Vol. 79; No. 11; March 1, 2003
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 VanOverloop
Editorial - Prof. David J. Engelsma
Letters:
All Around Us - Rev. Kenneth Koole
Feature Article - Rev. Angus Stewart
All Thy Works Shall Praise Thee - Mr. Joel Minderhoud
Taking Heed to the Doctrine - Rev. Steven Key
In His Fear - Rev. Richard Smit
Go Ye Into All the World - Rev. Jason Kortering
News From Our Churches - Mr. Benjamin Wigger
Meditation:
Rev. Ronald VanOverloop
Rev. VanOverloop is pastor of Georgetown Protestant
Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan.
Prayer for Christ to Dwell in You
That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be
strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your
hearts by faith.
Paul tells the saints at Ephesus that he prays on their behalf. What better thing can be done for you than that a
fellow-saint pray for you! What a wonderful
encouragement!
Paul does not just tell the Ephesian Christians that he is praying for them. He also tells them what he is praying for them. That is an even greater encouragement!
This is the second time Paul tells the Ephesians that he is praying for them. His first prayer is found in 1:15-23. The first time
was on the occasion of hearing of their “faith in the Lord Jesus and their
love unto all the saints.” The second
time, the occasion for his prayers for them was their concern about his imprisonment in
Rome. They were fearful that the removal of
Paul would be harmful for the church, their church, and for the cause of the spread
of the gospel among the Gentiles. So Paul
tells them that he is praying for them.
The two prayers have one thing in common. Paul
asks God to supply the Ephesian believers with what is needed for spiritual maturation. This is every pastor’s prayer. It is the request that God will bless the sheep
with increased spiritual growth unto spiritual maturity.
In the first prayer, Paul asked that God give them spiritual growth in the way of
increased knowledge. In the second, he asks
two things that are characteristic of those who are spiritually mature, namely, an
intimate relationship with Jesus Christ, and the ability to know the love of Christ which
passes knowledge.
Paul’s
prayer is “that Christ dwell in your hearts by faith.” This seems strange.
Was not Christ already in the hearts of these Ephesians to whom he is writing? After all, he addresses them as saints and the
faithful in Christ Jesus. He spoke of their
having been predestinated and redeemed (1:5, 7) and quickened (2:5). To be quickened is to be regenerated. Regeneration is the power of divine, irresistible
grace working in the heart of the elect sinner, dethroning Satan and putting the life of
Christ into the heart. Yes, Paul knew that Christ was already in them. He is not denying that.
Paul’s prayer now is for something else: that Christ dwell in their hearts by
faith. This is to be distinguished from
regeneration. That Paul is thinking of
something other than regeneration is obvious also from the fact that he adds the words,
“by faith.” Regeneration is a work
of God that He does without the use of any means or instruments. Paul’s prayer is for
Christ to dwell in the Ephesians “by faith.”
So Paul is requesting that God do something of which faith is to be the means or
instrument.
The key to understanding this petition of Paul is the meaning of the word
“dwell.” To “dwell” means
to live in, as in a house, to settle down and to be at home. May Christ live in our hearts as in a house; may
He be at home in our hearts.
What does it mean that Christ dwells in our hearts?
Remember that this has to be more than believing in Him, for the Ephesians were
already doing that. First, it means having
Jesus Christ so revealed to us that His presence is in us and with us. And, second, it means that there is a pervasive
sense of His presence in us — He dwells in us in the sense of being settled and at
home in us. Third, it is a joyous fellowship with Him.
It is sad but true that one can be a Christian without having much conscious
fellowship with Jesus, without being aware that He is near to us. When Christ dwells in our hearts, He is doing more
than exerting a vague, infrequent influence on us. He
is so at home in us that we are at home with Him, consciously aware of and enjoying His
presence.
It is one thing to know what Christ has done for us.
But it is another thing to know that He who has done so much for us is in us
and with us. When we are young in our
faith, our focus is on knowing what Jesus did for us.
This is as it ought to be, for at this stage of our spiritual development we must
know these beautiful truths of His perfect work. However,
as one matures, the knowledge of these objective truths more and more includes the
experiential awareness of their wonderful, amazing, humbling, and refreshing implications. When Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, then we
will experience the on-going miracle that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I
shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life” (
John 4:14
). Jesus said that “he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (
John 6:56
).
The believer in whose heart Christ dwells knows that he lives spiritually. This is the experience of living a life in the
flesh by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me, so “not I, but Christ liveth in me” (
Gal. 2:20
). It is possible, from our human perspective, to
have a relationship with Christ, but not to have Him as the constant center of our lives. Paul prays that the Ephesian believers will have
a greater intimacy with Christ, their Sovereign Friend, which is likened to the friendship
and fellowship that Jesus has in His Father. When
He promised the Comforter, Jesus said, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you” (
John 14:20
).
Later Jesus said, “If a man love me, he
will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (
John 14:23
).
When Christ is in us, then He is the controlling factor in the whole of
our life. The relationship with Him is not a
vague influence, but a real fellowship when His will and pleasure controls and directs our
life. It is possible to know Christ, but not
be controlled by Him so that He rules over our thoughts, words, and actions. When Christ dwells in us by faith, then He is Lord
of our life in a real, practical sense. Then
we want to keep growing in our love for Him who loved us so much. Then we want to trust Him more and more. Then we believe that He is able to make everything
in our life work out for our spiritual and eternal profit, no matter how impossible that
may seem to our flesh. Then even His rod and
His staff comfort us. Just so He is with us
and having His abode in us.
How
does this become a reality for us?
First, this becomes a reality “by faith.” This does not come about in a special, mystical
way. This is not for some special,
extra-blessed Christians. Rather,
Christ dwells in our hearts “by faith.” Not
only is faith the bond which unites every believer to Christ, but it also reveals
Him to every believer. “Faith is an
instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits” (Belgic
Confession, Article 22). Without faith we can
read over these great words and not understand their meaning. Faith enables the believer to know the truth about
Jesus, not in a superficial way, but so that the believer is “persuaded of”
these truths (
Heb. 11:13
).
As our faith is lived embracing Christ, we experience the wonder that Christ makes
His abode in us. Faith enables every
Christian to desire and to seek this reality. Do
we often neglect to exercise our faith in the day-to-day things of life, in our
conversations, in our thinking and planning? Do
we live our life in the flesh as an end in itself, or do we seek to live in the flesh as
having Christ living in us. Do we use the
things of this earth as ends in themselves, or do we use them as part of our Christian
life on the path to the life to come? Are we
growing in the awareness of how much we sin and therefore how much we need Christ? Living by faith we experience the wonder of having
Christ Himself in us, so we increasingly enjoy His presence.
Second, we attain this level of spiritual maturity only by being “strengthened
with might by His Spirit in the inner man.” A
spiritual baby is weak and needs to be strengthened.
We need to be strengthened against the devil and his host (cf. 6:11, 12). The evil one often attacks our inner man. In order to put on the whole armor of God against
the devil, we must be strengthened. “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might” (
Eph. 6:10
). We need to be strengthened in our inner man to be
able to deal experientially with the wonderful truth that Christ dwells in our hearts.
We need to be strengthened because of the greatness of the truth. Strong meat is for those who are strong and
mature. Milk is for those who are babes. There is a time for milk. And there should be a time for strong meat. But to be strong enough to eat the strong meat we
need to be strengthened. To receive,
appreciate, and enjoy truths so strong, we need to be strengthened.
It is our “inner man” which needs to be strengthened. This inner man includes our minds. Our minds are earthly. Our minds can wander, or be dull and slow to
understand, for all kinds of reasons. And the
truths presented to this earthly mind are deep, spiritual truths. While the truth of what Christ did and does are
gloriously simple, they are also tremendously profound.
Our minds need more and more to expand to take in the truths of Scripture and their
implications. To know the depths of the
implications of God’s truth, we need our mind strengthened.
And we need to be strengthened in our wills. Sometimes
we don’t want to put forth the effort to learn God’s truth. I have heard Christians say that they are not
readers, not realizing that they are then hiding these truths in the ground, like the
servant with one talent. We must realize that
this prayer of Paul is for all Christians, the “ordinary” ones too. We can easily be intellectually lazy, saying that
we don’t want to climb down into the depths or up into the mountains of God’s
truth. In order to appreciate the blessed
truth that Christ dwells in our hearts, we must have our wills strengthened.
May
Christ dwell in your hearts. The possibility
of this happening to us is the grace of God. “The
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” is the One before whom the apostle bows his knees
(14). He is the One who must
“grant” this reality to us. When He
grants it, then it is free. We do not have to
buy it or earn it. Therefore the weakest
Christian may pray that God mercifully grant him to be strengthened in the inner man so
that Christ may dwell in his heart by faith.
When God grants, He does so out of “the riches of His glory.” Is there any end to His glory? Of course not!
His glory is the beauty of His infinite perfections shining forth from Him. So great is God and so infinite are His
perfections that His glory is a treasury which fills this whole universe and beyond. With the riches of God’s glory being the
source, the blessings He gives and the strength He imparts are great indeed!
God grants this blessing to us “by His Spirit.” The Spirit of Christ works in us initial
regeneration and salvation. And He is the One
who continues the work in order to strengthen us. The
Spirit of Christ is the power that strengthens us so that we can hold Christ in our
hearts. Christ Himself dwells in the human
heart. The Spirit makes this possible. Let us pray with Paul that God may grant,
according to His riches, that we be strengthened, so that we do not stagger when
confronted by truths so wonderful and amazing.
When we by His grace rid ourselves of that which is incompatible with Him, Christ
is at home in us and we are at home with Him. We
must rid ourselves of love of the world and of self.
We must increasingly see His love for us, so we love Him. “He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” (
John 14:21
).
Let us rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory that Christ dwells in us. May we more and more know the wonder that He is at
home in us and we in Him.
Editorial:
Prof. David J. Engelsma
* This is the text of the speech
given at the convocation exercises of the Protestant Reformed Seminary on September 4,
2002. The first four installments appeared in
the January 1, January 15, February 1, and February 15, 2003 issues of the Standard
Bearer. The speech has been revised and
expanded for publication by naming theologians, books, and articles and by giving full
citations.
The Unconditional Covenant in Contemporary Debate—and the Protestant Reformed Seminary (5)*
The movement in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches
that teaches justification by faith and faith’s works leads back to the Roman
Catholic Church. The gospel-truth of
justification by faith alone as the core of the body of doctrines that teach salvation by
the grace of God alone is the fundamental difference between the true church of Christ and
the Roman Catholic Church. For Protestant
theologians and churches to give up justification by faith alone is to make the eventual
return to Rome a certainty, indeed, a necessity.
Wright and Rome
Already at this early stage of the development of the movement, there are clear
signals that the end of the movement is Roman Catholicism.
N. T. Wright, whose influence on the movement in conservative Reformed churches
should not be underestimated, makes no secret of it, that the main implication of the new
understanding of justification is ecumenicity and that this ecumenicity embraces Rome.
Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith impels the churches, in
their current fragmented state, into the ecumenical task.
It cannot be right that the very doctrine which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong at the same table (
Galatians 2
)
should be used as a way of saying that some, who define the doctrine of justification
differently, belong at a different table. The
doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and
Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavour. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine
that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares
that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family.... The doctrine of
justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine (What Saint Paul Really
Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of
Christianity? Eerdmans, 1997, p. 158).
The doctrine of justification that Wright has in mind, however, is not the teaching
of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the guilty sinner by means of faith
alone, as confessed by the churches of the Reformation in their creeds.
Shepherd and Rome
The same distinct leaning towards Rome appears in the defenders of the doctrine
of justification by faith and the works of faith in conservative Reformed circles. Norman Shepherd laments that there are
“unresolved questions” remaining “that are really the legacy of the
Protestant Reformation” (The Call of Grace: How
the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism, P&R, 2000, p. 4). These unresolved questions have to do with the
doctrine of justification and include Reformed weaknesses regarding man’s
responsibility and the importance of works.
Ominously, Shepherd states that his doctrine of a conditional covenant, with
its essential element of justification by faith and faith’s works, offers “hope
for a common understanding between Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism
regarding the way of salvation” (Call of Grace, p. 59). Although Rome is called to give up its notion of
merit, that false church is not required to repent of its doctrine of justification by
faith and works as denial of the gospel of grace. Nor is she rebuked for her heretical explanation of
Romans 3, 4
and
James 2
.
Rome in Their Heart
Even though these defenders of justification by faith and faith’s works are
still in Reformed churches, Rome is in their heart. Shepherd takes Rome’s side against Luther’s translation of
Romans 3:28
by means of the word “alone”:
Luther inserted the word “alone” into his translation of
Romans 3:28
to make it read “For we hold that one is justified by faith alone apart from
works of the law.” This is the origin of
the dogmatic formula, justification by faith alone. However,
his insertion actually distorts Paul’s meaning (“Justification by Faith
Alone,” in Reformation & Revival Journal, 11, no. 2 [Spring 2002]: 87).
The clear and necessary implication of
Shepherd’s rejection of Luther’s “only,” of course, is that one is
not justified by faith alone. Rather, as
Rome has always taught, one is justified by faith and by works of some sort, though
not “works of the law.”
Shepherd fears, no doubt sincerely, that the Reformation’s proclamation of
justification by faith alone, without any reference to any works of the justified sinner,
risks, if it does not imply, antinomism (Call of Grace, pp. 6-9, 61, 62). The gospel of salvation by grace alone makes men
careless and profane! The way to guard
against this antinomian carelessness of life, according to Shepherd, is by teaching that
justification also depends upon the sinner’s own works, by bringing the sinner’s
own obedience to the law into the doctrine of justification, and by stressing that the
covenant is indeed conditional, depending upon the sinner’s own faith, works of
faith, and perseverance in faith and its works. That
is, the way to promote a holy life is by compromising the gospel of grace.
Do these men not remember that the charge of carelessness and profanity of life,
that is, anti-nomism, was always Rome’s slander against the Reformation gospel of
grace? Rome raised the slander especially against the doctrine of justification by faith
alone. (In light of Rome’s foul life,
clergy and people, then and today, the slander is as ludicrous as it is wicked, but this
was Rome’s charge, nevertheless.) Having
confessed justification by faith alone (accepting and confirming Luther’s “alone” in
Romans 3:28
!)
in Questions and Answers 59-63, the Heidelberg Catechism confronts Rome’s
slander—and Norman Shepherd’s fear—head-on in Question and Answer 64: “But doth not this doctrine make men careless
and profane? By no means; for it is
impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by a true faith should not bring forth
fruits of thankfulness.”
The Catechism does not respond to the charge—and fear—of antinomism
by qualifying, hedging on, pulling back from, or weakening in any way, that is, denying,
the truth of justification by faith alone. In
view of the charge—and real danger—of antinomism, the Catechism does not
speak of “unresolved questions” concerning justification and good works that are
“the legacy of the Protestant Reformation.”
The Catechism does not safeguard good works by making them partly the basis of
God’s act of justifying and partly the righteousness of the justified sinner.
The Catechism’s response to the charge of antinomism is radically different
from that of Norman Shepherd and his fellow critics of justification by faith alone in
conservative Reformed churches today. The
Catechism flatly denies the charge and dismisses the fear.
“By no means!” The doctrine
of justification by faith alone does not make men careless and profane. It has never made one human being careless and
profane. It never will. Careless and profane men have abused the doctrine
to serve their licentious lives. But the
doctrine is blameless.
The truth of justification by faith alone cannot make anyone careless
and profane. “It is impossible” that
it should do so. Reformed men and women, who
do not have Rome’s theology in their hearts, have this robust confidence concerning
the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Justification
by faith alone cannot produce antinomism because the true faith that alone justifies, as
sole instrument of receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ, is union with Christ. Union with Christ must produce a holy life
of good works in every one who is united with Christ, as a branch of a living tree must
bring forth fruit.
These good works are “fruits of thankfulness.” In light of the charge by the foes of
justification by faith alone that the doctrine makes men careless and profane, the
Catechism’s description of the good works of the believer is extraordinarily
significant. The charge, of course, is
intended to force the Reformed churches to make good works the basis, in part, of
justification, and part of a sinner’s righteousness with God.
The Catechism will have nothing of this, antinomism or no antinomism. The good works of the believer are not
conditions required for justification. They
are “fruits” produced by and following justification. The good works of the believer are not the basis
of justification, nor are they the believer’s righteousness with God. They are expressions of “thankfulness”
for the gift of justification. The sole basis of justification is Christ’s obedience
in His life and death. The only obedience to
the law that constitutes the righteousness of the elect, believing sinner is the obedience
of Christ in his stead.
The charge against the doctrine of justification by faith alone that it is
antinomian exposes those making the charge as enemies of the gospel of grace. Always the confession of salvation by grace alone
is met with the charge that this doctrine denies man’s responsibility and leads to
carelessness of life.
Having taught that our unrigh-teousness commends the righteousness of God, the
apostle takes note of the slanderous charge against him that he taught “Let us do evil, that good may come” (
Rom. 3:5, 8
).
Having taught righteousness by faith alone, apart from works of obedience to the
law, Paul asks, “Do we then make void the law through faith?” evidently referring to the charge against his doctrine (
Rom. 3:31
).
At the end of the great section in Romans in which he has taught justification by
faith alone and its basis in the obedience of Christ, the apostle confronts the common
objection to his teaching of grace: “What
shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (
Rom. 6:1
)
It is an unmistakable mark of the true gospel of grace that it draws the charge of
antinomism. The charge itself assures the
church that she is preaching the gospel of grace. If
the charge of antinomism is not leveled against a church’s teaching, the reason is
that the church is not preaching grace.
How many churches today, Reformed in name and formal confession, are ever charged
with doctrinal antinomism?
Who would ever think of charging the justification-doctrine of Norman Shepherd and
his allies with antinomism? So full is their
doctrine of conditions, law, and human works that it is simply inconceivable that anyone
would ever think of saying, “You make void the law through faith! It is the implication of your doctrine that
justified sinners continue in sin that grace may abound!”
A Hindrance
Just as the proponents of justification by faith and faith’s works in
conservative Reformed circles today share Rome’s antipathy to justification by faith
alone as a licentious doctrine, so do they also agree with Rome and Arminianism that the
“five points of Calvinism” make evangelistic preaching impossible. The theology of the Canons of Dordt is a
hindrance, not only to evangelism and missions, but also to assuring members of the
congregation of their salvation.
Election stands in the way of bringing the good news to all and sundry. “Because the Calvinist has an accomplished
redemption that is particular in scope though always effective for the elect, he cannot
apply it to particular persons.” Believing
limited atonement, the Calvinistic pastor is not even able to “cultivate a hearty
assurance in this or that believer, because he does not know for certain whether that
person is one of the elect.”
The result of the theology of Dordt is the horrendous evil that
“Calvinists tend to be more successful at preaching sin, condemnation, and death than
at preaching the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Call of Grace, pp. 79-82).
Why these men remain in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, which have this
theology as their official, confessional understanding of the gospel in the Canons of
Dordt and the Westminster Confession, is a mystery. For
my part, the day I was convinced that the doctrines of grace in the Canons of Dordt cannot
be preached, restrict me to preaching “sin, condemnation, and death” rather than
“the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and make it impossible for me to apply the
gospel personally to everyone whom I address, on that day I would renounce the Reformed
faith and take my leave of the Reformed churches. With
trumpets blaring, to warn all that the Reformed faith is a false gospel!
Shepherd’s solution to the problem of the woeful insufficiency of the
“five points of Calvinism” for evangelism and personal application of the gospel
is universal, conditional election; universal, conditional atonement; and universal,
conditional regeneration. All in the name of
a conditional covenant! (Call of Grace, pp.
79-105). Never mind that the Canons expressly
reject all of these teachings as grievous false doctrine!
The doctrine of a conditional covenant trumps the Canons of Dordt.
Back into Bondage
The teaching of justification by faith and faith’s works by these prominent,
influential Reformed and Presbyterian professors and ministers has practical consequences. It leads impressionable Presbyterian and Reformed
souls back to the bondage of the Roman Catholic Church.
That this is no idle fear, but grim reality, has been testified by one such
impressionable former Presbyterian, Scott Hahn.
Hahn fell away to the Roman Catholic Church, for which he is now an apologist
to other Presbyterians. In his and his
wife’s book recounting their apostasy, Hahn tells the world how Norman Shepherd
encouraged him in his conversion to Rome. By
his own studies, Hahn discovered that the Protestant and Presbyterian doctrine of
justification by faith alone was wrong. “Sola
fide [by faith alone—DJE] was unscriptural!”
Hahn continues:
I was so
excited about this discovery. I shared it
with some friends, who were amazed at how much sense it [Hahn’s belief of
justification by faith and works—DJE] made. Then
one friend stopped me and asked if I knew who else was teaching this way on justification. When I responded that I didn’t, he told me
that Dr. Norman Shepherd, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary … was about
to undergo a heresy trial for teaching the same view of justification that I was
expounding. So I called Professor Shepherd
and talked with him. He said he was accused
of teaching something contrary to the teachings of Scripture, Luther and Calvin. As I heard him describe what he was teaching, I
thought, Hey, that is what I’m saying. Now
this might not seem like much of a crisis to many, but for somebody steeped in
Protestantism and convinced that Christianity turned on the hinge of sola fide, it
meant the world (Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism, Ignatius, 1993, p.
31).
Yes, and it meant the souls of Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
Rejection of justification by faith alone, criticism of all the doctrines of grace,
and a turning toward the Roman Catholic Church — this is the movement now firmly
embedded, and spreading, in many of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in
North America.
Its basis is the doctrine of a conditional covenant.
(to be concluded)
Letters:
Positive
Explanation
Rev.
VanderWal is especially to be commended for his fine exposition of
Matthew 5:43-48
, in the November 1, 2002 issue of the
Standard Bearer.
The history of the Protestant Reformed Churches has necessitated a refutation of
the teaching of common grace. God be thanked
for that refutation so faithfully maintained all these years!
Nevertheless, because of the necessity to refute common grace, I believe that
discussion among Protestant Reformed people about this passage has almost always been
limited to what the Scripture here does not teach, namely, common grace. Hence, it has seemed to me for a long time that
positive exegesis of these verses was overdue.
It was refreshing and edifying to read an article that clearly teaches what the
Lord requires of us in this passage of His infallible Word.
May we have grace to believe it and obey it!
John
Hilton
Waterville,
ME
It is disappointing that Rev. Kleyn
would weaken his description of Reformed worship by imposing his personal convictions
concerning proper church attire. (“Worship
Acceptable in God’s Sight,” Standard Bearer,
January 15, 2003.) By insinuating that women
and girls who wear something other than dresses to church do not have an acceptable
attitude of worship, Rev. Kleyn condemns the common practice of vast numbers of humble,
godly daughters of Zion, including many in my own congregation. This kind of broad-brush accusation about a
debatable matter can be hurtful and breed dissension in the body of Christ.
Surely, Paul’s instruction in
Romans 14
applies here. If in a local congregation, the
brothers and sisters are strong, and so the women may exercise their freedom to forego
dresses for other items of clothing, they do this unto the Lord. If in another congregation the brother and sisters
do not have this strength, and so the women wear only dresses, they also do this unto the
Lord. Neither the strong nor the weak
believers should condemn the others for their practice.
But more importantly, we should all echo Paul and say that the kingdom of God (and
the acceptable worship of God) is not a matter of dresses or slacks, but of righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Stephen
VanderWoude
Crown
Point, IN
Response:
In worship, as was stated in the article to which the above letter refers, we
consciously enter the presence of our holy God. This
requires proper attitudes of heart, such as godly fear, reverence, humility, etc. Our attitude of heart is certainly the most
important thing when we worship God.
But one’s attitude is reflected in his or her appearance. A casual appearance indicates a casual attitude. When one does not wear his or her “Sunday
best” to church (please note that the mention of dresses in the article was just one
example of “Sunday best” among various others), it appears that he or she does
not have a true understanding of the majesty and glory of God. It is true that that is not necessarily the case.
We cannot see and judge another’s heart. But
the proper attitude of heart ought to be reflected in our appearance.
I disagree with the idea that a congregation is “stronger” if women in it
forego dresses, and that another congregation is “weaker” if the women in it
wear only dresses. In this connection, I
would ask the following (directing these questions both to men and women): Why do we desire to wear more casual clothing? Is it because we are mostly interested in being
comfortable, fashionable, or progressive? Or
is it because we think such clothing is the most appropriate to wear when we enter the presence of our great and holy God, before whom even the angels hide their faces (
Isaiah 6
)?
— (Rev.) Daniel Kleyn
All Around Us:
Rev. Ken Koole
Rev.
Koole is pastor of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church in Grandville, Michigan.
Preparing the
Groundwork
Or — Should Down-Syndrome Children
The slippery slope. We have all heard of it. Remove the legal restraint on something forbidden,
and be prepared to be troubled by greater evils down the road. We have seen it happen time and again. In ecclesiastical affairs for instance. “Just women deacons. That is all we are seeking to justify on
scriptural grounds. Not elders and ministers. Your fear is completely groundless and
misplaced.” But once granted…. You
know the rest. In a couple of years’
time these same men were saying, “But simple logic and consistency demand that all
the offices be opened to women. Any dummy
should be able to see that! How simple you
‘conservatives’ are.” The
Devil is content to plot his strategy square by square, piece by piece, and to use
smooth-sounding men (whose ‘reassuring words’ can be no more trusted than the
father of the lie himself) to accomplish his ends, gaining one concession at a time until
he dominates the board. And once his pieces
are in place, expect no quarter. He intends
to take his diabolical gains to their logical ends. So
in the abortion issue.
The opponents of abortion have always pointed out that public policy that legalizes
the murder of the unborn can only arise out of a debased evaluation of human life and must
inevitably lead to a greater devaluing of human life until not one person whose
contribution to ‘civilized society’ is questionable is safe from being
“terminated.” The advocates of
abortion have always said “Nonsense. You see boogey-men where none exist.” Well, guess what.
The “pessimists” were right again, as pointed out in an article in the
December 5, 2002 issue of Boundless, entitled “Targeting the Disabled,”
by Roberto Rivera y Carlo. Writes y Carlo:
…The devaluing of human life continues unimpeded, as attendees at a recent conference at the University of Rhode Island learned. At the 10th “Genetic Technology & Public Policy in the New Millennium” symposium, Daniel W. Brock, a bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, gave a presentation entitled “Genetic testing and selection: A Response to the Disability Move-ment’s Critique.”
In his presentation, Brock argued that prenatal testing to prevent the birth of severely disabled children, such as the blind or those with “severe mental retardation,” was in the public interest. Caring for people with these sorts of disabilities consumes precious and often limited resources: money, time, and emotional energy. Brock told his audience that “it’s a mistake to think that the social and economic costs are not a legitimate concern in this context.”
What is more, he said, these expenditures do not necessarily translate into a meaningful improvement in the quality of life of the severely disabled. Even with what Brock calls “environmental” changes, such as handicapped access to buildings and learning new skills, such as American Sign Language or Braille, the disabled live with “real disadvantages.”
It doesn’t matter that the disabled don’t seem to mind. “Our notion of how good a person’s life is [isn’t] fully determined by their own subjective self-assessment,” Brock told his audience. Besides, “preventing a severe disability is not for the sake of the child who will have it. Rather, it is for the sake of less suffering and loss of opportunity in the world.”
Did you catch those last couple of sentences, and for whose sake, according to
Brock, preventing severe disability is not? Not
the disabled. Mention is made of “less
suffering and loss of opportunity in the world.”
Whose suffering? Whose loss of
opportunity? Why, you simpleton, ours! We, the healthy ones, should be spared the
‘suffering’ and loss of opportunity that diseased and disabled persons bring
upon us by their intrusion into the opportunities and resources available to us! Unbelievable.
The sheer unadulterated selfishness of it all.
In Brock’s ‘brave new-world’ the well-fed and well-bred are what
life is to be all about.
Do you know what this man (who was listened to with honor!) has just implied? This! The
great and decisive consideration of the medical profession ultimately is not the happiness
and well-being of the patient (your crippled child for instance), but the “right to
happiness” (fullness of “opportunity”) of society at large. Will society benefit (financially, emotionally)
from the continued presence of this or that
disabled person? If society (read — the
bureaucrats appointed to make such judgments) thinks not, then the family of
said-individual owes it to society to make sure such a child never sees the light of day. This is the inalienable right of the well-fed and
the well-bred!
y Carlo points out that this perspective has a long pedigree in American life. He writes:
Compare Brock’s appeal to the prospect of ’less suffering and loss of opportunity’ to the following [quote]:
“It would be strange if [the public welfare] could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices … in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbecilities is enough.”
You’re probably thinking that I’m quoting some Nazi-era document but I’m not. It’s from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes majority decision in Buck v. Bell (1927), which upheld a Virginia law that mandated sterilization of what then were called the “feebleminded.”
For the better part of a century, a segment of American elite opinion has practiced and advocated various forms of what is euphemistically called “birth control” to promote its vision of a better society.... Like Holmes, they made lofty-sounding appeals to the ‘public welfare’ and inveighed against the costs associated with allowing certain births to take place. (One Michigan legislator went so far as to introduce a bill calling for the electrocution of severely retarded infants, claiming that electrocution was a humane way of putting these children out of their suffering.)…
As a result [of consistent Supreme Court decisions over the past 30 years to legalize abortion procedures of every stripe and hew], the campaign to minimize suffering and maximize opportunity is free to proceed in an unfettered manner. And proceed it has, long before Brock gave his controversial remarks in Cranston. You see, the dirty little not-so-secret is that Americans are already practicing what Brock preaches. They are working to eliminate an entire class of disabled people: those with Down Syndrome.
These have
been, as Tucker Carlson put it in the Weekly Standard, “targeted for
elimination.” According to several
studies, 90 percent of the women who learned, through amniocenteses and chromosome
analysis, that they were carrying a child with Down Syndrome subsequently had an abortion. Combine this with the way that doctors, for
insurance, regulatory and legal reasons, strongly encourage their patients to undergo
testing, and a pattern emerges: an unofficial, but nonetheless effective, effort to reduce
the number of people with Down Syndrome.
Why? For many of the same reasons Brock cites: raising
a child with Down Syndrome is expensive and, as Nachum Sicherman of Columbia University
put it, most of the cost is “not going to be paid by parents.” And, of course, there are the non-monetary costs,
such as “the number of women who would have to quit their careers to care for these
babies,” mentioned by an embryologist in a New York Times article.
As y Carlo concludes, what just a few years ago was considered to be unthinkable,
society now embraces, or at least is willing to overlook.
The direction in which our “Christian, civilized society” is heading is
truly frightening. Life means next to nothing
at all, especially that life which intrudes into society’s own comfort and ease. The “undesirables” must go. How long will it be before Christians, that is,
those who prick self-centered, greedy, murderous society’s conscience in matters like
these, and who will not terminate their children’s lives on the altar of “society’s benefit,” are also
labeled as “undesirable”? One can
almost feel the breath of the Dragon on one’s neck.
An Amazing
Turnabout
Whistleblower Magazine, in its January 2003 issue, marking
the thirtieth anniversary of the infamous “Roe v. Wade” decision, carries an
astonishing article in which it interviews one of the cofounders of the pro-abortion
movement, Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Nathanson was one of the principal architects and
strategists of the abortion movement in the United States in the late ‘60s and early
‘70s. After years of personal
involvement as both advocate and an abortionist, Nathanson has had, if not a change of
heart, at least a change of conscience, finding it difficult to live with himself after
all these years. He lays bare the sheer
deceit that has permeated the pro-abortion movement from its very inception. He tells an astonishing, shocking story (part of
which follows).
“In 1968 I met Lawrence Lader,” says Nathanson. “Lader had just finished a book called ‘Abortion,’ and in it had made the audacious demand that abortion should be legalized through-out the country. I had just finished a residency in obstetrics and gynecology and was impressed with the number of women who were coming into our clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal, and infected, botched abortions.
“Lader and I were perfect for each other. We sat down and plotted out the organization now known as NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League — KK). With Betty Friedan, we set up this organization and began working on the strategy.
“We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one,” recalls the movement’s co-founder. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.
“Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public (sic! — KK). The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of America, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.
“Another myth we fed the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.”
What was the result of NARAL’s brilliant deceitful marketing campaign, bolstered by thoroughly fraudulent research?
In New York, the law outlawing abortion had been on the books for 140 years. “In two years of work, we at NARAL struck that law down,” says Nathanson.
New York immediately became the abortion capital for the eastern half of the United States.
“We were inundated with applicants for abortion,” says Nathanson. “To that end, I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven days a week, from 8 AM to midnight. We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I [am responsible for] 75,000 abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject of abortions.”
But something happened to Nathanson — something profound. Just as it happened to countless other abortionists, abortion-clinic owners and staffers. Just as it happened to Norma McCorvey — the real name for “Jane Roe,” the plaintiff in the Supreme Count’s 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
These pioneers of the abortion-rights movement have all arrived at the same conclusion — that abortion is the unjust killing of a human baby — and have come over to the other side of the raging abortion war.
The outrageous deceitfulness behind the whole abortion movement is self-evident, of
course. Lies from beginning to end,
especially the end, namely, the participants assuring themselves that this is not a human
being, this is not murder. The real scandal is that, despite all this evidence, nothing
will change. When it comes to justifying
evil, man is given to staggering self-deception, as the Master of the Lie well knows. The ‘harvest of shame’ will continue
unabated in this country. Our society’s
conscience has become all but dead.
Feature Article:
Rev. Angus Stewart
Rev. Stewart is a
Protestant Reformed minister, presently working in Northern Ireland.
The Real Saint Patrick (1)
Patrick: the Myth
The popular conception of Patrick is of the mitered bishop who illustrated the
Trinity using a shamrock, drove the snakes of Ireland into the sea, and victoriously
confronted Loeghaire (pronounced Leary), the High-King of Ireland, and the druids at Tara. He is seen as typically Irish and was dearly loved
by the Irish populace of his day.
Saint Patrick’s Day is celebrated by many the world over, and not just by the
Irish and those in the Irish diaspora. The
parade in New York — the largest demonstration of its kind in the world — sees
over 100,000 march up Fifth Avenue. Green
beer; shamrocks; green, white, and orange flags; and public speeches are the order of the
day. The world turns green, and everybody
discovers that he has at least some Irish connections.
Patrick, apparently, was a colorful character, a fun-loving guy. One author lends some support to this conclusion. Thomas Cahill puts it this way: Patrick “didn’t take himself too
seriously.”1
Many aspects of the “popular Patrick” are promoted not only by the Irish
diaspora and the Irish tourist board and the Irish government, but also by the Roman
Church. According to Romish reckoning, Patrick was sent to Ireland by the pope. Clerical vestments are his garb and he carries a
pastoral staff. He is accompanied by a
guardian angel and works miracles. He is, in short, a “holy man.” Thus when Pope John Paul II was in Ireland, he was
allegedly walking “in the footsteps of Saint Patrick.” It is strange that Patrick has not been canonized
by the Roman Church.
On the last Sunday of July, Roman Catholics are still to be seen climbing Croagh
Patrick in County Mayo, some with bare feet. Allegedly,
Patrick once spent the forty days of Lent on that mount, and the Roman Church promises the
faithful access to his merits. The island on
Lough Derg in County Donegal, on which Patrick allegedly had visions of purgatory, is
another holy place that is frequented by pilgrims. In
reality, however, the legend of Saint Patrick’s purgatory began with the pilgrimage
to Lough Derg by a soldier known as the Knight Owen, in the middle of the twelfth century.
Not content with all this, the papal church even declares Patrick’s daily
ritual. The Roman Breviary for March
17 tells us:
Every day he worshipped God three hundred times with genuflections and during each canonical hour he made the sign of the cross one hundred times. He divided the night into three periods, devoting the first into the recitation of one hundred psalms, accompanied by two hundred genuflections; the second to the recitation of the last fifty psalms, but immersed in cold water, holding the heart, the eyes and the hands towards Heaven; the third he devoted to a short rest, lying on the bare stone.
But is this a faithful presentation of the Patrick who labored in Ireland in
the fifth century? Is this really the man who
evangelized the Emerald Isle? And if it is,
do we really want to know such a man, never mind make him the object of a special study? Ironically, the presentation of Patrick that
embellishes his life with “pious legend” and papal fictions to make him
appealing and interesting rather than making us admire him makes any real appreciation of
this remarkable man impossible. Thankfully,
as John T. McNeill points out, “The popular image of Patrick partakes largely of the
legend and bears little relation to the historical person.”2
Thankfully, we possess two writings of Patrick which, incidentally, constitute
the oldest existing Irish literature. First,
in his Letter to Coroticus Patrick rebukes Coroticus and his soldiers for attacking
some of his Christian converts. Some were
slaughtered, but others were kidnapped to be sold into slavery. Second, Patrick wrote his Confession near
the end of his life as a defense of his mission work in Ireland. Patrick’s two writings have been translated
into English several times and exist in many editions.
They are well worth obtaining and they make rewarding reading, taking us back to
the work and world of a Christian missionary in fifth century Ireland.3
Papal writers sometimes betray a certain amount of disappointment with
Patrick’s Confession and his Letter to Coroticus. They appear to be dissatisfied with the simple
account of his gratitude to God and labors on behalf of the gospel of Christ. “Where are his miraculous works?” they
seem to be thinking. “Where does he
speak of the practices of the Roman Church?” Something
more is expected of a saint, and so the myths and exaggerations of the centuries
succeeding Patrick are latched upon and promoted.
Admittedly, there are several historical difficulties. Patrick’s writings are brief, and they were
not intended to provide later readers with his “Life and Times.” They are occasionally ambiguous and can sometimes
be interpreted in different senses. Our
knowledge of the times during which he lived is still somewhat sketchy, and this provides
further opportunity for an honest difference of opinion.
Patrick’s first two biographers, Tirechan (pronounced Teera-hawn) and
Muirchu (pronounced Murra-hoo), both wrote in the second half of the seventh century, at
least two hundred years after his death. Later
works betray an even greater desire to heighten Patrick’s repute. It was one of these, the Tripartite Life, probably
compiled near the end of the ninth century, which (sadly) became the most popular account
of Patrick in Ireland until the twentieth century.
At the outset, we need to debunk some of the myths.
First, Patrick was not Irish. He was
born in Britain. Second, the tradition of
Patrick’s driving the snakes out of Ireland is palpably false. Third, the shamrock story was first mentioned
about one thousand years after Patrick. Fourth,
the confrontation at Tara, though taken for truth by many, is mythical. R. P. C. Hanson states, “There was no
High-King of Ireland in his day,” and “miters were not invented for at least 500
years after Patrick.”4 Fifth, the
green beer is not of an old vintage.
Sixth, the claim of Patrick’s papal connections is denied even by some Roman
Catholic scholars. Aidan Nichols, in a recent Vatican publication, states,
Patrick’s own writings … make no such pretension to papal support. It seems that the conversion of those Celtic areas that lay outside the civil zone of Roman Britain was initiated by British Christians themselves.5
It is highly significant that when
Patrick was challenged as to his credentials for working in Ireland, he does not appeal to
Rome (Conf 23ff.). Had Patrick been a
papal missionary, such an omission would be unthinkable.
If this helps us in understanding what Patrick was not, we are still some way in
understanding what he was really like. According
to one scholar, Patrick “is one of the few personalities of fifth-century Europe who
has revealed himself with living warmth, in terms that men of any age who care for their
fellows can understand.” This quotation
may serve to encourage us in our quest for the real Saint Patrick, the man behind the
myth.
The Patrick portrayed in public celebrations and by the Roman Catholic Church
is mythical and useless. In Patrick’s
Confession and Letter to Coroticus we meet a godly Christian missionary who
both commands our admiration and deserves greater attention. Thus we shall consider his life, his message, and
his missionary labors, before concluding with an analysis of his significance. This we shall begin, God willing, next time.
2. John T. McNeill, The Celtic
Churches: A History A.D. 200 to 1200 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,
1974), p. 55; italics mine.
3. Patrick’s
Confession and his Letter to Coroticus hereafter will be abbreviated Conf
and Letter, respectively. The
translation from the original Latin which is used in this article is that of R. P. C.
Hanson (The Life and Writings of the Historical Saint Patrick [New York: The Seabury Press, 1983]).
5.
Aidan Nichols, “The Roman Primacy in the Ancient Irish and Anglo-Celtic
Church,” in Michele Maccarrone (ed.), Il Primato del vescovo di Roma nel primo
millennio (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), p. 475.
All Thy Works Shall Praise Thee:
Mr. Joel Minderhoud
Mr.
Minderhoud is a teacher in Covenant Christian High School and a member of Hope Protestant
Reformed Church, Walker, Michigan.
Autoimmune Disorders
–
The Importance of All the Body’s Members
Nay much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are
necessary.
Scripture, on more than one occasion, uses the human body to
illustrate characteristics of the Body of Christ. “If
the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If
the whole body were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased
him” (
I Cor. 12:17-18
). “Nay much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary” (
I Cor. 12:22
).
Scripture teaches that the Body of Christ is
made up of many members and that all the members play a vital and significant role in that
Body.
In previous articles on the nervous system (see SB, January 1, February 1,
2003) we marveled at our sovereign God, who created and controls the complex unity that is
found within the human body. We have seen the
specific God-given tasks given to the many individual members within the nervous system
– members that we perhaps did not even know existed, and that we certainly ignore in
our day-to-day activities. Only when we
recognize how vital all the members are in the body will we begin to understand how the
proper activity of each of these vital members brings unity to the body. Likewise, when these members do not, or cannot,
function as they should, the unity within the body is disrupted and the whole body
suffers.
Let us consider the value and importance of these little members as seen against
the backdrop of the disruption that occurs when there is disharmony in the body and
certain parts are damaged or destroyed. It is
our hope that, by means of this contrast, we may better appreciate the unity that should
be characteristic of the body. And may this
study, by God’s grace, help us to see how all the members in the greater Body are
important and necessary, and how the Body of Christ lives as one, suffering and rejoicing
together, united in Christ for the purpose of glorifying God’s most holy name.
Significant Members of the Body
As seen in a previous article, we experience movement – hands grip a
hammer, legs carry and move us about, eyes blink, stomachs churn, and hearts beat –
because of electrical signals that connect the brain to the other parts of the body. Tiny, seemingly insignificant, members of the
nervous system transmit these electrical signals. What
if those little members could not do their jobs? What
effect would it have on our bodies? In some
of our bodies those little members are destroyed by the immune system. Normally the immune system ignores the cells of
the body and attacks only “foreign” organisms.
However, under the sovereign direction of God, the white blood cells of the immune
system sometimes attack the cells of its own body. The
complications and effects that result from this are called “autoimmune
disorders.” We will consider two such
disorders that affect the nervous system and notice that when certain members of the body
do not function as intended, disharmony exists in the body, disrupting the entire workings
of the body as a whole.
The first autoimmune disorder we consider is multiple sclerosis. In the case of multiple sclerosis, the immune system attacks a portion of the nerve cell. As we saw in a previous article, nerve cells consist of three major parts – the dendrites, which look like lon