heading.jpg (20383 bytes)

Vol. 79; No. 9; February 1, 2003

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. James Slopsema

Editorial - Prof. David J. Engelsma

Letters:

·        Avoiding Extremes

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion - Prof. Herman Hanko

All Around Us - Rev. Gise J. Van Baren

Taking Heed to the Doctrine - Rev. Steven Key

Go Ye Into All the World - Rev. Arie denHartog

All Thy Works Shall Praise Thee - Mr. Joel Minderhoud

Day of Shadows - George M. Ophoff

Book Reviews -

News From Our Churches - Mr. Benjamin Wigger

Meditation:

Rev. James Slopsema

Rev. Slopsema is pastor of First Protestant  Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The Consequences of Sin

      Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

      Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

      For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

      And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord.  And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

      Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

II Samuel 12:10-14

 

    The one black mark on what otherwise was the illustrious career of David was his sin with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah.  We are all familiar with this account.  David took Bathsheba in adultery while the armies of Israel were fighting the Ammonites.  When Bathsheba conceived, David attempted to cover up his sin.  First, he brought Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, home from battle so that the child would appear to be his.  When that failed, David arranged to have Uriah killed in battle.  Immediately after this, David took Bathsheba to wife, thinking he had effectively covered up his sin.

      David lived in impenitence, until finally the prophet Nathan visited him.  Nathan presented David with the sad tale of a poor man who lost his treasured lamb to his cruel, rich neighbor.  David responded in righteous indignation, swearing an oath that this rich man should die for taking his neighbor’s one, precious lamb to feed his guest.  And Nathan replied,  “Thou art the man.”

      Now we read of the judgment of God that would fall upon David for his sin.  Although God forgave David, there were still consequences that David had to live with for the rest of his life.  It is well that we understand this, so that we take sin seriously.

      According to the prophet Nathan there would be serious consequences to David’s sin.

      First, the sword would not depart from David’s house (v. 10).  This means that violence would fill the house of David, so that family members would die violent deaths.  And this word of God was certainly fulfilled.  Absalom murdered Amnon for the rape of his sister Tamar.  Absalom attempted to take the throne from his father, David, and was killed by Joab in the ensuing battle.  Solomon ordered the death of Adonijah, who persisted in his attempt to gain the throne after the reins of government were transferred from David to Solomon.  What grief this brought to David and his house.

      Secondly, God would raise up evil against David out of his own house and would take the wives of David and give them to his neighbor, who would lie with them in the sight of the sun (vv. 11, 12).  This was fulfilled when Absalom went in unto the ten concubines that David had left behind in the palace when he fled from Absalom.  What humiliation this was for David.

      Finally, the child of David and Bathsheba, conceived in adultery, would die.  This word of God took place immediately.

      These judgments of God for David’s sin were strikingly appropriate.  There is an unmistakable similarity between the sin of David and the judgment that befell him.  David sinned by killing Uriah with the sword; the sword would never depart from David’s house.  David sinned by taking another man’s wife in adultery; David’s wives would be taken by his neighbor, and that openly.  And the child of David’s adultery would die.

      What was true of David is always true.

      Sin always has it consequences.  Galatians 6:7 states the principle very clearly:  “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”  This passage sets forth a simple rule of agriculture.  That which you sow, you will also reap.  Sow corn and you will reap corn.  This is true also spiritually.  If you walk in obedience to God, you are sowing seed from which you will reap a harvest of many blessings.  However, if you despise God’s law and trample it underfoot, you will reap the bitter consequences of God’s judgment.  This is always the case.  There are no exceptions.  Sometimes it does not appear that way.  There may be those around us who seem to sin with impunity.  We ourselves may turn to a particular sin without coming to any discernible harm.  This leads some to develop a casual attitude towards sin.  Sin, they think, is really not so bad.  Others are even emboldened to sin.  Yet, if we could see things as God does, we would know differently.  Every sin has its judgment of God.  Sin always has consequences.

      And there is often a direct relationship between the sin committed and the judgment that God brings upon it, so that the one uniquely fits the other.  The judgment of God upon the person who abuses his body through drunkenness or gluttony is to take away his health and bring him to an early grave.  God judges the chronic liar by making sure no one believes him anymore.  God’s judgment on the adulterer is a ruined marriage.  But perhaps the most devastating judgment of God upon sin is that God leads the children to follow in the sins of their parents, so that the sins of the parents come back to haunt them.

      Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

      God’s people often view these judgments of God in their own lives as punishment.  When tragedy of some sort befalls them, the question is frequently asked, “Why is God punishing me?”  And when there is an obvious connection between some adversity and a sin or weakness in the life of the child of God, the statement often heard by pastors is, “God’s punishing me, isn’t He?”

      Yet this was not true for David.  Nathan assured David that the Lord had put away his sin, i.e., forgiven him. 

      There are two things noteworthy about this forgiveness.  First, this forgiveness came only in the way of repentance and confession.  For quite some time David lived impenitently, seeking to cover up his sin, even in his own conscience.  Yet, as Psalm 51 indicates, he found no peace.  His soul was deeply troubled.  When finally Nathan confronted him with his sin, David repented and confessed.  And immediately Nathan assured him of God’s forgiveness.  The second noteworthy thing about David’s forgiveness is that David escaped the punishment of God.  God’s punishment for adultery and murder was death.  Yet God assured David through the prophet that he would not die.  He would escape the punishment for this sin.

      This is always the way it is for God’s people.  Make no mistake:  God does punish sin.  He punishes all sin, even the sin of His people.  In fact, He does so to the extreme, with everlasting punishment of body and soul in hell.  This is the stark reality of God’s justice.  But God in His great mercy has punished His Son, Jesus Christ, for the sin of His people.  All the punishment for their sin was endured at the cross.  There is none left.  And so it is that when we confess our sin in true repentance and lay hold of the cross by faith, we may be assured that our sins also are forgiven and that there is no punishment for these sins.

      What fell upon David and what comes to us, as consequences of our sins, is God’s chastisement.

      There is a great difference between punishment and chastisement.  Punishment is the work of God’s justice to destroy the sinner.  This punishment falls on all those who are without Jesus Christ.  Chastisement is the work of God’s love and mercy to afflict this sinner in order to correct him and turn him from his sin.  It is a work of salvation.

      It was the chastisement of God that fell upon David. 

      Nathan pointed out two terrible things about David’s sin. 

      First, David had despised the Lord in this sin.  This is very striking in light of the fact that David is set forth in Scripture as a man after God’s own heart.  How was it, then, that David despised the Lord?  This was due to his sinful nature, which he retained even as a great man of God.  The born-again heart loves the Lord; the flesh despises Him.  Through neglect of the Word and prayer, David’s flesh gained control for a time, so that he despised the Lord.  This contempt focused especially on the commandments of God.  David held the Lord’s commandments in contempt, so that it became a small thing to trample them under his feet.  This alone explains such horrible sins in the life of such a great man of God.

      The second thing Nathan pointed out concerning David’s sin was that David had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.  This certainly is not difficult to see.  Here the Lord’s anointed, the one who represents the Lord Himself, stoops to commit such horrible things.  The enemies of the Lord laughed and spoke evil of Him.

      But this may not be.  God will not allow His people to despise Him.  Neither will He allow His name to be blasphemed by His enemies on account of His people’s behavior.  So David must be corrected.  The best way to correct such a foul attitude and direction of life is by affliction.  In infinite love and perfect wisdom, God laid these afflictions on David so that he would not only come to repentance but would never continue in these sins again.

      This is how God always deals with His beloved people.  When they begin to despise Him, and show that by trampling underfoot His commandments, the Lord in His love corrects them.  He rebukes them with His Word.  But it is often necessary to correct them with the sad consequences of sin. 

      And it always is the work of His love and mercy to save His people from their foolish sins.

      Let us then take sin seriously.  Sin is nothing to take lightly.  The child of God will not perish in his sin.  The Lord will certainly keep His own.  But He might accomplish that preservation of His own by chastising him with many stripes.

      For those who are suffering the consequences of their sin (and who is not?), God has this to say:  “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction” (Prov. 3:11).  

      “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:  Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (I Pet. 5:6, 7).   

 Editorial:

Prof. David J. Engelsma

The Unconditional Covenant in Contemporary Debate —
and the Protestant Reformed Seminary  (3)

 

      Prominent, influential ministers, professors of theology, and ruling elders in reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America are openly attacking the cardinal truths of salvation by grace alone — all of the cardinal truths of salvation by grace alone — on the basis of the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

      Central in the contemporary debate is biblical justification.  This is as it should be.  Justification, or the forgiveness of the guilty sinner, is the heart of the gospel of grace.  It is to be expected that enemies of grace will assault the heart.  The doctrine of justification by faith alone is, as Luther taught the churches of the Reformation, the article of a standing or falling church.  It follows that the churches of the Reformation that now fall do so by denying the very article in which once in the mercy of Christ they stood.

 

Justification by the Works of Faith

      The distinct, powerful movement now deeply troubling the true churches of Christ and the saints of God in North America teaches that justification is by faith and by the good works faith performs.  It appeals to James 2:21 and James 2:25, which teach that Abraham and Rahab were justified by works and not by faith only.  The movement harmonizes these passages with Paul’s denial in Romans 3 and 4 that we are justified by the deeds of the law by explaining that Paul and James have two different kinds of works in view.  When Paul denies that we are righteous by good works, he refers exclusively to works done apart from faith and works intended to merit.  James, on the other hand, affirming justification by good works, refers to the good works that flow from faith.  The truth, therefore, according to this movement, is that we are in fact righteous before God partly on the basis of our own good works — our good works that are the fruits of faith.  

      The righteousness of the guilty sinner, the righteousness of his justification, the righteousness of his standing before God in judgment, is, and must be, in part, his own good works!  

      Insofar as the movement still practices caution in its teaching of justification by faith and works (and it behooves a movement that intends to deny justification by faith alone in churches holding Lord’s Days 23 and 24 of the Heidelberg Catechism and Articles 21-24 of the Belgic Confession to be as vague, ambiguous, and slippery, that is, deceptive, as possible, even in our doctrinally ignorant and apathetic time), the movement is exposed, unmistakably, by its harmonizing of Paul and James.  The movement immediately raises suspicion by its quick and emphatic appeal to James in the matter of justification.  Every teenage catechumen in a Reformed church that teaches its youth the essentials of Reformed doctrine knows that in the great controversy of the Reformation over justification Rome sat in James 2 .   But James 2 is inspired Scripture, not apocrypha, nor a “right strawy epistle.”  Appeal to James 2, therefore, does not in itself expose a teacher, or a movement, as heretical.

 

Harmonizing Paul and James

      What exposes the movement under discussion as heretical in the article of justification is its harmonizing of James and Paul by affirming two kinds of works.  The orthodox harmonizing of Romans 3:28 and James 2:20-26 affirms two kinds of justification.  As is evident in the Romans passage itself, justification in Paul is God’s (legal) reckoning of the obedience of Jesus Christ to the account of the guilty sinner, the man or woman who in this judgment appears only as one who is ungodly.  Justification in Romans is the forgiveness of sins.  This justification is by means of (not:  because of, or on the basis of!) faith only.  The sinner’s own works, whether works before salvation or after salvation, whether works apart from faith or works produced by faith, whether works done to merit or works done out of thankfulness, have nothing whatever to do with his justification, except that all of them need to be forgiven.

      Justification in James 2, by contrast, is the justified sinner’s exhibition of the truth of his faith and of the reality of his justification by this true faith alone, both to himself and to others, by the good works that true faith always performs in obedience to the command of God.  The James passage itself makes plain that it is speaking of justification in a quite different sense from that which justification has in Romans.  The passage in James begins this way:  “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:  shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works” (v. 18).  

      By insisting that Romans and James both speak of justification in the same sense, but that they have different kinds of works in view, the advocates of the movement now disturbing the Reformed churches “let the cat out of the bag.”  For them, justification—justification in the sense of one’s becoming righteous before God, justification in the sense of the forgiveness of sins—is partly by and because of the good works of the sinner himself.  The sinner’s righteousness with God is in part his own good works.  The stipulation is that these good works be those that proceed from faith, not those done apart from faith and in order to merit.

      Writing in the Spring 2002 issue of Reformation & Revival Journal, Norman Shepherd, a leading proponent of the movement in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches that overthrows the system of salvation by grace alone contained in the “Three Forms of Unity” and in the Westminster Standards, says this about justification in Romans and James:

 

As evangelicals we often try to dodge this attack [of Rome against the Reformation’s confession of justification by faith alone] by saying that these verses [in James 2 ] are not talking about justification by faith in the forensic, soteric sense that Paul talks about it in Romans and Galatians.  The Westminster Confession, however, does not use this dodge.  Instead, the Confession acknowledges that James is talking about faith and justification in the same sense that Paul uses these terms when he denies that justification is by works (p. 80, emphasis added).

 

      This harmonizing of Romans and James commits Shepherd and his disciples to the doctrine of justification by faith and works.  Shepherd expresses this doctrine as his own in his recent book, The Call of Grace:  How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism (P&R 2000).  With reference to the obedience that God required of Israel in the Mosaic covenant, obedience consisting of doing God’s commandments, obedience that Shepherd describes as Israel’s “obligation,” Shepherd writes:  “Obedience is simply faithfulness to the Lord; it is the righteousness of faith (compare Rom. 9:32) ” (p. 39, emphasis added).  Later, Shepherd repeats this gross false doctrine:  “The righteousness of faith is the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), and is therefore simultaneously covenant privilege and responsibility” (p. 76).

 

The Obedience of Christ Alone

      The truth about the righteousness of faith is that it is the obedience of Jesus Christ in our stead and on our behalf, and the obedience of Jesus Christ alone.  The truth about the righteousness of faith is that it is this obedience of Christ imputed to the account of the guilty sinner through faith alone.  The truth about the righteousness of faith is that it does not consist of any work of the sinner himself, not his works apart from faith, not his works of faith, and not his faith itself as a work.  The truth about the righteousness of faith is that as soon as one work of the sinner himself is added to it, be that work never so small and insignificant, even a weak sigh of sorrow over sin, the righteousness is no longer the righteousness of faith, but the sinner’s own righteousness.  And both it and he are damned.

 

“We Heartily Believe … [the] Doctrine … in the … Catechism”

      There is no excuse for Shepherd.  He is a Reformed minister, bound by Lord’s Days 23 and 24 of the Heidelberg Catechism.  There is no excuse for Reformed people deceived by Shepherd and his allies.  They know, or ought to know, Lord’s Days 23 and 24 of the Heidelberg Catechism. 

 

Q. 59.  But what doth it profit thee now that thou believest all this?

A. That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life.

 

Q. 60. How art thou righteous before God?

A. Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had nor committed any sin:  yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

 

Q. 61. Why sayest thou that thou art righteous by faith only?

A. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only.

 

Q. 62.  But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?

A. Because that the righteousness which can be approved of before the tribunal of God must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

 

      Justification by faith alone — heart of the gospel, article of the standing or falling church, precious comfort of poor sinners in the daily judgment of this life and regarding the final judgment to come, grand testimony to the worth of the life and death of the Savior, doctrine that glorifies the triune God, who worked out His own righteousness in the obedience of Jesus Christ and who magnifies His marvelous mercy in imputing this righteousness to His own for Christ’s sake!

      Attacked and denied today in Reformed and Presbyterian churches!

      On the basis of a conditional covenant!
... to be continued

Letters:

Avoiding Extremes

   Having read the editorial, “He Shines in All That’s Fair” (Standard Bearer, Dec. 1, ’02), I was disappointed to read about the lesbian group being allowed to sing at Calvin College.  It is hard to imagine the rapid influence of the gay agenda in our society and even within our Christian community.  I don’t entirely agree with you though in blaming all of this on common grace.  Naturally, holding to the common grace doctrine gives these wolves in sheep’s clothing a loophole to leverage in their evil ideology.  But Calvin College had the right and duty to call a spade a spade regardless of their view of common grace.  What God forbids, we forbid.

      Extremes can be taken on both sides of this issue.  On the one extreme side, one could become a hermit and avoid all contact with the world, or one could associate only with Christians and read or watch only Christian material, news, or programs.  On the other extreme side of the issue, one could wallow in all the vomit of our sick society to glean the whole beans.  Thankfully, for Christians who struggle with this issue of common grace, no matter which side we are on, most of us find ourselves avoiding the extremes, being faithful to our Lord, albeit, not perfectly, and finding the Lord still using us as His witnesses.  Let us pray for each other that the Lord may protect us from these evil extremes, and that He may continue to use us as His witnesses and in the building up of His kingdom until He returns.

Carl R. Smits

Lansing, IL  

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:

Prof. Herman C. Hanko

Prof. Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

Jerome Bolsec and Predestination (2)

 

     Jerome Bolsec, as we saw last time, was an enemy of the truth of sovereign predestination.  When he went so far as to interrupt a worship service in Geneva in order to oppose the preaching of that truth, he was arrested by the civil authorities for disturbing the peace.  The Venerable Company of Pastors in Geneva urged the city Council to examine Bolsec’s doctrinal positions, and to seek the advice of other cantons in Switzerland to arrive at the truth of the matter.  As it turned out, however, the other Swiss churches were a disappointment.  They agreed with the ministers in Geneva on the doctrine of unconditional election, but were of a mind to advise toleration of those who opposed the “perplexing doctrine” of reprobation.

 

The End of the Matter

      Two events ended the matter.  The Council refused to accept the advice of the churches from the neighboring cantons, and instead condemned the views of Bolsec.  Nevertheless, the sentence passed upon Bolsec was almost certainly less severe than it could have been: Bolsec was banished from Geneva, under pain of being whipped if he returned.

      The second consequence of the poor advice of the Swiss cantons was the preparation of a tract by Calvin entitled On the Eternal Predestination of God, in which Calvin set forth his mature and fully developed views on sovereign, eternal, and double predestination.  It, along with another tract on the doctrine of providence, has been published under the title Calvin’s Calvinism.*   This tract is sometimes called the Consensus Genevensis or Genevan Agreement.  It was given this name because it expressed the position of the Genevan churches.

      Jerome Bolsec was banished from Geneva on December 23, 1555.  He never returned to the city, but he did return to the Roman Catholic Church, where he rightly belonged; for his doctrine was that of Rome, not of the Reformation, and his views were Semi-Pelagian and not Calvinistic.  Before he died, he wrote a biography of Calvin that was full of slander, evil stories, and terrible accusations.  The biography would have died at birth, I am sure, if it had not been for the fact that the Romish Church took hold of it and promoted it as a genuine story of the life of Calvin and the kind of man he was.  But at last, even Roman Catholic scholarship, bound by scholarly integrity if not love for Calvin, killed it.

 

Conclusion

      It is difficult to imagine, but it is, in fact, true, that there are men within the Reformed churches who come to Bolsec’s defense and criticize Calvin for the Bolsec affair.  Calvin is, e.g., charged with a hatred for Bolsec, not out of disagreement with Bolsec’s theological position, but out of a determination to defend his own position as dictator of Geneva.  Calvin is charged with seeing in Bolsec a threat to his domination in the city and church, and with using his power and influence to rid the city of someone whom he considered a challenger to his absolute sway within the canton.

      One cannot take such a stand without calling into question Calvin’s theology.  And so, this also is done.  Calvin is charged with gross error in his position on predestination, and Bolsec’s position is honored and set forth as the truth of Scripture.  The enemies of sovereign predestination are legion.

      But, more seriously, Reformed and Presbyterian writers would prefer that the entire episode of Calvin’s dealings with Bolsec remain unknown.  These, and there are many, claim that a position similar to that of Bolsec was really Calvin’s position; that Calvin never really taught what is said to be Calvin’s theology; and that later theologians (among whom are mentioned Theodore Beza, the fathers at Dordt, the Westminster divines, Turretin, Kuyper, Hoeksema – to name but a few) have rashly and wrongly twisted Calvin’s theology into something Calvin never taught or intended.  These books (and there are many) do not want to talk about the Bolsec controversy, for they are unable to explain Calvin’s condemnation of Bolsec when, according to them, Calvin held views almost identical to Bolsec.

      And, as if that bit of historical legerdemain were not sufficient, even the theologians present at the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1924 sought support for the well-meant gospel offer by claiming that it was taught by Reformed writers in “the most flourishing period of Reformed theology” — when, in fact, it is the very doctrine that was part and parcel of Bolsec’s views so strongly condemned by Calvin.

      If anyone disputes this analysis of the situation, he need only read Calvin’s Treatise On the Eternal Predestination of God.  It is all there.  While Bolsec’s name is not mentioned, and while another enemy of sovereign predestination, Pighius by name, is mentioned in that treatise, the fact remains that the treatise was occasioned by the heresy of Bolsec and the sympathetic treatment of Bolsec by the other Swiss theologians.

      Every genuinely orthodox theologian from Calvin to today has agreed that Calvin’s teachings on election and reprobation are the teachings of the Word of God.  All who have even a superficial understanding of the great church father Augustine also agree that Calvin did not bring into theology an innovation, a new doctrine, something invented by him, but that he taught nothing more than Augustine himself had taught and insisted was crucial to the truth of the sovereignty of God in His work of grace in salvation.  The great Synod of Dordt and the Westminster Assembly, both representing the best theologians that the age knew and, perhaps, that the world has ever seen assembled within a few years of each other, put its stamp on Calvin’s teaching as being in all parts biblical.

      Why do men refuse to accept what is so obviously the case, namely that election and reprobation are biblical, confessional, and the teachings of the Reformers?  The answer can only be that man wants no part of the absolute sovereignty of God.  He prefers to salvage some remnants of his tattered pride and place some responsibility for his salvation in his own hands.  He refuses to admit that God is sovereign also in the damnation of the wicked.  He refuses to acknowledge that God does all His good pleasure and reveals in all the works of His hands that He alone is God. 

      The church has never claimed that this is an easy doctrine.  It is not easy to understand; it is not easy to preach; it is not easy to hold and confess.  It crushes all human pride.  It leaves man nothing and God everything.  It insists that not man rules, not even in his own affairs, but that God, the Creator, the Sustainer of all, is also the Potter, who is sovereign over the clay to make vessels of honor and dishonor as it pleases Him.  God wills the salvation of the elect in Jesus Christ, and that decree of election is the “fountain and cause” of faith, of all good works, and of the fullness of salvation in Christ.  But God also wills the damnation of the reprobate to everlasting hell in the way of their sin as manifestation of His supreme justice and infinite holiness.

      It is, in the final analysis, impossible that one maintain the sovereignty of God in election (as many try to do) and deny the sovereignty of God in reprobation.  To deny the latter will result in a denial of the former.  Calvin understood that.  Dordt understood that.  Dordt insisted that election and reprobation were one decree, though with two sides:  “That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God’s eternal decree…” (Canons I, 6).

      Let those churches and ministers who preach the whole counsel of God and claim to be Calvinists preach also the doctrine of eternal, unchangeable, and sovereign reprobation and maintain it against all opposition.  

*     It is available from the Reformed Free Publishing Association.

 All Around Us:

Rev. Gise VanBaren

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

Sunday Labor – and the Fourth Commandment

The Grand Rapids Press, December 9, 2002, reports on an instance where an individual, refusing to work on Sunday, was fired from her job.  The government filed a lawsuit against the employer, claiming this person’s civil rights were violated.

 

   The federal government is accusing Meijer Inc. of violating the civil rights of a cake decorator who was fired after refusing to work on a Sunday.

   The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Debra Kerkstra of Allegan, who is a member of the Christian Reformed Church.

   Meijer “failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to the known religious practices of Ms. Kerkstra,” the EEOC said on a document filed recently in U.S. District Court.

   In response, the giant retailer said a day off for Kerkstra would have caused “an undue hardship” for the company on “one of the busiest days of the week.”

   Kerkstra, 37, was fired in May 2001 after a year at the Plainwell store in Allegan County.

   While not speaking specifically about the case, Meijer spokesman Brian Breslin said workers covered by the union contract can be required to work any day.

   “A person decides whether they want to accept the terms of employment.  If they do, they’re accountable to keep their part of the bargain,” Breslin said.  “I’m not aware of any exceptions.

   “We can’t do for one what we can’t do for all,” he said.  “You have to have consistent work rules.  That’s why you have a labor contract.”

   The government, however, contends Meijer’s Plainwell store was comfortable knowing Kerkstra didn’t want to work Sundays when she was hired in April 2000.  Then a year later, a new boss gave her a Sunday shift.

   Kerkstra found another employee who was willing to decorate cakes that day, but the store director refused to allow the switch, the EEOC said.  She didn’t report to work as scheduled, was suspended for three days and eventually fired.

 

      It is of interest that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1977, requires companies to try to accommodate religious practices of workers.  On that basis, it appears, Meijer might be held in violation of Ms. Kerkstra’s “civil rights.”

      The case (and the Civil Rights Act) is of interest to Protestant Reformed workers especially — since it will not allow forced union membership or Sunday labor when such is refused on the basis of one’s religion.

      In the case of Ms. Kerkstra, there appears to be several reasons why her case is not as strong as it might be.

      First, she  evidently became a member of the union in order to work at Meijer.  Meijer points out that the union member is bound by the rules of that union — which required the member to work on any day when Meijer demanded this.

      Secondly, she worked one Sunday — at the grand opening of the store.  Meijer argues that Ms. Kerkstra is inconsistent now when she refuses to work on any more Sundays.  The Press reports, “Kerkstra is ‘ashamed and embarrassed’ and regrets that decision, the EEOC said.”

      Thirdly, Ms. Kerkstra is a member of the Christian Reformed denomination, which now permits work on Sunday (as well as union membership).

      Companies which intend to demand Sunday work are clever.  In the case of Ms. Kerkstra, she was asked to work just the Sunday of the grand opening.  These same companies soon go a step further:  work just one Sunday a month — there are still 3 or 4 other Sundays for worship in church.  But it is obvious:  one who works just one Sunday, or one Sunday a month, has lost all moral right to refuse additional Sunday labor for conscience’s sake. 

      Nor, one would think, would the comments of Henry DeMoor, Calvin Theological Seminary professor, be of assistance.  He sets forth a view that is surely contrary to that which had earlier and emphatically been taught in his denomination.  The Press reported:

 

   …Henry DeMoor said the church has long recognized Sunday as a day of worship free from “servile works” except those involving charity and necessity.

   “There would be considerable sympathy for her among a number of Christian Reformed people,” said DeMoor, an expert in church policy.

   “But in view of current society, it’s hard for me to embrace that principle,” he said.  “If every Christian insisted we’re not going to work on Sunday, I suspect there wouldn’t be enough people to do the work.

   “Ethically, a better position might be to tell church elders they work one Sunday a month.  If they say they are conscious of the Fourth Commandment and honor it as much as they can, I’m sure elders would be satisfied,” DeMoor said.

 

      That is a striking morality presented.  One simply must tell the elders, “We’ll honor the commandment as much as we can.”  And to condone Sabbath work because otherwise there would not be enough workers!!  If there were not enough workers, the stores might have to remain closed on Sunday. 

      And, to follow through on the morality DeMoor proposes, one who takes God’s name in vain rather frequently can assure the elders that he is conscious of the Third Commandment and will honor it as much as he can.  Then elders should be satisfied.  And one who commits adultery can assure the elders that he is conscious of the requirement of the Seventh Commandment and will honor it as much as he can!  The elders should be satisfied (and maybe God would be too?).

      Is this, too, what is being taught at the Seminary to those who must go forth as ministers of the gospel?

      One can be thankful that there is yet “considerable sympathy for her (Kerkstra) among a number of Christian Reformed people.”  That Ms. Kerkstra has maintained her convictions, though not consistent in the application of those convictions, is reason for commendation — she did this though it cost her her job.  One can be thankful as well that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects the Christian who insists on walking according to his religious convictions.

      At the same time, we must be aware that those who promote Sunday labor do so carefully, little by little, until they have won over the opposition — or compelled it to submit.

      A number of years ago (1989) I wrote to D & W Food Centers (a Grand Rapids-based grocery chain) about their intent to open their stores on Sunday.  A nice letter was written in answer explaining why they regarded this a necessity.  They pointed out:

 

   We plan to phase in the Sunday openings over roughly a two-month period, beginning in April.  In all, 11 stores around Grand Rapids and in Grand Haven will begin seven-day operations during that time frame.  However, the stores located in Jenison, Grandville, and Fremont will not be opened on Sunday.  We feel that at present D & W can best serve those communities by continuing our six-day operation.  As do most prudent people, we follow the maxim that teaches, “never say never”, but we can say that we have no plans to open those three stores in any time in the foreseeable future.

   In making the decision to open more of our stores on Sunday, the needs and feelings of our 2,300 associates were uppermost in our thoughts.  They make a commitment to our organization and our customers every day, and have the right to expect the same in return.  At D & W we have that commitment, which includes a strong respect for religious beliefs.  Because of this, we will not require any of our associates to work on Sunday if doing so would violate their religious principles.  There will be no test involved, no need to prove religious convictions.  We trust their integrity.  Those who choose not to work on Sunday because of their religious beliefs will not be penalized for making that decision or compromise their opportunities to advance with D & W.

 

      But obviously it did not work out that way.  One who will not work on Sunday probably would not be hired.  If one works in such stores, there is little or no possibility for advancement.  The law of the land which does not allow for this religious discrimination is ignored. 

 

Civil Rights and Union Membership

      World magazine, a Christian weekly news magazine, has a cover story in its Nov. 30, 2002 issue titled: “Look (Out) For the Union Label.”  The article gives instances of people who refused to pay union dues or to join the union at all.  This was done with the claim that they could not conscientiously join or pay union dues on religious grounds.  One instance:

 

   Kathleen Klamut doesn’t want her money used to keep abortionists in business.  A psychologist with the Ravena City School District in Ohio, she has fought state and local teachers unions in a dispute over dues deducted from her paycheck that go to elect pro-abortion candidates.  But when she requested to have all of her dues diverted to charity, as is her right under law, the union said no—even though Mrs. Klamut had won a similar, two-year battle in the Louisville, Ohio, district in 1999.  In March 2002, Mrs. Klamut filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

 

      The article gives several other examples of individuals who also objected to membership dues used to fund liberal causes — especially abortion, homosexuality, restrictions on parental choices in education, etc.  Then it points out:

 

   As unions have made good on their initial objectives — shorter work days, safe working conditions, and so on — many have moved on to funding liberal causes such as abortion-on-demand and school-based sexual-health clinics, opposing conservative causes such as school choice and welfare reform, and strongly supporting liberal candidates.  Federal Election Commission records show that union political action committees over the past decade gave more than $362 million to Democrats and only $25 million to Republicans.  Union leaders say they’re representing their members, but about one-third of union members voted Republican in this month’s elections.

   Now, here’s the perspective of Dennis Robey, who works in an “agency shop” state.  In his 25th year as an industrial arts teacher in the Huber Heights City School District near Dayton, Ohio, Mr. Robey was an active member of Huber Heights Education Association, the Ohio Education Association, and the NEA until 1995.  But that was the year he found in his school mailbox an NEA publication called Deceptions by the Radical Right Against the National Education Association.

   “As I read the publication, I decided that I needed to look further into what the union stood for,” Mr. Robey told the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce Subcommittee in June 2002.  He did look into it — and found himself in direct religious opposition to official NEA resolutions on “reproductive freedom,” confidential school-based family planning, and restrictions on parental choices in education.  Mr. Robey, a Church of God member in Springfield, Ohio, learned from the Focus on the Family magazine Teachers in Focus that he could request from the union a “religious accommodation” — which can include an exemption from union membership, and from paying to the union some or all required fees.

   Workers are entitled to such accommodations under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The act prohibits employers and labor unions from discriminating against workers or adversely affecting their employment based on religion.  Following passage of the act, the EEOC ruled that companies and unions must make “reasonable” religious accommodations that do not result in “undue hardship” on the business.  Failure to do so is religious discrimination.  Congress put an even finer point on the matter with the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act.  That law defines “religion” as including “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief”….

   …as Mr. Robey found out, such rights do not prevent unions from denying religious accommodation requests, challenging workers’ religious beliefs in court, or, at minimum, dragging their feet for years.  From 1995 through 2000, he requested each January that his agency fees be diverted to charity.  (Workers may also request nonmonetary accommodations such as time off for Sabbath or other religious observances.)

 

      Mr. Robey was harassed with paper work in which he had to prove his claims; his dues were withheld and placed in escrow, and when finally paid, it was without interest for the period the money was withheld.  So it went — until recently when there was an EEOC-brokered conciliation agreement in which the NEA and its Ohio affiliates agreed to cease paper-grilling of religious objectors.

      The article points out:

 

   Supreme Court case law holds that unions must provide to their members a detailed accounting of how dues are spent.  But Robert Hunter has reviewed about 200 accounting reports from the Michigan Education Association, the United Auto Workers, the Association of State, Federal, City and Municipal Employees, and other unions.  He said most were vague at best and, sometimes, untruthful about the percentage of dues unions spend on political activities.  The U.S. Supreme Court found in one case that 78 percent of dues were not necessary for the union to complete its collective bargaining activities; in another case the figure was 90 percent.

   Mr. Hunter believes unions deliberately withhold from workers information on their objector rights to protect their political cash flow.

 

      The article concludes with reports on two of the cases:

 

   Meanwhile, Florida electrical technician Robert Beers is still fighting the machinists’ union.  But school psychologist Kathleen Klamut on Nov. 19 received a letter from the Ohio Education Association.  The letter granted her religious accommodation request, but added, “We are not acknowledging the sincerity of your professed beliefs, nor are we acknowledging that the law requires us to grant this accommodation.”

   NRTW director of legal information Dan Cronin said the letter showed that “even when the law is put right in the unions’ face in black and white, they will still deny it.  It’s obvious that as long as they hold these kinds of attitudes, unions will continue to discriminate against people of faith.  It shows why we have to keep fighting.”

 

      Children of God who have problems with employers or unions about Sunday work or who have problems with union membership itself ought to remember that the law of the land is still on their side — protecting them against this religious discrimination.  One should not hesitate to seek the protection of the government when employers insist on this religious discrimination.  

 Taking Heed to the Doctrine:

Rev. Steven Key

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

 

The Perfect Ground of our Imputed Righteousness

 

      We have seen that justification is the act of God’s grace by which He imputes righteousness to the sinner.  God justifies the ungodly! 

      We are immediately faced with the question:  How is this possible?  We recognize that there must be a ground for that divine verdict that has proclaimed our righteousness.  What is that ground?  What is the basis for God’s declaring us righteous? 

      That is an important question.  The answer to that question will reflect upon the very being of God. 

      The ground of our justification is nothing less than the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ and His perfect satisfaction on the cross. 

 

Not in Us

      This righteousness is not something imputed to us because of what we have done. 

      If you look at Philippians 3:9, you will note the contrast between “the righteousness which is of God” and what Paul, upon reflection in his own life, saw as “mine own righteousness, which is of the law.”  The contrast is important.  As Paul came by grace to see, it is a contrast as sharp as that between light and darkness, the truth and the lie, heaven and hell.  It is a contrast, however, that many seem unable to grasp. 

      The greater part of the church world today — whether we speak of Roman Catholicism or Protestantism — wants to say that righteousness is by faith and works.  

      When we insist that God justifies the ungodly through faith alone and that our works play no part in our justification, the Roman Catholic Church pronounces us “anathema.”  This doctrine, after all, was the fundamental issue at the time of the Reformation. 

      The Council of Trent was Rome’s formal response to the biblical teachings of Luther and the Reformers.  Over against the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone for the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, Rome responded with a position that made works an essential part of justification. 

      According to the “infallible” decrees of Trent, justification is a process whereby the sinner is actually made righteous.  Justification is “not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts by which an unrighteous man becomes righteous” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, sess. 6, chap. 6). 

      Rome speaks therefore of an infused righteousness by grace, which enables a person to do good works.  These works then are the basis for the declaration of righteousness by God, and are necessary to obtain as well as to preserve justification.  And because the sinner’s good works are themselves insufficient to obtain perfect righteousness, purgatory is necessary. 

 

If anyone says that the guilt is remitted to every penitent sinner after the grace of justification has been received, and that the debt of eternal punishment is so blotted out that there remains no debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened — let him be anathema.  (Ibid., sess. 6, canon 30)

 

      While teaching that God justifies sinners by His grace, and even maintaining that such justification comes through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rome’s position stands at sharp odds with the Reformers’ doctrine.

 

If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and love that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and is inherent in them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God — let him be anathema.  (Ibid., sess. 6, canon 11)

 

      The contrast, therefore, between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and that of the Protestant Reformers is very sharp.  Each side accused the other of preaching “another gospel.”  So it is.  We can appreciate the forthrightness of Rome for boldly expressing it in those terms.  We do not hesitate to say the same — the Roman Catholic Church has another gospel than that which we preach. 

      For that very reason it is astounding that Protestantism and modern evangelicalism have made a steady march back to Rome. 

      Part of this is a desire in evangelical circles to seek a certain church unity regardless of the cost.  Rome’s position concerning justification has not changed.  But there are evangelicals who desire a certain measure of unity with Rome, and who have shown themselves willing to sacrifice even the truth of justification to obtain that unity.  This has come to expression in recent years especially in the ecumenical documents Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, and The Gift of Salvation.*   In these documents, the signatories showed a willingness to concede the truth of justification by faith alone as a non-essential doctrine, not central to the gospel. 

      Besides these noted concessions to the Roman Catholic error, there is also prevalent in evangelical churches a teaching of works-righteousness.  This is just as prevalent today as it was in Jesus’ day and in the years prior to the great Reformation, and is in fact probably the most direct danger to us.  Please note that we have yet to treat the relationship between justification and good works, and the importance of good works in the life of the Christian.  But repeatedly the idea is expressed that what really matters before God is not what we believe, but how we serve Him and our fellow human beings.  It is, after all, living the golden rule that counts in our standing before God. 

      The reason for this way of thinking is easily explained.  By nature we love and are most eager to secure our own righteousness and take credit for our own status of being right before God.  Although we may not publicly boast of our goodness, there is this thought that we are pretty good when we are faithful in our church attendance, loyal to church and Christian education, liberal in our contributions, and so on.  We love to regard ourselves as a step ahead of the sinners around us, and as standing before God with some merit in how we have lived. 

      This natural and very wicked attitude is exposed by the apostle Paul with a personal example in Philippians 3.  

 

The Testimony of Philippians 3:9

      From the beginning Paul had recognized his responsibility to God.  He believed that the God of the Old Testament Scriptures was his King and Judge, to whom he owed implicit obedience and to whom he would have to answer for the way he lived.  The Scriptures had taught him this, and his own conscience echoed the demand. 

      But Paul also had a very mistaken perception of his ability and a faulty concept of sin and depravity. 

      Having received the law of the Old Testament, Paul believed from his early youth that he could keep and in fact did keep that law perfectly.  In his heart he repeated the prayers of the Pharisees whom he followed and who were his teachers:  “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers.  I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess.”  In his spiritual blindness he thought that God should be pretty proud of him. 

      But when the Spirit began to work in him on that road to Damascus and in the days following, it became clear to Paul that God’s commandment is exceeding broad, reaching vastly farther and searching infinitely deeper than he had conceived.  This very religious man had taken into consideration only his outward life, and even there only the letter of the law.  When he saw the absence of outward, positive transgression, he thought all was well.  But upon conversion he saw that God desires truth in the inward parts.  God demands perfect purity and consecration of the heart, out of which come all the issues of life (Prov. 4:23).

      How shocking it was to Paul that when God made inquisition concerning spiritual obedience, this religious man had nothing with which he could plead righteousness.  He was condemned!  In his own conscience he was condemned!  He had nothing but his own righteousness, which was of the law.  And that law condemned him!

      The law can never justify us.  By the works of the law we can never be righteous.  It condemns us all the time.  The supposed righteousness of his own, which Paul thought he had derived from keeping the law, was a delusion!  “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).  

      God brought Paul to the knowledge of that one only salvation, salvation which shows in one view God’s abhorrence of sin and determination to sustain His own perfect holiness, and at the same time the infinite richness of His love and grace.  God gave him to see that righteousness “which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9).