Vol. 78; No. 13; April 1, 2002

Go to: table of contents

EDITORIAL POLICY

 

Every editor is solely responsible for the contents of his own articles. Contributions of general interest from our readers and questions for "The Reader Asks" department are welcome. Contributions will be limited to approximately 300 words and must be neatly written or typewritten, and must be signed. Copy deadlines are the first and fifteenth of the month. All communications relative to the contents should be sent to the editorial office.

REPRINT POLICY

 

Permission is hereby granted for the reprinting of articles in our magazine by other publications, provided: a) that such reprinted articles are reproduced in full; b) that proper acknowledgment is made; c) that a copy of the periodical in which such reprint appears is sent to our editorial office.

SUBSCRIPTION POLICY

 

Subscription price: $17.00 per year in the US., US $20.00 elsewhere. Unless a definite request for discontinuance is received, it is assumed that the subscriber wishes the subscription to continue, and he will be billed for renewal. If you have a change of address, please notify the Business Office as early as possible in order to avoid the inconvenience of interrupted delivery. Include your Zip or Postal Code.

BOUND VOLUMES

 

The Business Office will accept standing orders for bound copies of the current volume. Such orders are mailed as soon as possible after completion of a volume year.

 

l6mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm and 105mm microfiche, and article copies are available through University Microfilms international.

For new subscribers in the United States to the Standard Bearer, there is a special offer: a ½ price subscription for one year--$8.50. Those in other countries can write for special rates as well to: The Standard Bearer, P.O. Box 603, Grandville, MI 49468-0603 or e-mail Mr. Don Doezema.

Each issue of the Standard Bearer is available on cassette tape for those who are blind, or who for some other reason would like to be able to listen to a reading of the SB. This is an excellent ministry of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church. The reader is Ken Rietema of Southeast Church. Anyone desiring this service regularly should write:

Southeast PRC
1535 Cambridge Ave. S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506.

Table of Contents:

Meditation - Rev. Ronald J. Van Overloop

·        Jesus Washed Their Feet

Editorial - Prof. David Engelsma

• "He Shines in All That's Fair"

Letters

• Extreme and Unrealistic

All Around Us - Rev. Gise J. Van Baren

• “Theologically Correct?”
• Christians as Taliban

Taking Heed to the Doctrine – Rev. Steven Key

• Saving Faith—A Certain Knowledge

Seminary Letter – Prof. Russell Dykstra

• The Letter

Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass - Prof. David J. Engelsma

·         The Prominence of Eschatology in Scripture

Understanding the Times – Mr. Cal Kalsbeek

• Western Ideas (1)

When Thou Sittest in Thine House - Abraham Kuyper

• Home Life

Book Reviews:

·      Looking into the Future:  Evangelical Studies in Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker.  Grand Rapids:  Baker Academic, 2001.  383 pp.  $29.99 (paper).  [Reviewed by the editor.]

·      Holy Fairs:  Scotland and the Making of American Revivalism, by Leigh Eric Schmidt.  Second edition with a new preface.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2001.  Pp. xxix + 278.  $27 (paper).  [Reviewed by the editor.]

 

News of the Churches - Mr. Benjamin Wigger

• Varia

Meditation:

Rev. Ron VanOverloop

 

Rev. VanOverloop is pastor of Georgetown Protestant Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan.

Jesus Washed Their Feet

 

   Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

   He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.…

   So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

John 13: 1-17

 

 

     Jesus began the night on which He was betrayed with an act of selfless service.  It was motivated by love for His own. He ended the night continuing to do the same.

      Jesus and the twelve had spent most of the day (“the first day of unleavened bread,” Mark 14:12) in the small town of Bethany.  Sometime during that day Jesus had sent Peter and John into Jerusalem “to make ready the passover” (Luke 22:7ff.).   The preparations consisted of locating a room large enough for Jesus and the twelve, of purchasing a lamb, bringing it to the temple, slaying it, taking back a portion of the meat and roasting it for the Passover meal.  Also they had to purchase the wine for the four Passover cups, the unleavened bread, and the sauce of bitter herbs.  In addition they had to make sure that the table was properly furnished.  Last, but obviously not the least, they were to make sure that the basin, water, and towel were there for the dusty feet of the travelers.

      Now late in the afternoon Jesus and the remaining disciples made their way from Bethany to Jerusalem and to the large upper room.  This was a trip of a couple of miles.  Their sandaled feet would tread the dirt roads until they came to the cobbled streets of the city of Jerusalem.  Ordinarily the host would see to it that a servant was present to perform the demeaning task of washing the guests’ dirty feet.  As Jesus and the ten were led by Peter and John into the large upper room, no such servant was present.

      Prior to their arrival at the room, there had been some quiet, but intense, discussion among the disciples.  Scripture’s word is “strife.”  The strife among them had to do with “which of them should be accounted the greatest” (Luke 22:24).   The likely occasion for this strife was the prominence given to Peter and John, who had been chosen to make the Passover preparations.  They had no problem recognizing that Jesus was the greatest, but when it came to each other, then they had a great problem.  They all instinctively compared themselves to the other eleven.  While some of the twelve were ready to say that they were better than all the others, many were ready to say that they were not less than most of the others.  They all saw themselves ahead of some of the others.

      This “strife” is on their minds when they climb the stairs to the prepared room.  It is one thing to compare ourselves to our fellow-saints when we are all sitting nicely together in a worship service.  But it is quite another to compare ourselves to those fellow-saints with whom we’ve just had some “strife.”  Then it gets hard!  Then the willingness to be less than them, to wash their feet, is very difficult.

      It was in this frame of mind that the disciples entered the upper room.  As the first one entered, he looked around for the customary servant, saw none, felt the pressure of the others climbing behind him, and then walked farther into the room — past the pitcher of water, the towel, and the basin.  Each followed in kind.  Eventually they all found themselves seated around the table, ready to eat.  They all would rather sit and eat with dirty feet (possibly in such a position that a pair of dirty feet was close to their faces), than be the one who would take the part of the servant to the others.  They each desired to excel, something which is done only at the expense of others.  We never put ourselves above someone without stepping on them.

      At this point, without saying a word, Jesus arises from the table and walks over to the servant’s instruments.  He took off His large outer garment, tucked up His remaining clothing so it would not interfere with His work, poured some water into the basin, took the towel, and walked to the feet of one of the disciples.  After washing that pair of feet He went to the next, and then the one after that.  The whole room had to be pretty quiet.  Their embarrassment shut them all up.  They did not know what to do or say.  They certainly were not going to get up now and tell the Master to step aside.

      What was on Jesus’ mind when He did this?  First, He was undoubtedly wounded by their strife, by the refusal of each of them to acknowledge that he was His servant.  Their fighting to be the greatest affects Him greatly.  But something greater than those personal wounds was in His mind and heart. He “knew that his hour was come” (v. 1). This was the hour “that he should depart out of this world unto the Father.”  In Jesus’ mind and heart, that which characterized this hour was obedience to His Father’s will.  But there was more than just obedience on His mind.  His obedience was always from the heart, that is, His obedience was in love and with love.  Yes, He loved His Father and would do His Father’s will in love for Him, but also His obedience included love for His own.  And He not only would do whatever His Father wanted Him to do for His own (the ones the Father gave Him before the foundation of the world), but also He would love His own.  He “loved His own which were in the world.”  He loved not just in word, but also in deed. His love was kind and not easily provoked.  His love bore all things, endured all things, and never failed.

      Jesus was focused on the purpose for which the Father had sent Him into the world.  He was thinking about the fact “that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God” (v. 3).  He was also thinking about the fact that Satan was putting into the heart of Judas Iscariot the thought that now was the time to betray his Master (v. 2); and Jesus did not want to be passive before Satan, but wanted voluntarily and actively to give Himself up.  And Jesus was thinking of His love for His own, whom “He loved ... unto the end” (v. 1).  With these thoughts in His mind and heart, Jesus took upon Himself the task of washing the feet of His arguing, sinning disciples.  He would wash them and cleanse them.  He would teach them and show them real leadership.

      Jesus taught the disciples (and us) that the purpose for His coming is to manifest a love which cleanses from sin.  The humble act of washing feet was for Jesus the beginning of the terrible suffering He would endure the rest of this night as well as the next day.  This was the beginning of Jesus’ resolve to love His own unto the end.  This is Jesus willing Himself to enter the hour.  He voluntarily sacrificed Himself.  This was a willing action on His part, instead of His being a hopeless prey of Satan.  His washing their feet was the powerful proclamation of His determination to go voluntarily to the cross.  The path on which Jesus stepped when He girded Himself and took the towel and water-filled basin was a path that concluded at the cross on Calvary’s mount.  He poured water, and He would soon pour out His blood on the cross, cleansing them from their sins.  By suffering and dying, the Master became the Servant of His own, so they might be perfectly clean.

      The upper room is filled with silence.  The silence was interrupted only by the sounds Jesus made as He went from one pair of feet to another.  Silently they all let it happen, until ... Peter can’t be silent.  He waited until the Master came to his feet.  Then He had to speak.  “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?”  He is reluctant to let Jesus do it to him.  He is embarrassed and amazed that Jesus would do this.

      Jesus responds by telling Peter that something is taking place that he is not able to understand at this time (v. 7).  This does not stop Peter.  In his ignorance he is bold to speak, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.”  Peter declares to Jesus and to the other disciples that he will not let it happen.  The rest of them might allow the Master to be their servant, but he will not! In a mixture of ignorance, pride, and ardent love for his Master, Peter cannot bring himself to submit to this washing.

      Jesus quietly and simply points out to Peter that by refusing this washing, he would miss everything.  “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” (v. 8).  The Peter we know then had only one response.  In his great (though ignorant) love for Jesus, Peter recants.  He admits that he did not know that the implication of his refusal to have his feet washed meant that he was refusing Jesus altogether.  That is the last thing Peter wanted.  So he then declares himself ready to have Jesus wash not only his feet, but also his hands and head (v. 9), his whole body.

      The Lord continues patiently.  He is ready to teach Peter and us a necessary distinction.  There is first the thorough and complete washing of regeneration.  This is such a spiritual washing that one is left “clean every whit” (v. 10).  This is justification, God’s declaration of complete forgiveness and imputed righteousness on the basis only of the gracious acts of His Son.  This cleansing is once accomplished forever.  It does not need to be repeated.  But there is another washing, which must follow the washing of regeneration and justification.  It is the washing of sanctification, the on-going cleansing of the regenerated and justified child of God who still sins in this life.  The daily washing of sanctification is for those who have already received the other washing.  While in this life, Jesus’ disciples still get their feet dirty.  They still sin, and they are in need of having their feet washed, of having the constant reminder that they are forgiven and righteous.

      Jesus very pointedly adds a new thought, “and ye are clean, but not all.”  The inspired record adds, “For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean” (v. 11).  Not Judas!  Not all of them are saved, even though all of them receive the sign of the washing.  That which is taking place is not the reality, but only the sign of the reality.  The sign is the physical washing (or baptism).  The reality is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart.  Eleven of them are clean; one is not.

      Now that Peter is silenced, Jesus continues to make His way around the table.  Now it is really quiet in that upper room.  Nothing else is said.  Now their minds are filled, not only with thought of embarrassment, but also with the question of who among them is not clean.

      The Master dries off the last pair of feet, sets down the instruments of humility, puts on His outer garments, and returns to His spot at the table.  They silently watch.  He then speaks.  They are ready to listen.  He desires to teach them about real service and real greatness.  Don’t forget that their earlier strife was about who of them should be the greatest.  “Know ye what I have done unto you?”

      They all knew that He was Master and Lord.  They had repeatedly spoken of Him as such.  That meant that they should have washed His feet!  But they were all so busy worrying about being better than the other that they neglected the Master (and their duty to Him).  It is always that way.  When we are trying to be better than another one of those for whom Christ died, then we are really neglecting the Christ.

      This willingness to neglect our duties to the Master because we are focused on ourselves and our argumentative brothers and sisters indicates ignorance about greatness.  None of the disciples had yet learned what constituted greatness in the kingdom of which Jesus was King.  Admittedly, the way it is in Jesus’ kingdom is different from the way it is in the kingdoms of men in this world.  Rank in this world means that you climb on top of and over others.  Rank in the Master’s kingdom means a willingness to serve.  One who leads in the Master’s kingdom is one whose joy it is to serve those whom he leads.  (That is why motherhood is so great!)

      “I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”  Believing in Jesus means that we follow Him.  Believing in the foot-washing Jesus means that we follow His example.  Jesus is not telling them and us that we must literally wash each other’s feet.  Rather He instructs them and us to have hearts (and then lives) of willing service to each other.  All of Jesus’ disciples must be ready to render to each other whatever service is needful, no matter how lowly it may seem.  Instead of strife over greatness we must strive to want to serve.  We must strive to serve.  Jesus did so for us!

      Any professing disciple of Jesus who is not willing to deny himself and to serve all or any of his fellow-saints is doing one horrific thing: considering himself to be greater than Jesus, the Master and Lord (v. 16).  Following Jesus and His example means striving to have His attitude of heart and mind.  We must have a serving spirit in our heart and in our lives.

      The washing of dirty feet is a lesson about Jesus’ loving His own to the end.  His love flows freely and unconditionally.  It will never end.  Nothing can separate us from it — not even the sin of our strife.  He loves us, not only to the end of His earthly life, but also to the end of this age, and then beyond into all eternity.  Gratitude for such unending love should shame us of all our pride and motivate us to serve Him by serving each other.

Editorial:

Prof. David J. Engelsma

“He Shines in All That’s Fair” (and Curses All That’s Foul) (2)

 

      As the previous editorial pointed out, the recent book by Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair:  Culture and Common Grace (Eerdmans, 2001), contends that the theory of common grace that was adopted by the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in 1924 can be helpful to all Christians.  Its usefulness is that, in a world of division and strife, it provides a basis for the friendship of Christian and non-Christian and, especially, for the cooperation of Christians with non-Christians in working for a decent, humane, and even God-glorifying culture. 

      With the notable exception of its teaching of a “well-meant offer of salvation” to all who hear the gospel, which was added by the CRC, the theory of common grace that the CRC adopted in 1924 is basically the doctrine that was developed by the Dutch Reformed theologians Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.  The theory holds that God has an attitude of favor in history toward all humans without exception.  In this common favor, God gives to all, the reprobate ungodly as well as the elect believers, such material gifts as health and family, rain and sunshine, and wealth and long life.  In this favor, He also works in all men by His Holy Spirit.  To this gracious operation of the Spirit in the unregenerated are due both his natural gifts, for example, the musical ability of a Mozart and the putting prowess of a Tiger Woods, and, more importantly, the restraint of sin in him so that he is only partially depraved.  By virtue of the good that is in him by the gracious, though non-saving, operation of the Spirit, the unregenerated can perform works that are truly good.  This goodness of the non-Christian is the ground of the Christian’s friendship with him, of the Christian’s appreciation of much of the culture of the ungodly world, and of the Christian’s cooperation with unbelievers to develop a culture that is even better.

      Dr. Mouw urges a more active use of common grace by those Calvinists who confess it.  He is critical of the passivity of many, who seem to be content merely to recognize common grace in the falling of the rain on the wicked and in the good deeds of unbelievers.  Calvinists who confess common grace must proclaim it as a basis of the shared life of all humanity and as a foundation of united cultural endeavor.  These Calvinists must also aggressively practice common grace in “common grace ministries,” for example, teaching in the public schools, counseling non-Christians with psychological and marital problems, helping the poor, and addressing national policies and problems in the “public square.” 

      Mouw himself emphasizes the “empathy” of God that is implied by common grace.  In His favor to all, God shares the feelings of unbelieving men and women.  God rejoices with the non-Christian husband and wife who are reconciled after the husband’s adultery.  He sympathizes with the Muslim mother whose child is brutally murdered before her eyes by her oppressors.

      Even though he is an advocate of common grace, Richard Mouw takes seriously the opposition to the theory of common grace by Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC).  It is the arguments of Dr. Mouw in defense of common grace, against the objections of Hoeksema and the PRC, that are the concern of this editorial.

 

Absence of Scripture

      Scripture plays almost no role whatever in Mouw’s apology for common grace.  There is a reference to Revelation 21:24-26 as the passage that Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck explained as teaching that “the honor and glory of pagan cultures” will enter into the holy city in the Day of Christ.  But this passage says nothing about a grace of God toward pagans.  Verse 27 warns that nothing will enter the holy Jerusalem “that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie.”  The notion of Kuyper and Bavinck is absurd.  Will the angels carry into heaven a copy of Plato’s Symposium?  Michelangelo’s David?  Leonardo’s The Last Supper?  the score of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9?  Mouw himself is rightly dubious of the enthusiastic endorsement of heathen culture by the two Dutch theologians:  “Those of us who endorse the idea of common grace would do well to recognize the ways in which its teachings frequently have fostered a trium–phalist spirit that has encouraged false hopes for a premature transformation of sinful culture” (p. 50).

      Mouw’s appeal to I Peter 2:11-17, the related exhortation in I Peter 3:15, 16, and a corresponding passage in the Old Testament, Jeremiah 29, is not intended to prove a grace of God at work among the heathen and ungodly, but a certain calling of the people of God toward the heathen and ungodly (pp. 76ff.).

      Only in the last chapter, late in the development of his defense of common grace, does Dr. Mouw bring up Luke 6:35, a text that is important in the controversy over common grace.  Even then, Mouw’s use of the text is cautious and limited.  He appeals to it against Hoeksema’s assertion that God “hates His enemies and purposes to destroy them, except them He chose in Christ Jesus.”  Hoeksema’s assertion, says Mouw, “does not seem to comport well, however, with Christ’s command to ‘love your enemies, and do good, expecting nothing in return” even as the Father ‘is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked’ (Luke 6:35). ” Then, overlooking that Hoeksema had denied that God loves His reprobate enemies, not that we should love our unbelieving enemies, Mouw adds, “When the Savior refers here to people who curse us and abuse us, is he thinking exclusively of our Christian enemies?  It seems unlikely” (p. 83).

      This is the extent of the reference to, and use of, Scripture.  One text bearing on the issue of common grace is quoted in part and is then very briefly and hesitantly explained as favoring a grace of God to the reprobate ungodly. 

      This is not intended as a criticism of Dr. Mouw.  There can be no doubt whatever that he knows all the passages that the defenders of common grace have adduced in support of the doctrine.  We may be sure that he is thoroughly conversant as well with the interpretation of these texts by the defenders of common grace.  But Richard Mouw is a candid man.  The real reason why he embraces and promotes common grace is not the clear, compelling testimony of Holy Scripture.  He says as much when he admits that, after forty years of studying the issue, he is still not clear as to what common grace is.

 

Real Reasons for Common Grace

      In He Shines in All That’s Fair, Richard Mouw sets forth the real reasons for his acceptance and advocacy of a common grace of God.  Mouw, a Christian and a Reformed man, sees in unregenerated men and women in Southern California and elsewhere a goodness that does not harmonize with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity.   He sees non-Christians who are decent, moral, friendly, loving, kind, and compassionate.  He sees men and women who are avowed unbelievers performing works that are good:  reconciling in marriage, caring for their children, helping the poor, giving their life in selfless devotion to their country or their fellowmen. 

      The reason for Mouw’s advocacy of common grace is that he finds in himself an empathy with ungodly people that seems to conflict with the Reformed faith’s teaching that God hates the reprobate wicked.  Mouw takes delight in the putting ability of a Sabbath–desecrating professional golfer.  Much more important to the Fuller Seminary theologian is his pity for the Muslim mother, worshiper of Allah, whose infant child is killed before her eyes by the men who have just raped her. 

      And the reason for his embrace of common grace is that Dr. Richard Mouw, learned, influential Christian scholar and teacher, thinks that he and other Christians should be able to cooperate with unbelievers on behalf of a culture of justice, mercy, and peace.  But he is well aware of the Reformed doctrine of the antithesis between the church and the world, believer and unbeliever, godly and ungodly.  He Shines in All That’s Fair has a lengthy section on the antithesis.  Nor is Mouw of a mind to repudiate the antithesis.  On the contrary, he takes issue with his mentor, Henry Stob, who was inclined to limit the antithesis to opposing principles of goodness and evil in the world.  Mouw recognizes that the biblical antithesis comes between persons.

      A theory that accounts for what Mouw sees, feels, and thinks is common grace.  Does he see goodness in the world of fallen men and women?  A common grace of God must be at work in this world.  Does he feel pity for the tormented Muslim woman?  This pity must be a reflection of a common grace compassion that God Himself has for the woman, idolater though she is.  Does he desire to work together with non-Christians to hold together the fragmenting culture of North America and even to make it a good culture?  This desire must be grounded ultimately in a purpose of God Himself to create good, “godly” cultures in history by the common grace efforts of decent unbelievers and especially by the united efforts of believers and unbelievers.

      Common grace solves the problem of the discrepancy between what Mouw sees, feels, and thinks and what the Reformed confession maintains.  Mouw sees goodness in the world of fallen, natural men and women, whereas the Reformed confession teaches total depravity.  The solution is a common grace of God that gives some deliverance from the condition of total depravity without affirming the natural goodness of fallen man. 

      Mouw’s pity for an idolater suggests a compassion of God for the reprobate wicked, whereas the Reformed confession teaches that God is compassionate toward the elect only and that His wrath is revealed from heaven against the pagans who hold the truth under in unrighteousness.  The solution is a common grace favor of God toward the wicked, distinct from His special, saving grace to the elect.  

      Mouw thinks that he should form friendships with non-Christians and that he should work with them to create a good culture, whereas the Reformed confession teaches separation and hostility between the believer and the unbeliever.  The solution is a common grace of God that believer and unbeliever share and practice in the sphere of everyday, earthly life, while remaining separated as regards worship and salvation.

      Common grace is the distinctly (not:  distinctively) Reformed way of accommodating the Bible’s severe judgment upon the world of the ungodly and the Bible’s equally stringent call to believers to spiritual separation from this world to the seemingly contrary facts of our experience.  Reformed people are not the only ones to have noticed the apparent good of the ungodly, or to have felt that God ought to have some sympathy for His reprobate enemies, or to have thought it proper for Christians to enjoy friendship with non-Christians and to cooperate with non-Christians in building a good society.  Theological liberals explain these things in terms of the natural goodness and brotherhood of all mankind (now:  humankind).  Roman Catholics fall back on natural theology.  These doctrines have been objectionable to Reformed theologians, although Rome’s natural theology is now finding some favor.  But common grace provides the very same conclusions and warrants the very same practices as liberalism and Roman Catholicism:  the goodness of unregenerated man; a love of God for all; the friendship (brotherhood?) of believer and unbeliever; and the union of church and world in building a good culture, or, shall we say, kingdom of man.  And the theory of common grace has the advantage of a Reformed reputation.

      In basing the theory of common grace upon his own seeing, feeling, and thinking, rather than upon the Word of God, Dr. Mouw is not unique.  What sets him apart from many other defenders of common grace is his candor in acknowledging what the real basis of common grace is.  Common grace as developed by Kuyper and Bavinck, adopted by the CRC in 1924, and now widely advertised in the Reformed community as one of the hallmarks of Calvinism is simply not the doctrinal fruit of careful, thorough study of the Word of God.  Scripture does not teach the partial depravity of the unregenerated.  Scripture does not teach that the works of those who are dead in trespasses and sin are good—good in God’s judgment as the product of His grace.  Scripture does not share the enthusiasm of the defenders of common grace for the possibilities of a good culture as the result of the united efforts of the church and the world.  It is tough going to find Scripture permitting, much less commanding, the friendship of the seed of the woman with the seed of the serpent.

      Nor does the theory of common grace that is now a shibboleth in Reformed churches derive from John Calvin.  Calvin on the rare occasion speaks unadvisedly of a “peculiar grace” in the ungodly, usually in connection with Calvin’s recognition of outstanding natural gifts possessed by them.  But one will search Calvin in vain for a grace that renders the unbeliever only partially depraved, that produces a positively good culture from the efforts of those who hate God, that is a basis of the friendship of Christian and non-Christian, and that expresses the purpose of God to create good cultures in history apart from His crucified and risen Son.  The father of culture-building common grace in the Reformed tradition is not John Calvin, but Abraham Kuyper.  Common grace is certainly not a main theme in the theology of John Calvin.  It is not even a theme.  It is barely a mention.

 

Doing Theology at Monroe and Division

      Common grace is based on what we see, feel, and think as we observe our neighbors and the world.  This explains its popularity and its endurance, in spite of the contrary testimony of the Reformed confessions and in spite of its flimsy, scant support in the Bible.  “Let the critics of common grace say what they will, we see good in the ungodly; we feel pity for them in their woe, and God should feel pity also; we cannot but think that we ought to pitch in with the decent non-Christians to make our society, and man’s life in it, good—a society reflecting, not Christ, but ‘Judeo-Christian principles.’”

      If the issue is to be decided on the basis of what we see, feel, and think, the theory of common grace wins hands down.  For we critics of common grace also see fine, decent, moral, friendly, likable unbelievers.  We too see good in the ungodly, much good.  Sympathizing with the suffering neighbor who worships another god, or no god at all, we too wonder why God does not feel pity for him.  We also groan over the division, folly, injustice, and misery of human life in a society, a nation, and a world and are tempted to suppose that the Christian is permitted, indeed called, to join with non-Christians in what would then seem the noblest of all causes:  creating a society, a nation, a world, of justice, peace, beauty, and goodness.  Without the gospel and Spirit of Jesus Christ!

      We see such things, feel such things, and think such things when we see, feel, and think apart from the Word of God.

      This was what Herman Hoeksema was warning against, I now realize, when more than once during my seminary days he would say, “Do not do your theology on the corner of Monroe and Division” (in those days, the heart of the life of the city of Grand Rapids). 

      Neither may Richard Mouw do his theology on the streets of Southern California.

      Regardless of the seemingly contrary evidence of our experience of the world, we must resolutely form our theology from Holy Scripture, guided by the Reformed confessions.

Letters:

Extreme and Unrealistic

 

   I read the article on dating (Standard Bearer, Dec. 15, 2001) and felt compelled to respond.  The sarcastic manner in which this was treated was not necessary nor befitting an article to be published in the Standard Bearer.  More importantly, I don’t agree with the content of the article.  How do you propose our young people get to know each other?  People have dated for a long time and prayerfully came to the conclusion that being together for the rest of their lives would not be right.  Yes, there is hurt in this but that is all part of life.  To put dating in the same category as sinful, lustful, evolutionist, and ugly is an extreme position, to say the least.  This may be a surprise to some people, but we don’t all live five minutes from the local Poppin Fresh Pies and aren’t able to gather with other young people of our churches for a simple cup of coffee.  We travel hours to the nearest PR church (other than our own).  When our young people meet someone they would like to know better, they have to call for a “date.”  We don’t have the luxury of seeing people in a group setting.  Dating is not the same as promiscuity.  To assume that the two automatically go together and are sinful and lustful is a false assumption.  Let’s hope that we as Christian parents have instilled these basic Christian principles in our children.  If we haven’t, then something is seriously wrong with our instruction.  Christian parents have to be aware of temptations that young people have, but all dating does not end up in wickedness!

      As far as the Young People’s Convention is concerned, I’m sure there are many happily married people who met and “paired off” at the convention.  I would hardly think they considered this as “stunting their life.”  For many, this may be the only week of the year that they will have any contact with other young people in our churches.  If that results in someone meeting his future spouse, let’s be thankful, not critical.

      I dare say every minister in our church “dated” his wife.  Was their intent to be lustful, ugly, and evolutionist?  Perhaps their intent was just to get to know [yes, sometimes by being alone] the person they would be alone with for the rest of their lives.

      Let’s not provoke our children to anger by such extreme and unrealistic demands.  It takes away from our authority and supposed intelligence to come up with such far-fetched statements.  Like crying wolf too many times, when an issue comes that we really do have to talk to our children about, perhaps our young people will not be paying attention because we have spoken without reason in the past.

Judy Reyenga

All Around Us:

Rev. Gise VanBaren

Rev. VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

“Theologically Correct?”

 

An article in the Grand Rapids Press, February 27, 2002, reports on “Implanting an I.D.”  A short lead-in statement is made:  “The makers of VeriChip say they have checked to make sure it doesn’t match the biblical ‘mark of the beast.’ ”  The subhead states further, “New biochip holds implications for security, privacy.”

      The news report states:

 

   A Florida technology company is preparing to seek government approval for a computer ID chip that would be implanted inside the body and could be used to store everything from secret codes to sensitive medical information.

   …The company also is developing another implant that would work in conjunction with the VeriChip to allow satellite tracking of an individual’s every movement.  The tracker is already attracting interest across the globe for tasks like foiling kidnappings, the company says.

   Applied Digital, based in Palm Beach, Fla., says it soon will begin the process of getting Food and Drug Administration approval for the VeriChip, and intends to limit its marketing to companies that ensure its human use is voluntary.

   “The line in the sand that we draw is that the use of the VeriChip would always be voluntarily (sic),” said Keith Bolton, chief technology officer and a vice president at applied Digital.  “We would never provide it to a company that intended to coerce people to use it.”

   …The makers of the chip also foresee it being used to help emergency workers, for instance, diagnose a lost Alzheimer’s patient or access an unconscious patient’s medical history.

   Getting the implant would go something like this:

   A person or company buys the chip for about $200 and Applied Digital encodes it with the desired information.  The person seeking the implant takes the tiny device — about the size of a grain of rice, to their doctor, who can insert it with a large needle-like instrument.

   The doctor monitors the device for several weeks to make sure it doesn’t move and that no infection develops.

   The device has no power supply.  Rather, it contains a millimeter-long magnetic coil that is activated when a scanning device is run across the skin above it.  A tiny transmitter on the chip sends out the data.

   Without a scanner, the chip cannot be read.  Applied Digital plans to give away chip readers to hospitals and ambulance companies, in hopes they’ll become standard equipment.

 

      So: what’s the big concern?  There appears to be at least two:  (1) the question of privacy, and (2) the question of the “mark of the beast” in Revelation (13:16-18).  The Press article states,

 

   Applied Digital Solutions’ new VeriChip is another sign that Sept. 11 has catapulted the effort to secure America into a realm with uncharted possibilities — and also new fears for privacy.

   “The problem is that you always have to think about what the device will be used for tomorrow,” said Lee Tien, a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group.

   “It’s what we call function creep.  At first a device is used for applications we all agree are good but then it slowly is used for more than it was intended.”

 

   What of the religious concerns?

 

   Theologian and author Terry Cook said he worries the identification chip could be the “mark of the beast,” an identifying mark that all people will be forced to wear just before the end times, according to the Bible.

   Applied Digital has consulted theologians and appeared on the religious TV program the “700 Club” to assure viewers the chip didn’t fit the biblical description of the mark because it is under the skin and hidden from view.

 

      All of the above raises some interesting questions.  The idea of a “function creep” represents one of these.  This device is presented as being useful in various situations.  If a person is kidnapped, the police could find his location.  One with Alzheimer’s could, if lost, be quickly found. One who is unconscious could have his “chip” read concerning medical conditions that might be present.  But there is that troubling “function creep.”  What if the government demands that all of its citizens have this chip?  What if the government insists on placing on one’s chip his religious connections (possibly identifying also then extremist Muslims)?  What if the government makes demands of its citizens which the Christian could not meet (we must obey God rather than man)?  What if all of this information is encoded in this chip the size of a grain of rice?  It’s “function creep.”

      But, someone might insist, the government surely will defend our privacy and not make demands such as those “what if’s” above.  But has not “function creep” become evident in many areas?  What of our Social Security numbers?  First, only the actual worker was required to have one — to make sure wages were correctly reported.  Before long, the non-working wives of the workers were also required to have a number.  And soon also the newly born infant needed such a number soon after birth.  It’s “function creep.”

      That “function creep” is seen in our phone system.  Not only can there be immediate identification of in-coming calls, but each call is recorded on a computer — where it was placed, how long it lasted, etc.  And the computer which sends out one’s e-mail has the computer identified, the destination recorded, so that such computers can later provide valuable assistance if a criminal employs this technology.  It’s “function creep.”

      Now cameras can be mounted almost anywhere to take continuous recordings of events in the area.  It has many useful advantages.  It can also register our every action — for future prosecution when necessary.  One can easily imagine that such cameras would be placed in the churches as well, to record who attends there.  It’s “function creep.”

Christians As Taliban

 

      Taliban?  We have heard of these on the daily news accounts.  But, Christians as Taliban?  World magazine, January 19, 2002, has an article by Gene Edward Veith, in which the claim is made that this will be part of a campaign against the currently popular president in order to whittle down that popularity.  The article states:

 

   How will the Democrats campaign against a president whose approval ratings are in the upper 80s?  The answer: Steal the war issue from the Republicans by scapegoating the “religious right,” presenting conservative Christians as the moral equivalent of the Taliban.

   In Newsweek’s New Year’s issue, Howard Fineman reports that “Democrats are planning a daring assault on the most critical turf in politics: the cultural mainstream….  The GOP is out of the mainstream, some Democrats will argue next year, because it’s too dependent upon an intolerant ‘religious right.’ ”  As Marvin Olasky notes on page 38, Democrats will use expressions like “reproductive tolerance” to attack pro-life Christians.

   “This is an incendiary battle plan,” even Mr. Fineman says, “essentially comparing the GOP right with the Taliban.”  The ploy is “designed to draw an outraged response from the president.  Then Democrats would have Bush just where they wanted him: in a fire fight at home.”

   The Democratic PR machine is denying Mr. Fineman’s report, but liberal columnists and pundits are already sounding the theme.  Thus, those whose theology motivates them to try to save innocent lives are portrayed as being the same as those whose theology motivates them to kill innocent lives.  Those who call for good music are lumped with those who want to abolish music altogether.  A religion that has brought freedom wherever it goes is branded as the same as a religion that has brought tyranny.  Christians exercising their constitutional liberty to express their convictions in the public square are identified as terrorists.

   …The new hostility to orthodox Christianity goes beyond just wanting to keep moral considerations out of public policy.  It aims at the theological content of Christianity, the very substance of the faith: that salvation comes through Jesus Christ.

   What galls the new anti-Christian bigots is evangelism.  Even the private conviction that one has been saved by Christ implies that there is something wrong with all of the other ways by which people try to save themselves.  The first state of overt persecution would be “anti-proselytizing laws,” which already exist in several countries (including, in particular, Islamic countries). 

   In the same issue of Newsweek, religion editor Kenneth Woodward defines the kind of religious expression that the cultural elite will allow.  “Mere tolerance of other religions is not enough,” he says.  “Even the acceptance of other religions as valid paths to God is insufficient”! He says that religious people must “develop a deep understanding and appreciation of at least one other religion” in addition to their own….

 

Taking Heed to the Doctrine:

Rev. Steven Key

Rev. Key is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Hull, Iowa.

 

Saving Faith — A Certain Knowledge

 

      As we proceed in our consideration of what has been called “The Golden Chain of Salvation,” we come to the activity of saving faith.  We have seen that faith must first be understood as the bond by which God through the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ.  Nobody is saved without that bond, without being grafted into Christ.  That includes infants.  For all, the Bible teaches, are conceived and born in sin.

      But in the doctrine of salvation, it is the activity of faith that is on the foreground.  The living graft of salvation must of necessity come to expression in the conscious activity of the Christian. 

      Indeed, the call to conscious, active faith may well be called the keynote of the entire gospel.  Among the last words that Jesus spoke to His disciples on this earth were these (Mark 16:15, 16):   “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”  John writes in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”  This truth runs through the Bible like an unbreakable thread.  And therefore it is a matter of practical importance that we each personally consider the matter of the activity of faith, and see it in our own lives.

      When it comes to the activity of saving faith, there are two elements that must be considered.  The Heidelberg Catechism identifies them in Question and Answer 21 as “a certain knowledge” and “an assured confidence.”  So true faith is defined — in its activity — as “not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Spirit works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.”

      Both elements of saving faith, knowledge and confidence, come to expression in Paul’s confession, as we read in II Timothy 1:12 b:  “For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” 

 

Intellectual Knowledge Is Insufficient

      It should immediately be evident that a theoretical knowledge of God, a mere intellectual knowledge, is not sufficient for saving faith.  Mere Bible knowledge (that which is sometimes called “historical faith”) is not to be identified with saving faith. 

      That is not to belittle intellectual knowledge.  That is not to downplay the urgency of knowing sound doctrine.  If you and I begin to neglect the study of God’s revelation, if we personally neglect the increase in knowledge of God’s Word and truth, it will not be long and we will hear very concretely the judgment of God as spoken in Hosea 4:6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me:  seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”

      Don’t minimize biblical, doctrinal knowledge!  Don’t do that!  The consequences are devastating!  Many have departed from the truth, and have been lost in their generations because they ignored the necessity of knowing the truth of the Scriptures. 

      You cannot believe in the one only true God unless you know about Him.  There must be more, of course.  But intellectual knowledge you must have!  Faith never separates itself from the Scriptures and the knowledge of the truth. 

      Nevertheless, mere intellectual knowledge is not sufficient to save us.

 

Spiritual, Experiential Knowledge Is Necessary

      “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).   The knowledge of faith is a heart knowledge.  It is a personal, spiritual knowledge of intimacy and love. 

      In II Timothy 1:12, Paul says, “For I know whom I have believed.”

      Have you ever been struck by the fact that the apostle does not even say whom he believed?  You might say that Paul isn’t very specific here. 

      But Timothy immediately understood the reference, and so do we.  The meaning of those words are familiar to all who have received the benefits of Christ by a true faith.  They are heart words with all who have been taught by God and made wise unto salvation.

      The One whom Paul knew and believed was the Christ of God. 

      The apostle had not always known Him.  Even though Paul knew the Scriptures well, he had not always known Him who is the Subject of all God’s revelation in Scripture.  In fact, Paul counted Christ an imposter!  Anything spoken by Jesus of Nazareth was enough to prejudice Paul against it, and make him judge it as false doctrine.  It wasn’t that Paul didn’t know intellectually the Old Testament testimony of the Messiah.  But he did not know that Messiah with the spiritual knowledge of faith, until on the way to Damascus he “saw that Just One, and heard the voice of his mouth” speaking from the midst of heavenly glory, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”  And when Paul answered, “Who art thou, Lord,” the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.”  The man who was to become an apostle of our Lord could not believe until he heard those words. 

      The knowledge of faith is that knowledge that the Holy Spirit works in us by the power of the gospel.  While a mere intellectual knowledge about Christ will never bring a sinner to his knees and will never bring life out of death, the knowledge of faith brings us into such a relationship with God through Christ that we cannot cling to our sins, but must confess them and flee from them.  It is to know that we now live in an intimate union with Christ.  Our life is in Him! 

      So our Heidelberg Catechism speaks in very personal language of “a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word.”

      That knowledge the apostle John writes about in I John 5:19, 20, when he says, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.  This is the true God, and life eternal.”

 

A Fruitful Knowledge

      Such certain knowledge of true faith can be known from the counterfeit, mere intellectual knowledge by its fruits. 

      The true and certain knowledge which is life eternal is a knowledge which fires up my affections toward God, sanctifies my will, and raises my mind to a level above that which I had known before. 

      It is a knowledge that produces in me love for God and for His Word, submission to Him, faith in Him. 

      It is such a knowledge that causes me to join Asaph in Psalm 73, as I proclaim from the depths of my soul:  “Whom have I in heaven but thee: and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.”  That is the knowledge of which Paul speaks to Timothy when he says, “I know whom I have believed.”

      Do you see, then, how this knowledge differs from a mere intellectual knowledge? 

      The head knowledge which is all that many possess today, and that in very small measure, is a knowledge that has no influence upon their walk.  It bears no fruit of practical godliness.  It illustrates that horrible truth expressed by Jeremiah:  “They proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 9:3).   Jeremiah wasn’t speaking of what we might call the unchurched.  He was speaking of the children of Israel, who had the law of God and His temple, who had the sacrifices and ceremonies pointing to their Messiah, who had God’s prophets proclaiming His gospel to them.  They had been favored by God with so much; yet they were strangers to Him! 

      Whereas mere head knowledge does no more than fill one with pride and conceit, the knowledge of true faith brings us humbly to our knees before God, and moves us to seek the face of Christ our Savior.

      Whereas the knowledge of the Pharisee caused him to pray, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are,” the knowledge of faith causes us to cry out, “God be merciful to me a sinner!”

      While those who are the possessors of mere head knowledge may loudly sing the praises of God, that doesn’t change the fact that their home is the earth, and their longings the things of this world. 

 

Protestant Reformed Seminary

4949 Ivanrest Avenue

Grandville, Michigan 49418

February 25, 2002

To: The Protestant Reformed Churches and friends and supporters of the

Protestant Reformed Seminary

 

Dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus,

      Greetings in the love of Christ!

      Under the indispensable blessing of God, the seminary is enjoying a good and profitable year.  We reported last fall that we have seven full-time students in school this year.  The two senior students, Mr. Rodney Kleyn and Mr. David Overway, completed their internships in Faith PRC and Hull PRC, respectively.  Both men were enthusiastic about their internships, affirming that they enjoyed and profited greatly from the work.  The congregations likewise (through the reports of the consistories and pastors) expressed appreciation for the young men and their labors.  The faculty takes the opportunity to express hearty thanks to the congregations (Hull and Faith) for welcoming the student interns into their midst, and to their consistories and pastors for the fine work performed with the students.

      From our perspective, the return of the two last-year students to school is welcome, be it for but one semester.  The Lord willing, these two men will complete their requirements and be recommended by the faculty for an examination by the synod at the end of this school year.  The synod, to be held in Southwest Protestant Reformed Church, is set to convene on Tuesday, June 11.  Synods ordinarily adopt an examination schedule that requires the students to preach a sermon on Tuesday, and sit for oral examinations on Wednesday and Thursday.  Visitors are most welcome to attend all these sessions.

      Our third-year students have great changes in store for them as well.  Both Mr. Paul Goh and Mr. Bill Langerak have been licensed by the faculty to speak in the churches a word of edification.  They have had numerous opportunities to fill the pulpits in the churches.  The major change in their lives will be their internships, set for July-December of 2002.  The Lord willing, Mr. Goh will be in Bethel Protestant Reformed Church under the direction of Rev. Haak, and Mr. Langerak will be under Rev. Dale Kuiper in Southeast Protestant Reformed Church.

      In the ranks of the instructors, this school year has also seen some major changes, due to the partial sabbatical of Prof. Decker.  This is called a partial sabbatical because Prof. Decker taught one course each semester (as did Prof. Engelsma in his partial sabbatical of 2000-2001).  Prof. Decker’s courses were picked up by emeritus Prof. Hanko, as well as Revs. R. Cammenga and K. Koole.

      Prof. Decker, who teaches missions (among other subjects), took on a gigantic project for his sabbatical, namely, a critical study of the main world religions.  The study includes four different Chinese religions (Chinese Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism), in addition to Islam and Buddhism.  When you realize that these world religions have many sects and movements within each (something like the many denominations in the Reformed or Presbyterian camps),  you get some idea of the magnitude of the project.  Prof. Decker is committed to producing a syllabus for the seminary (and available to others) on these various religions which will include the founder and a brief history, the beliefs and practices of each, as well as a critique of each from a Reformed/biblical perspective.  Additional chapters in the syllabus will be provided by Rev. T. Miersma (on Hinduism) and Rev. R. Cammenga (on Judaism).  Prof. Decker intends to finish the project this spring, D.V. — just in time to prepare for the conference in Australia with the EPC of Australia and the ERC of Singapore.  Prof. Decker and Rev. Cammenga have been commissioned by the Committee for Contact of the PRC to speak at that conference.  We suspect that Prof. Decker’s summer vacation will be short indeed.

      Every year the seminary has an interim course between the semesters, in which the students and one professor concentrate for eight days on one subject.  The topic of this year’s interim was “The Reformation of 1953 and the Covenant.”  Prof. Dykstra led this class, which was attended by the regular students and a few auditors.  The course examined the history of the “split of 1953” in the Protestant Reformed Churches, some of the church polity issues, the place of the “Declaration of Principles,” as well as the various covenant views being taught in the first half of the twentieth century.  One major goal of the class was to observe how this controversy sharpened the doctrine of the covenant.  The controversy made clear that notwithstanding all the variations in the doctrine of the covenant, the great dividing line is this — whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional.  The Protestant Reformed Churches and Seminary continue to preach and teach that the unconditional covenant is the only biblical and confessional view of God’s everlasting covenant of grace.  We remain profoundly thankful to God that He has maintained that truth in our churches and seminary.