christ, although many later fall away and perish.

The new covenant theology in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches teaches that election fails to save many whom God chooses. It teaches that the eternal election of Ephesians 1:4 and Colossians 3:12 fails to save many who are the objects of this gracious choice. “And yet not all who are united to the Elect One, Jesus Christ, remain in Him and fulfill the high vocation that election brings with it. It is still to be seen who will persevere and who will fall away from within the elect people” (Lusk, p. 294).

The movement teaches baptismal regeneration. The ceremony of sprinkling with water in the name of the triune God effects the temporary regeneration and salvation of everyone baptized. It effects regeneration by the power of the Spirit, but the ceremony regenerates and saves everyone who is baptized, particularly every infant of godly parents. This regeneration and salvation can be lost. “The threshold into union with Christ, new life in the Spirit, and covenant membership in the family of God is actually crossed when the child is baptized” (Lusk, p. 109).

The advocates of the “federal vision” teach the falling away of covenant saints from saving covenant grace. They teach the falling away of saints aggressively. The falling away of covenant saints is one of their favorite doctrines.

Rich Lusk manages to incorporate all of the false doctrines mentioned above in a paragraph that could have been written by James Arminius or Cardinal Bellarmine.

The “federal vision” rejects sovereign grace in the sphere of the covenant. In the sphere of the covenant, particularly among the children of believers, election fails, Christ died for all, grace is resistible, justification is by works, saved saints fall away to perdition, and salvation depends on the will of the sinner.

The root of the heresy is an erroneous doctrine of the covenant. The “federal vision” is covenant doctrine through and through. The doctrine of the covenant being developed by the movement teaches that God graciously makes His covenant with all the children of believers alike. In the sphere of the covenant, regarding all baptized babies without exception, grace is universal. The movement is one of covenantal universalism. But the covenant is conditional. Whether the covenant is continued with a child, whether a child continues in the covenant, whether a child continues to enjoy union with Christ and covenant grace, and whether a child is finally saved by the grace of the covenant depend upon the child’s faith and obedience. The movement is full-fledged Arminianism in the realm of the covenant.

In short, the error whence all the denial of sovereign, particular, irresistible grace springs is a covenant doctrine that refuses to permit God’s election to control covenant grace and salvation.

The Reformed creeds mean nothing to these men, all of whom loudly protest that they are Reformed. The Canons of Dordt reject the Arminian heresy that “there is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith without being a decisive election unto salvation.” The reason is that this teaching is “a fancy of men’s minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: ‘And whom He foreordained, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30) ” (Canons of Dordt, I, Rejection of Errors/2). Contradicting the Canons and breaking the “golden chain of our salvation” bother Rich Lusk not at all. With (undocumented) appeal to Augustine, he distinguishes a “predestination unto grace,” which is only temporary and does “not lead to final salvation,” from “predestination unto perseverance,” which does issue in final salvation (p. 275).

With cavalier disregard for the teaching of the Reformed creeds, James B. Jordan denies that Jesus merited salvation for His people. “Nowhere [in Scripture] is Jesus’ accomplishment spoken of as earning salvation” (p. 192). “What we receive is not Jesus’ merits, but His maturity, His glorification” (p. 195).

Absurdity and “Fuzzy-edged Mystery”

The presence in the book of James Jordan is significant. Jordan is one of the old-guard Christian Reconstructionists, involved, if I am not mistaken, in the fiasco of Tyler, Texas, where an early attempt to bring in Christian Reconstruction’s earthly kingdom died aborning. Jordan connects the original movement of Christian Reconstruction with its contemporary manifestation. It should not be overlooked that most of the men of the “federal vision” are zealots on behalf of postmillennial Christian Reconstruction.

James B. Jordan is the wildest hare started by Christian Reconstruction. His speciality is allegorical, fantastical exegesis. In comparison with Jordan, Origen and Harold Camping are pikers. According to Jordan, in his essay in The Federal Vision, Adam in Paradise would eventually have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with God’s approval. Adam would then have died a “good-death.” By this “good-death,” he would have been glorified, maturing into eternal life. This would have enabled Adam to fight the dragon for a while in the unfallen world at large. But Adam would have needed help. Help would have appeared in the form, not of St. George or Frodo, but of the incarnate Son of God. The eternal Son would have become incarnate even if Adam had remained obedient. But the incarnate Son likewise would have passed through the “good-death” of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that He too could “mature.”

This fantasy is further embellished by Jordan with mind-boggling theories about garments and distinctions among animal, vegetable, and mineral (pp. 151-200).

If James Jordan is the exegete of the “federal vision,” the movement is not only heretical but also absurd.

The absurd is unintelligible.

Theological unintelligibility does not trouble Rich Lusk. Bravely drawing the inevitable conclusion from his premise that the Bible is not logical, Lusk is content to “live with fuzzy-edged mystery” (p. 279). “Fuzzy-edged mystery” is “federal vision” language for ignorance. The specific area in which Lusk is content to live in his “fuzzy-edged mystery” is the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Lusk readily admits that his doctrine of an illogical Bible, which is full of contradictions, particularly concerning the perseverance of the saints, derives from his “biblical-theological/redemptive-historical” method of interpreting the Bible, in opposition to what Lusk calls a “systematic/dogmatic” method (p. 280).

In fact, Lusk’s “fuzzy-edged mystery” is due to his denial that Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God is non-contradictory and logical, as non-contradictory and logical as the God whose Word it is. As the written Word of God, Scripture is clear, sharp-edged, and certain revelation, particularly of God’s preservation unto glory of every recipient of His grace. Scripture is clear, sharp-edged, and certain to faith.

“Luther’s Malady”

It falls to Steve Schlissel to make the most despicable attack on the gospel of grace. Schlissel calls Luther’s knowledge of himself as a guilty sinner before a just God, out of which Spirit-worked knowledge came his understanding of the Bible’s gospel of justification by faith alone, “Luther’s malady” (p. 255). Luther’s sickness! Justification by faith alone, therefore, is a diseased doctrine. Since justification by faith alone is the cornerstone of the entire Reformation gospel, the entire Reformation gospel of sovereign grace is sick.

This “malady,” the men of the “federal vision” are determined to cure by a massive infusion of works-righteousness into the theology of Presbyterian and Reformed churches and into the spiritual lives of Presbyterian and Reformed people. The device by which works-righteousness is injected into the bloodstream of the churches and people influenced by the “federal vision” is a conditional doctrine of the covenant.

The heresy of the “federal vision” is deep and broad. It penetrates to the heart of the gospel, and it extends to all the doctrines of grace.

It can be refuted and rooted out only by the doctrine of a covenant of unconditional, particular grace.

And this is why the Presbyterian and Reformed churches where the heresy is boldly taught are both unwilling and unable to resist it.

Should the Mass Really Be Condemned?

Clayton W. Spronk

Introduction

Question 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks: “What difference is there between the Lord’s Supper and the popish mass?"[1] This question has always been controversial because of its sharp conclusion that the mass is “nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.” This paper intends to study this controversial question by facing the simple question: Should Q. 80 be a part of the confession of the Reformed churches?

In answering the question of whether or not Q. 80 should remain a part of the Catechism, I will begin by looking at how important this question was historically and is today for Reformed Christians. The importance of the teaching of Q. 80 sheds light on whether or not the question ought to be confessed by Reformed Christians. Secondly, I will look at how Q. 80 fits in with teachings of the Heidelberg Catechism. This is an important issue because there are some who argue that Q. 80 is out of harmony with the rest of the Catechism. Finally, I will examine the accuracy of Q. 80’s teachings concerning the mass. Specifically I will look at Q. 80’s charge that the mass is a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Christ and an accursed idolatry.

The Importance of Q. 80

In the 1500s

The difference between the Lord’s Supper and the mass was an important issue in the sixteenth century, when the Catechism was written. This question was so important that it was the one question that was added to the Catechism after its original publication. Somewhere around February of 1563 the Catechism appeared in its first edition in German. In that first edition this question was absent. The question was added as part of the second German edition and the first Latin edition — both published in March of 1563.[2]

Zacharias Ursinus, one of the two authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, explained the importance of this question and why it must be included in the catechism.

This Question is necessary on account of the errors, and horrid abuses which the mass has introduced into the Church. It is otherwise asked, Why is the mass to be abolished? This question, however, is contained in the above; because the differences which exist between the Lord’s supper and the Popish mass, constitute the reasons why the mass is to be abolished.[3]

Ursinus shows that the purpose of the Catechism is not simply to explain how the mass and the Lord’s Supper differ from each other, but to show that, because of these differences, the mass must be abolished.

Ursinus’ exposition of the Catechism points out three differences between the Lord’s Supper and the mass. First, the Lord’s Supper teaches that forgiveness is accomplished only by Jesus’ death on the cross. Secondly, in the mass Christ is bodily present in the bread and the wine, whereas the Lord’s Supper teaches that He is in heaven. Thirdly, in the Lord’s Supper Christ is worshiped in heaven above, whereas in the mass He is said to be worshiped in the elements.[4] Based on these three differences between the mass and the Lord’s Supper, Ursinus gave nine reasons why the mass ought to be abolished.[5]

Ursinus’ explanation points out that it is important to recognize the differences between the Lord’s Supper and the mass, not just so that Rome is condemned, but so that Reformed churches and believers are warned against corrupting the Lord’s Supper. It is often pointed out that Q. 80 was added after the Council of Trent published its condemnation of Reformed teachings. Thus, it is argued that Q. 80 is “a counterblast to the anathemas of the Council of Trent."[6] One is left with the impression that especially Emperor Frederick simply wanted to condemn the Roman Catholic Church since Rome condemned the Reformed churches. Though it may be true that this question and answer was added in response to the Council of Trent, it certainly is not true that the significance of this question and answer in its sixteenth century context is limited to its condemnation of Rome. Reformed Christians living in the sixteenth century needed this explanation of the differences between the Lord’s Supper and the mass. More than just being taught the differences between the two, many in that day needed to be taught that the mass must be condemned. In Q. 80 the Catechism is following the lead of John Calvin in counseling the people against dishonoring Christ and worshiping an idol by participating in the mass.

In Calvin’s Geneva, a city dominated by the Reformation, it was relatively easy for those who converted to the Reformed faith to shun the mass and celebrate the Lord’s Supper. But for those who converted to the Reformed faith and lived in regions that were dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, unpleasant consequences were attendant with rejection of the mass. These people faced the strong temptation to compromise their convictions with regard to the mass.

From the relative safety of Geneva, Calvin sympathized with Reformed believers who struggled with the issue of whether or not they could participate in Roman Catholic ceremonies, including the mass. To a brother who lived in France, Calvin wrote, “I feel extremely sorry on your account, and, as in duty bound, pity your situation, in not being able to come forth out of Egypt in which so many Idols and so much monstrous Idolatry are daily presented to your eyes."[7] Calvin recognized that this brother and others lived in situations that made living according to the Reformed faith difficult, “unless they make a pretence of indulging in Idolatry."[8]