Vol. 80; No. 14; April 15, 2004
One-year's trial
subscription—1/2 price!!
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 ˝ 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.
Meditation – Rev. Ronald Van Overloop
Editorial
-- Prof. David J. Engelsma
· Covenantal Universalism: New Form of an Old Attack on Sovereign Grace
Review Article -- Prof. David J. Engelsma
· The Account of a Fallen Seminary and a "Falling" Church
Feature Article -- Slabbert Le Cornu
Feature Article -- Harv Kikkert
Grace Life -- Rev. Mitchell Dick
· The Passion of Christ: Are We There?
Marking the Bulwarks of Zion -- Prof. Herman Hanko
Taking Heed to the Doctrine -- Rev. Steven Key
· The Beginning of our Glorification
Search the Scriptures -- Rev. Ronald Hanko
· Haggai: Rebuilding the Church (7)
· Varia
Rev. Ronald VanOverloop
Rev.
VanOverloop is pastor of Georgetown Protestant Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan.
The Gift of Pastors
“And He gave some, apostles;
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the
perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”
Ephesians
4: 11-13
The many precious
truths taught in the first three chapters of this epistle are being applied, in these
verses, to the lives of the recently converted Christians in Ephesus. The first application concerns the unity of the
church of Christ and the necessity of keeping or preserving this unity (4:1-16).
The glory of the unity of Christ’s body is that there is a diversity in the
unity, and a unity that comprehends endless variations.
The many members are not merged together into a single, solid mass, nor are they
made to be alike without individual identity. The
unity does not do away with the diversity, and the diversity does not break the unity. The diversity in the unity makes for beautiful
harmony! The source of the unity is also the
source of the diversity. The source of the
unity is Christ, the Head of the body. The
source of the diversity is also Christ, the Giver of the various gifts in each member.
Our text speaks of one of the gifts the ascended Christ has given. What is said about this gift applies to all the
gifts given to the church. Paul uses the gift
of pastor and teacher as an example because it is one of the more important gifts given to
the church. Paul is inspired to have the
Ephesian believers of long ago and every believer today realize that each gift Christ
gives to the church is designed for the building up of the church. Each diverse gift is not for itself and its
self-expression, but is designed to work for the whole.
Christ gave to His church the gift of pastor/teacher. This is the permanent manifestation of the
temporary and extraordinary offices of apostle, prophet, and evangelist.
The “apostles” were those men who were appointed directly by Christ (Gal.
1:1). When the disciples were given the Great
Commission (Matt. 28:16-20), they became apostles — “sent-out ones.” The apostles had seen the risen Lord (I Cor. 9:1;
15:8,9). And they were given special
revelations of the truth. The Ephesians heard
about the dispensation of grace given to Paul, when he was given by revelation to know the
mystery of Christ, which was “revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit” (3:2-5; Gal. 1:12). The special
office of apostle could not continue because no others saw the risen Lord and were sent
out by the Christ Himself.
The office of “evangelist” was held by men such as Philip, Timothy, and
Titus. They were gifted men who were closely
associated with the apostles. The
evangelists were appointed by the apostles and often studied under them. Therefore they had a special ability and power to
make known and expound the facts of the gospel. This
office also was temporary, just because of its close association with the temporary office
of apostle.
The “prophets” were New Testament prophets (2:20; 3:5). Though they did not see Christ, they (like their
old dispensation counterparts) could speak under inspiration of the Spirit (Acts 11:27;
13:1; I Cor. 14:29,30). They received
revelations of the truth with the right to speak this truth to others. Again, this office was temporary. It lasted until the canon of the New Testament was
closed. The truth had not yet been completely
revealed and written in a permanent record in the New Testament Scriptures. With all the truth needed for salvation now
embodied in the New Testament, there is no need for further revelation from God through
apostles or prophets.
The permanent manifestation of this gift from Christ is the pastor/teacher. This is one office, not two — notice that the
word “some” is not repeated before the word “teachers.” The word “pastor” is used to describe
this gift of Christ to His church. This word
very beautifully describes the responsibility of caring for sheep. Jesus is the Chief and Great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20;
I Pet. 2:25; 5:4). However, He is now out of
sight because He has ascended into heaven. He
gives the office of pastor/teacher so that there might be a visible representation of
Himself to His sheep. He gives
under-shepherds to be guardians and protectors of His flock. This title emphasizes the fact that the bringing
of the gospel is to be for the spiritual care of the flock.
The pastor is a teacher. He is to
instruct the flock in the Word of God. His
shepherding is to be in the way of teaching them. He
cares for them, guards and directs them by teaching them the laws and truths of God’s
Word. Not just when on the pulpit or in the
catechism room, but always the pastor teaches — at the hospital bed, in the funeral
home. From house to house he shepherds the
flock by increasing their knowledge and understanding of the Word of the Shepherd.
What a gift the ascended Christ gives to His church!
How valuable is this precious gift! How
carefully and joyfully must it be received. And
what a great calling is given to them to whom the gift is given.
The
ascended Lord gave the gift of pastor/teacher for the establishment and maintenance of the
church by equipping the saints. The members
of the church are described according to their calling: saints. This title is given, not to a few special members
of the flock, but to every member. This title
does not mean that they are perfectly holy. Rather
the name “saint” means that they are essentially “holy ones.” As members of the body of Christ they have been
given the life of Jesus, which life is holy. They
have been separated out of the world of sinful mankind, have been forgiven, and have been
given the perfect righteousness of Jesus. They
are now dedicated to serve God and His Christ. They
are saints.
The shepherding to be done by the pastor/teacher is the “perfecting” of
the saints. This refers to equipping or
outfitting the saints. The preaching and
teaching of the gospel is to promote the spiritual growth and development of each member. The saints are equipped when they are taught the
Scriptures. The Word is to be applied
appropriately to each sheep in every season. This
is all they need — nothing but the Word.
The saints are to be equipped “for the work of the ministry.” The work of the ministry is literally the work of serving. Every saint has the office of believer. Each sheep is to be equipped by the preaching and
teaching of the Word for the work of serving the body as a whole and each of the other
members of the body. “Every one who
believes...must know it to be his duty, readily and cheerfully to employ his gifts, for
the advantage and salvation of other members” (Heidelberg Catechism, L.D. 21). “As mutual members of the same body,”
all believers are called to serve “the edification of the brethren, according to the
talents God has given them” (Belgic Confession, Art. 28). Each saint is called to serve the other members
that God puts in his path, using the gifts God has given to him. It is in the activity of serving (ministry) that
the members of the body of Christ function most beautifully.
The goal of equipping the saints unto service in the body is the “edifying of
the body of Christ.” The shepherding by
the pastor/teacher is unto the goal of the building up the body, both in the organism and
in the institute of the church. It is through
the preaching that Christ communicates Himself to the church, so that the church becomes
increasingly Christ-like. It is when the
members of the body help each other, that the image of Christ is reflected in them. In spite of the presence of the old man in every
saint, the power of Christ’s Word transforms them into the children of light. It is the preaching of the gospel that builds up
the body. By the preaching, every member
becomes spiritually stronger and thus better reflects the Head.
Christ, knowing what His body needs, has given throughout the new dispensation the
office of pastor/teacher, and He has filled the office with men to do the work of
pastoring/teaching the saints with His Word.
The
edifying of the body of Christ is not the end. There
is a higher end. It is the
“perfect” or complete man of the body of Christ in glory. “Perfect” means full grown, fully
developed, or complete. The reference is to
the church as a whole being complete. God’s
grand purpose is that the church be full grown, with all the elected members being
regenerated and gathered into the body of which Christ is the Head. The purpose of the gift of pastor/teacher is that
this glorious end might be attained. When the
body is complete, then there will be no more need for this gift.
This goal is described as “the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ.” The completed church is
attained when every single member is fully developed.
If there is any lack of development or any blemish in any part, then it cannot be
said that the whole is complete. Each part,
with its own variations in abilities and functions, must attain fully to that which it was
ordained to be or do.
And notice that, according to our text, each member is complete when he is filled
with Christ’s life, and when every member is in the body — not a single saint
lacking. God knows them that are His —
He chose them in love in His eternal decree of election.
Not until every member is fully present will the body be complete. Then His fullness will be in us and we will fill
Him (1:23).
We are taught in this passage that the ascended Christ gives the gift of
pastor/teacher and then uses the gift of pastor/teacher to bring the body to “the
unity of faith,” and to the “knowledge of the Son of God.” The “unity of the faith” refers to the
one faith (4:5) concerning the Son of God and to the knowledge of this Son of God. The essential truth believed by all saints out of
every age and culture concerns the person of the Savior.
Each saint grasps by faith the knowledge that the Son of God is united with man in
the wonder of the incarnation, and that He perfectly fulfilled God’s plan of
salvation.
This knowledge is much more than intellectual.
It must be a deeper and more profound knowledge.
The work of the pastor is to bring us to this fuller knowledge, for it is essential
to the building up of the body. This is the
knowledge of God’s love for us and of us for Him.
It is the calling of the church, through its ordained office of pastor/teacher, to
direct the attention of the members toward Christ. It
is Christ who must be known and loved.
So Christ ascended in order to give the gift of the pastor/teacher, so that they,
through their instructional preaching, might equip each member of the local congregation
to be able and willing to serve the other members, unto the goal of the building up of the
body of Christ. This work must be done until
our Lord returns.
Praise the Lord for the gift of pastor/teacher!!
Editorial:
Prof. David Engelsma
Covenantal Universalism:
New Form of an Old Attack
The gospel of
salvation by grace alone is in mortal danger in virtually every reputedly conservative
Reformed and Presbyterian denomination in North America.
The threat is a doctrinal movement described variously by its proponents as the
“Auburn Avenue theology” (from a Presbyterian church in Louisiana that is a
center of the movement), the “federal vision” (because the movement claims to be
developing the doctrine of the covenant—“federal” means
‘covenant’), and “objective covenant theology” (because of the
movement’s peculiar stress on the objectivity of the covenant).
The essence of the movement is the teaching that the saving grace of God in Jesus
Christ within the sphere of the covenant is universal.
Every baptized child is object and recipient of the grace of God. Indeed, every one who is validly baptized with
water in the name of the triune God receives the saving grace of God, those who eventually
are lost as well as those who finally are saved.
The Reformed faith rejects the teaching of universal grace as a heresy. It is a fundamental departure from the gospel to
teach that God is gracious in Christ to every human without exception. The movement now threatening the gospel in almost
all Reformed churches in North America introduces the heresy of universal grace into the
sphere of the covenant.
The right name for the movement is “covenantal universalism.” By this name, I will refer to the movement in this
and following editorials, in which I examine this latest threat to the gospel of grace in
the Reformed community.
The movement is radical apostasy from the Reformed faith, that is, from biblical,
Protestant Christianity. The movement of
covenantal universalism rejects the doctrine of justification by faith alone, teaching
that the sinner is justified by faith and by the good works of faith. At the same time, it denies all the doctrines of
sovereign grace confessed by the Reformed churches in the Canons of Dordt. The movement denies the “five points of
Calvinism.” It denies the doctrines of
grace in a remarkably open and bold manner.
Nevertheless, covenantal universalism poses a real threat to the Reformed churches. This is evident from the fact that virtually all
the supposedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America are
knowingly harboring in their bosom officebearers who teach, promote, and defend the
heresy. Two of these denominations have
already officially sanctioned the error by decision of their broader assemblies in 2003.
The reason why a movement denying all the doctrines of sovereign grace is a threat
to these Reformed churches is that the movement is the natural, logical development of the
doctrine of the covenant that the churches embrace.
I do not intend in these editorials to repeat what I wrote about this new
development of covenant doctrine in an earlier series of editorials under the heading,
“The Unconditional Covenant in Contemporary Debate” (Standard Bearer,
Jan. 1 – April 1, 2003). Those
editorials exposed the new development of the doctrine of the covenant as denial of the
truth of justification by faith alone.
In these editorials, I will show that covenantal universalism deliberately,
systematically, and openly denies all the doctrines of sovereign grace. More importantly, these editorials will trace this
denial of the gospel of sovereign grace to the erroneous doctrine of the covenant out of
which the denial arises. Most importantly,
the present series of editorials will demonstrate that there is one doctrine of the
covenant, and one doctrine only, that safeguards the gospel of salvation by the sovereign
grace of God in Jesus Christ.
The Men of the Movement
The main interest of this and following editorials is not at all the names of
persons, churches, and seminaries, but the doctrine.
Nevertheless, it is both right and necessary that readers of this magazine know who
the leading teachers of covenantal universalism are and where this contemporary
development of covenant doctrine finds a home.
The chief source of covenantal universalism in conservative Reformed circles is the
Presbyterian theologian Norman Shepherd. Shepherd
taught systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for almost
twenty years. After seven years of struggle,
on account of Shepherd’s teaching justification by faith and works, the Board of
Westminster Seminary “removed” him from the faculty in 1982. Shepherd then joined the Christian Reformed
Church, where he served as a pastor until he retired.
Rev. Shepherd continues to influence many in virtually all the reputedly
conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America by his recent book, The
Call of Grace (P&R, 2000), and by his speeches.
A more detailed account of the controversy at Westminster over Shepherd and his
teaching is found elsewhere in this issue of the Standard Bearer in the review
article, “The Account of a Fallen Seminary and a ‘Falling’ Church.”
Vocal, public proponents and defenders of the new development of the covenant are
found in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC),
and the United Reformed Churches (URC). Shepherd,
of course, is a member of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).
Among those who publicly espouse and teach covenantal universalism, or vigorously
defend and promote it, are, in addition to Rev. Shepherd, who has great influence in the
PCA and in the OPC, Prof. John Frame of the PCA; Rev. Steve Wilkins, also of the PCA; Dr.
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., of the OPC; Rev. John Baruch, of the URC; and the independents,
Rev. Douglas Wilson and Rev. Steve Schlissel. Wilson
and Schlissel have influence in the URC.
The role that the seminaries play in the spread of covenantal universalism is
significant. The teaching of Shepherd and
Gaffin has made Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia a fountainhead of the erroneous
doctrine throughout reputedly conservative Reformed churches worldwide. There is reason to believe that influential men at
other reputedly conservative Reformed seminaries are teaching the new development of
covenant theology, or are open to the doctrine. John
Frame teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.
Ominously, many seminaries remain quiet in the face of one of the gravest threats
to the gospel of sovereign grace in the Reformed churches since Dordt. Reformed professors of theology, one of whose main
duties according to the Church Order of Dordt is to “vindicate sound doctrine against
heresies and errors” (Art. 18), fail, or refuse, to speak out, loudly and
insistently, against the grievous threat to the people of God.
Every Child United to Christ
Covenantal universalism teaches that every child of believing parents without
exception who is baptized, that is, sprinkled with water in the name of the triune God, is
united with Jesus Christ. Every child,
indeed every person who is baptized, adult as well as infant, is truly, spiritually, and
savingly united with Christ. Every one
receives the life and blessings that are in Christ. The
teachers of covenant universalism are fond of saying that all without exception are
branches united to the vine, in the language of John 15, and that the sap of the vine
flows into all of them. Some of these
baptized children apostatize later on. They
are cut off, so that they perish everlastingly. But
these were as truly united to Christ as those who abide in Christ and are saved.
In a speech at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference, John Baruch taught
that every one who is baptized is “in Christ.”
The “efficacy of baptism” results in communion with the triune God for
every baptized person. “Every baptized
person,” said Rev. Baruch, “is in Christ and shares in His life.”
Universal grace in the sphere of the covenant!
Belief that every baptized child is in saving union with Christ is one reason why
many of these theologians teach and practice “paedo (child)-communion.” Speaking at the 2003 Knox Theological Seminary
Colloquium on the Federal Vision, Douglas Wilson told the conference of theologians that
he recently administered the Lord’s Supper to his one and a half-year old grandchild.
Every Child an Elect
Not only is every baptized child of Christian parents saved, but every one is also
an elect of God. The teachers of covenantal
universalism do not mean merely that the members of the congregation view the
children as elect with the “judgment of charity.”
All the children are elect. All
are chosen by God unto salvation. All alike
are elect in the sense that election has in Ephesians 1:4 and in II Thessalonians 2:13. They may very well lose their election, but for
the time being they are elect.
At the Colloquium on the Federal Vision at Knox Seminary in Florida last year,
Baruch criticized those who distinguish election and covenant. He declared that all those in the covenant by
baptism are elect. Every baptized child is an
elect in the sense of II Thessalonians 2:13. All
are united to Christ. All “really
experience His love, but they do not respond with repentance and faith and love.” Significantly, at this point Baruch quoted the
“Liberated” Reformed theologian Benne Holwerda in support of his doctrine of
universal covenantal election.
Rev. Steve Wilkins also spoke at this colloquium.
Referring explicitly to Ephesians 1:4 and II Thessalonians 2:13, he affirmed that
every one who is baptized is elect. He went
on to say that if baptized members of the congregation
“later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect—they are cut off from
the Elect One and thus lose their elect standing. But
their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their
apostasy. They were really and truly the
elect of God because of their relationship to Christ.”
The appeal to II Thessalonians 2:13 in support of the election of all the children
shows that the movement teaches that God loves all the baptized children alike. The text teaches that God has chosen those whom He
loves: “But we are bound to give thanks
always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning
chosen you to salvation.” According to
covenantal universalism, God elects all the children unto salvation because He loves all
the children, loves all the children with the love of His covenant in Jesus Christ.
Some of these beloved, elect children unfortunately fall away and become hated
reprobates, who perish in hell, but all were originally elect.
Covenantal universalism!
The Death of Christ
It is the teaching of covenantal universalism that Christ died for every baptized
child of godly parents. This is necessarily
implied by the teaching that all are savingly united to Christ and by the teaching that
God loves and chooses them all. Besides, the
very baptism that is supposed to signify, if it does not effect, union with Christ for all
without exception is the sign and seal of washing in Jesus’ blood, that is, the
cross.
The teachers of the new form of covenant theology boldly declare that Christ died
for all baptized children, indeed for every baptized member of the covenant community. John Baruch told his audience at the 2002 Auburn
Avenue Pastors’ Conference that “Jesus died for every baptized member of the
congregation, head for head.” He denied
that this was merely a judgment of charity.
Universal covenantal atonement!
Resistible Grace
Universal grace does not, however, mean universal salvation. The reason, according to the teachers of
covenantal universalism, is that covenant grace is resistible. When the baptized children grow up, they can
resist the grace of God in Christ. Resisting
grace, they are cut off from Christ. Many do
resist the grace of God that began a good work in them, and perish forever.
The grace of the covenant is resistible, because the covenant is conditional. As regards its initial establishment with every
baptized child, the covenant is unconditional. At
baptism, God brings every child into covenant union with Christ by grace alone. But for its continuance and perfection, the
covenant depends upon the acts of the children themselves.
These acts are faith and a life of obedience.
Faith and obedience are conditions of the covenant.
Since the continuance and perfection of the covenant are, in fact, the everlasting
salvation of a person, the salvation of every baptized child depends upon the child’s
works of believing and obeying. By not
believing and obeying, a child resists grace.
Here, of course, is the point at which justification by faith and works is
introduced into the theology of covenantal universalism.
If universal covenant grace depends for its efficacy upon works of the child, the
righteousness of the member of the covenant is by faith and works. A conditional covenant implies justification by
works. Indeed, in a conditional covenant
faith itself is a work of the sinner upon which righteousness and salvation depend.
Justification by faith and works on the basis of a conditional covenant is the
heart and soul of Norman Shepherd’s The Call of Grace (P&R, 2000).
Virtually all forms of the heresy of universal grace necessarily teach that grace
is resistible. The only exception is the
universalism that holds the final salvation of all men without exception. Covenantal universalism is not an exception. Universal covenant grace is definitely resistible.
The Falling Away
It is an important teaching of the men who proclaim covenantal universalism that
some who were savingly united to Christ, were elect of God, were justified, and were
redeemed by the cross fall away and perish forever. In
fact, the teachers of covenantal universalism like to emphasize this alarming feature of
their covenant doctrine. They insist that
they want to do justice to the notable warnings in Scripture against apostasy, especially
Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:29. One can only
fall away, they say, if once he was actually, savingly in Christ. Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10, they assert, are real
warnings about a real possibility for every member of the church without exception. Rev. Wilkins emphasized this in a speech on
“Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” at the colloquium at Knox Seminary.
Those who ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God…. The apostate doesn’t forfeit “apparent blessings” that were never his in reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God (emphasis, Wilkins’).
Against those who object to their doctrine of the apostasy of many who were once
united to Christ, justified, and elect, they charge that we do not do justice to the
warnings against falling away. Thus we
contribute to the carelessness of life of many in the churches.
On the point of the possibility of the falling away of men and women who once were
saved, the teachers of covenantal universalism are bold.
They do not hesitate to suggest that Reformed churches must “re-think”
the confessional doctrine of the perseverance of saints.
What they mean is that perseverance, as taught in the fifth head of doctrine of the
Canons of Dordt, does not hold in the covenant. Covenantal
universalism emphatically affirms the falling away of covenant saints.
Covenantal universalism attacks every one of the truths of the gospel of sovereign
grace.
Covenantal universalism attacks every one of the truths of sovereign grace as
these truths apply to the covenant. In
the sphere of the covenant, God elects all with a losable election. In the sphere of the covenant, Christ died for all
with a death that fails to redeem many. In
the sphere of the covenant, the Spirit regenerates and justifies all with a regeneration
and justification that assure the salvation of none.
In the sphere of the covenant, many resist grace that has actually begun to save
them, and perish.
In the sphere of the covenant, God’s grace is not sovereign. In the sphere of the covenant, God is not
sovereign. The question is, “For
covenantal universalism, who is sovereign in the covenant?”
In the sphere of the covenant, all of us must live in the terror, day and night,
that we may well fall away from Christ and salvation into perdition. Present union with Christ, present redemption,
present justification, and even present assurance of election mean absolutely nothing. All may be lost, for all is conditional.
This is the doctrine that is spreading in virtually all the reputedly conservative
Reformed and Presbyterian churches. This is
the doctrine that the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches and
learned Presbyterian divines cannot condemn. This
is the doctrine that the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches are
tolerating. This is the doctrine that some of
the reputedly Reformed and Presbyterian churches are now sanctioning by official
ecclesiastical decision.
Review Article:
Prof. David Engelsma
Prof.
Engelsma is professor of Dogmatics and Old Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.
The Account of a Fallen
Seminary and a “Falling” Church
The Current Justification Controversy, by O. Palmer Robertson. Unicoi, Tennessee: Trinity Foundation, 2003. 107 pages. $9.95 (paper). A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy, by John W. Robbins. Unicoi, Tennessee: Trinity Foundation, 2003. 185 pages. $9.95 (paper).
If there could still
be such a thing in our doctrinally indifferent and apostate day, O. Palmer
Robertson’s The Current Justification Controversy would be a bombshell in
reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America. The well-known and highly regarded Presbyterian
theologian reveals the seven years of struggle and political shenanigans at Westminster
Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and in the Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church over Prof. Norman Shepherd and his teaching of justification by faith
and works. During those seven years, until
his dismissal from the seminary in 1982, Shepherd was professor of theology at Westminster
Seminary and a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Shepherd denied that the justification of the elect sinner is by faith alone,
without any works whatsoever. He denied the
truth confessed as the official Reformed faith in Lord’s Days 23 and 24 of the
Heidelberg Catechism. He denied the truth
that Martin Luther rightly called the “article of a standing or a falling
church.” Luther intended by the
distinction what Article 29 of the Belgic Confession refers to as the difference between a
true church and a false church.
For seven years, some on the faculty of Westminster and among the supporting
constituency of the seminary struggled to condemn Shepherd’s doctrine and to bring
him to account. For seven years, a majority
of the faculty and the governing Board defended and protected Shepherd and his doctrine. At crucial junctures of the proceedings, the
Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was party to the determined
effort of prominent, powerful men on the faculty and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
to defend Shepherd and his denial of justification by faith alone at all costs.
In the end, the Board of Westminster cravenly “removed,” or dismissed,
Prof. Shepherd. The reason, as the Board was
at pains to inform the Westminster community, was not his false doctrine. But Shepherd was causing the seminary too much
heat. With the connivance of the Philadelphia
Presbytery, Shepherd then fled efforts on the part of some to discipline him by leaving
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for the welcoming arms of the Christian Reformed Church.
The tale of Westminster Seminary’s and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s
disgrace is told by O. Palmer Robertson. Robertson
was a professor at Westminster during much of the time of the controversy and was
intimately involved in the history he records. He
names names, gives dates and places, and documents the issue. The issue was Shepherd’s heresy of
justification by faith and the works of faith.
What a devastating indictment of Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church! The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is
closely associated with Westminster. It was
an active participant in the justification of Shepherd and his false doctrine. For seven years, the Seminary and the Church
allowed a professor who, by the admission of all, could not make plain that he believed
and taught justification by faith alone to continue teaching young men in preparation for
the ministry in Reformed and Presbyterian churches.
If a Reformed professor of theology cannot make plain—plain beyond the shadow
of a doubt—in ten minutes that he believes—believes with all his
heart—justification by faith alone, apart from works, and that he hates and rejects,
with all his heart, the heresy of justification by faith and works, he must be summarily
dismissed for incompetence. No one may teach
young men to preach the gospel who is unclear on the heart of the gospel of grace.
But Shepherd clearly rejected justification by faith alone. According to Shepherd
Good works were necessary as the way of justification, and not simply as its fruit. Walking in the way of obedience was necessary to maintain justification. The sinner seeking justification might just as well be told to follow Jesus as to believe in Jesus (Justification Controversy, p. 30).
Tapes of Prof. Shepherd’s classroom lectures revealed that “he explicitly
had been teaching in the classroom that justification was ‘by works’ as well as
‘by faith’” (Justification Controversy, p. 31). The controversy had arisen because graduates of
Westminster were confessing justification by faith and works before their examining
presbyteries and were attributing their belief of justification by works to the
instruction of Prof. Shepherd.
Denying justification by faith alone, Shepherd was bound to deny all the doctrines
of sovereign grace. The faculty and Board of
Westminster were well aware of this also. In
the course of the controversy
Mr. Shepherd affirmed that a person could lose his justification. He proposed that an individual who was elect according to the election of Ephesians 1 could become non-elect if he did not continue to walk in covenant faithfulness (Justification Controversy, p. 22).
Shepherd was known to teach that “the ‘branches to be cut off’ in John 15 first were savingly united to Christ” (Justification Controversy, p. 57).
Westminster Seminary approved this man and his doctrine. It declared that his teachings are in harmony with
the Westminster Standards. To the end, a
majority of the faculty defended him. The
Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church gave him a testimony of
soundness in doctrine when it transferred him as a minister of the Word to the Christian
Reformed Church.
The result has been the spread of the lie of justification by faith and works
throughout virtually all the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in
North America. The many students taught by
Shepherd, Shepherd’s disciples in virtually all the reputedly conservative Reformed
churches in North America, and Shepherd himself as a minister in good standing in the
Reformed community are at this hour aggressively promoting the false doctrine that denies
the heart of the gospel, the “article of a standing or falling church.”
For this, Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia and the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church, as well as individuals from other churches who defended Shepherd and his doctrine,
are responsible before the entire Reformed community of churches. More importantly, Westminster Seminary and the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church are responsible before God.
God’s judgment already falls heavily on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The 2003 General Assembly of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church approved the doctrine of justification by faith and works. It did this by refusing to condemn the doctrine,
and advise the discipline of a teacher of the doctrine, in a case brought before it on
appeal. The details of this case are
contained in the companion volume to the book by Robertson, A Companion to the Current
Justification Controversy (pp. 53-58). The
Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a “falling” church.
The companion volume also contains the important documents of the controversy. These are “Some Reasons for Dissenting from
the Majority Report,” by Philip E. Hughes (1978); the “Letter of Concern,”
by forty-five theologians (1981); “Reason and Specifications Supporting the Action of
the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd” (1982); and “A Resolution
to the Eleventh General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America,” by O. Palmer
Robertson. The last concerns a refusal by the
editorial committee of the journal of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri
to publish Robertson’s account of the Shepherd controversy on the ground that
publishing might offend Westminster Seminary.
John Robbins has a long essay in the companion volume on “The Roots and Fruits
of the Shepherd Controversy.” Robbins
calls attention to several causes of Shepherd’s deviant doctrine of justification. But Robbins does not see the fundamental cause of
Shepherd’s error. The fundamental cause
is Shepherd’s doctrine of a conditional covenant.
Shepherd’s theology is covenant theology. His doctrine of justification arises out of his
doctrine of the covenant. And his doctrine of
the covenant is a doctrine of universal grace in the sphere of the covenant, dependent for
its efficacy upon the faith and obedience of the covenant people. This comes out in O. Palmer Robertson’s
account of the controversy. Shepherd himself
has put this beyond all doubt in his recent The Call of Grace (P&R, 2000).
The root of Norman Shepherd’s teaching that sinners are justified by faith and
works is the heresy of universalism—covenantal universalism.
I suspect that the covenant doctrine of Norman Shepherd, out of which comes his
denial of justification by faith alone, is the reason why Westminster could not, or would
not, condemn Shepherd’s heresy. Westminster
is committed to this doctrine of the covenant. If
the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America, now put to
the test regarding their confession of the heart of the gospel—justification by faith
alone—and with it all the doctrines of grace, are to maintain the gospel of sovereign
grace, they must reexamine and repudiate the doctrine of a conditional covenant that all
of them embrace. I doubt that they will. I doubt that they can. I pray I am wrong.
Feature Article:
The Reformed Churches of
South Africa:
A Reformed Perspective on
the
Slabbert Le Cornu
Slabbert Le Cornu is
married to Dorothea, and they have three daughters: Joanette (6), Hannelie (3) and Doret
(1). He is fourth-year theological student at
the Reformed Churches of South Africa’s Theological School, in Potchefstroom. They are members of the Reformed Church,
Potchefstroom-South. Slabbert is the founder
and director of Die Esra Instituut (‘The Esra Institute’), which is a
teaching ministry to advance the biblical-reformed faith and worldview in the world today. He is also the editor of the magazine Die Esra
Verslag (‘The Ezra Report’). For further information, he can be contacted at: esra@netlab.co.za
(Preceding article: April 1, 2004, p. 300.)
3. Was it justified?
Before we try to
understand the current crisis as mentioned in the introduction, we need to answer one very
important question: was the schism of 1859
justified on biblical, confessional, and church order principles? Without doubt the answer is in the affirmative. To support this answer, I will start with a
quotation of Calvin:
If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence among us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshiped, and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.[1]
For Calvin, according to the Scriptures, how we worship God and how we
obtain salvation are central to the Christian religion. That is why the Reformed confession clearly
states:
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein (the second point made by Calvin — SLC). For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us (the first point made by Calvin — SLC) is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects…[2]
Therefore, the true Reformed church worldwide would confess the absolute
sovereignty of God in our salvation and worship of Him, obedient to God’s Word
(Ex. 20:1-6). Just as God is sovereign in
election and reprobation, so He is and must be in our liturgy and services. His Word through the Spirit, and not the
‘commandments of men,’ must govern our worship of Him. This we also confess in Article 32 of the Belgic
Confession: “And therefore we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man
would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any
manner whatever,” and in the Heidelberg Catechism, “Q 96: What does God require in the second Commandment? A 96: That
we in no way make any image of God (Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts
17:29), nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word (I
Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24).”
The reason for emphasizing our worship of God is that most Reformed churches today
have forgotten about this most important issue of our Reformed faith. They suggest that it is only about salvation by
grace through faith alone, although Calvin, following Scripture, says that both matter.[3] If God is not
confessed as sovereign in His covenant of grace, then He will not be sovereign in His law
of worship. Jesus Christ came to save us from
our sin of idolatry and false worship, to worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24),
according to “all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19).
This was, consciously or unconsciously, exactly what was at stake for the Dopper reformers in 1859. In the deformed churches of the Cape, and later in the Free State and Transvaal, the doctrines of sovereign predestination, sovereign grace and election, and God’s sovereign right to be worshiped as He commanded (and not according to the emotionalism of methodism) were under severe attack. Both central doctrines, salvation and worship, were attacked most heavily with the introduction of hymns. The second professor of the GKSA theological school, Prof. Jan-Lion Cachet, explained the central importance of church singing as follows: “What we sing, we believe … and if false doctrine is found in the church song, then it will inevitably lead to the false doctrine spreading in the congregation.” [4]
This last point is very important in understanding the current crisis in the GKSA. We will return to this issue.
4. Why, though, did the Doppers
This is a very important question, because later church historians tend to differ
on this matter. Some historians simply answer
that the problems were not with the hymns as such, but only with the content of some hymns
and the way they were introduced and, in fact, forced onto the churches (binding of
consciences). Thus, they wanted to reduce or
simplify the church schism to a doctrinal issue only, or to a church government matter,
and not to a worship issue as such. In fact
it was a matter of all three issues that were at stake.
Dr. GCP van der Vyver writes:
It is clear: they (the Doppers — SLC) were convinced that the Hymns carry a false Gospel.[5] … The Synod (NG Church of 1847 — SLC) distinguishes between two sorts of complaints, i.e., those of the concerned members who refused to sing the Hymns, which points towards a complaint against the Hymns as such, and secondly, … those who have a problem with one or other of the Hymns, which points to doctrinal complaints against certain Hymns.[6]
Van der Vyver summarizes the Doppers’ complaints, which were based on their
understanding of verses like Deuteronomy 4:2; Matthew 15:9; and Revelation 22:19, as
follows:
The introduction of Hymns placed them on an equal standing with the inspired Word of God. Referring to article 7 of the Belgic Confession, they accepted the Word of God as perfect and sufficient, to which nothing should be added. They regarded the acceptance of the Hymns along with the Psalms in the worship services, as such an addition.[7]
It is thus clear that the Doppers supported the sola scriptura principle of
worship (also called the ‘regulative principle of worship,’ or ‘the second
commandment’ principle of worship), following in the Reformed tradition of Calvin,
Knox, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, the Dordt fathers, and so on.
Even after the NH Church decided not to make the singing of hymns binding on the
churches, the GKSA did not return to this state church, nor to the NG Church, because they
believed:
That our differences were not obstinacy, but for the sake of conscience, not to build on human decrees, but on God’s Word and the example of the well-tested Reformed Church of the old days; and that we wish also to serve God according to His Word without hindrance in this country, even if we are in the minority.[8]
A Reformed pastor of the GKSA, the Rev. LS Kruger, also posed the question in his
well-known book on the GKSA, “Why are you a member of the Reformed Church?” He stated that if we add anything to the singing
of the Psalms, we accuse God’s Word of being insufficient, and therefore we actually
reject the teaching of Article 7 of the Belgic Confession.[9]
But the hymns were also used to sing heresies into the church. Many of the hymns were liberal, Arminian, and
Romish in spirit. The reality is that when
one tends to be weak in doctrine, this will eventually lead to false worship. The NG and NH churches in the nineteenth century
rejected, in one way or another, the Canons of Dordt, which deal expressly with God’s
sovereignty in salvation, by election and reprobation:
No wonder (then) that the doctrine of universal atonement, which underlies many of the Hymns, was not detected and opposed. In line with this, the doctrine of election was openly rejected from some pews in the Cape church and suppressed in many others.[10]
Here I would briefly like to mention a conversation in those days between Gert
Steenekamp, a Dopper Calvinist, and the Rev. Taylor, a liberal pastor, which the former
narrates as follows:
I talked to him about Election. He said to me you can work out your salvation yourself according to Phil. 2:12, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Yes, I answered him, but what do you make of the next verse: “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” The answer which I received to this, was: “That is why I cannot work with you Doppers!"[11]
Amongst the Doppers, there was a great thirst for Calvinistic preaching. What did they mean by this? It meant that they wanted preaching according to
the doctrines of “election and reprobation."[12]
It was also the time of the well-known preacher and teacher the Rev. Andrew Murray,
whose books are still in print today and sold worldwide. Unfortunately he was not a
consistent Calvinist, as many thought he was. Murray
felt that the Canons of Dordt were documented in such a way as to leave them open to
interpretation for those who “preached openly that Christ had died for everyone, and
that God wants and sincerely desires the salvation of all (people)."[13]
Dr. van der Vyver replies to Murray’s heresy in the following most important
excerpt:
That the calling should, and must go out to all nations, is correct, but the grace in Christ is only established in the hearts of “the elect.” Murray has, with these words, made himself guilty of grave heresy under the banner of the Canons of Dordt. (H.D.A.) Du Toit comes to the conclusion that the Scottish preachers did accept predestination, but that they held it back on the pulpits, yet still claiming that they were “Calvinists.” To allege that someone is a “Calvinist,” however, and to suppress the election on the pulpit, is a contradictio in terminus,[14] and not in line with Calvin, who called predestination the cor ecclesia.[15] Suppressing simply means forsaking, and in its deepest essence is the disregarding of the Reformed confession. Liberalism did not only show itself in the sermons of the outspoken liberals in the Cape Church, but also in the way that the confessions in the sermons of so-called orthodox preachers, were disregarded and rejected.[16]
Today we could say there are many evangelical Calvinists who disregard the cor
ecclesia and the Reformed confessions by not preaching on Romans 9. This brings us to the twentieth century, up to
today, the year 2004 of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, in the twentieth century, especially after the Second World War, the
GKSA itself became more worldly and materialistic. This
could be because of a lack of the biblical antithesis (Gen. 3:15; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), and
also because of a too close relationship between church and state from 1948, when the
Afrikaners became the governors of South Africa, implementing in the next few years the
much-hated policy of apartheid (separation).[17] Like the Israelites of old, the Afrikaner
Calvinists also wanted to become more like the world, especially in academics and theology
(1 Sam. 8). This, among other reasons, such
as the change of government in 1994 to an anti-Christian ANC government that does not
favor “Christian Higher Education,” finally led to the demise of the only
Christian university in South Africa. The PU
for CHE officially died in 2003, and was “buried” on 31 December 2003. The name of the new university, in its place, is
the Northwest University, operating since 1 January 2004.
In my estimation, the main reason for this was not political, but religious, namely
covenant disobedience. For many decades there
have been faithful Reformed believers from all of the Afrikaans churches, who have fought
and struggled for the survival of Christian private schools, where covenantal education in
obedience to the Form of Baptism could be offered.
In the history of the Afrikaner people, however, it has been a tiny minority —
like today — that takes this command seriously.
Even today, when the state schools are forbidden from teaching only and exclusively
the Christian faith, most parents belonging to the Afrikaans Reformed churches still send
their children to such humanistic religious schools.
This has been the sad story of the twentieth century, and it seems not to be
changing, no matter how much deformation there is in the state schools. An even more sad case is that many of the private
Reformed schools use the humanistic framework of the “Outcome Based Education”
and then only “baptize” it with a Christian “sousie,”
proclaiming to the world that they are busy with consistent antithetical “Reformed
education.” For a growing group of
Reformed Dopper parents, Reformed home schooling seems to be the best solution available
today. Reformed home schooling brings the
family into contact with each other again, and also with like-minded Reformed home
schoolers, so that the heartfelt calling to obey the Form of Baptism in the
education of the covenant children can be followed. These
Reformed people also obey the calling to receive the blessing of covenant children,
praying to God for a great prosperity.[18] In this sense, they
are true to the heritage of the original Doppers, who as families and as church members
gathered, worked, and lived around God’s Word and the confessions antithetically in
the new age, in the postmodern anti-Christian South Africa.
This can only be done by God’s grace.
… to be concluded
1. Tracts relating to the Reformation by John Calvin, translated by Henry Beveridge, vol.I (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), p. 116.
2. Belgic Confession, Article 7.
3. See his commentary on Lev. 10:1; 22:32; Num. 15:39; Deut. 4:1; 12:32; 2 Sam. 6:6-12; Is. 29:14; Jer. 7:21-24; 7:31; 19:4, 5; 26:2; Matt. 15:1, 9; Kol. 2:22, 23. See his Institutes: I.XII.I; I.XII.3; II.VII.5; II.VIII.17; IV.X.1, 8-11,16-18, 23, 24, 26.
4. G.C.P. van der Vyver, ibid., p. 203.
5. Which they also rejected with an appeal to Gal. 1:9.
6. G.C.P. van der Vyver, ibid., p. 206.
7. G.C.P. van der Vyver, ibid., p. 204, 205.
8. G.C.P. van der Vyver, ibid., p. 335.
9. L.S. Kruger, ibid., p. 143.
10. G.C.P. van der Vyver, ibid., p. 284.
11. Ibid., p. 285.
12. Ibid., p. 285. See especially footnote 528.
13. Ibid., p. 285.
14. A contradiction in terms.
15. The heart of the church.
16. G.C.P. van der Vyver, ibid., p. 286.
17. I am not going to go into the whole issue of apartheid, but can only recommend readers to the biblical-critical articles and studies of Dr. Mark R. Kreitzer on South Africa. Some of it can be found at the Contra Mundum website: www.contramundum.com
18. Concerning ‘calling,’ Totius has written this excellent comment in one of his articles: “The Remonstrant has a choice, the Reformed has a calling!”
Feature Article:
A Little Bit of History
Harv Kikkert
Mr.
Kikkert is an elder in the Protestant Reformed Church of Wingham, Ontario, Canada.
It is with great joy
and thankfulness that we introduce ourselves as the “Wingham Protestant Reformed
Church,” the newest church in the Protestant Reformed denomination. We have read much in the 75th
Anniversary Yearbook about who you are. Here
is a little history of who we are.
The Wingham Orthodox Christian Reformed Church was first established in Listowel in
1979. It was called Listowel OCRC. The first pastor was Reverend Harry Vandyken. This church was organized by families who left the
CRC for doctrinal reasons. This Listowel
church was the first church in the OCRC. Soon
other congregations formed: Grand Valley, MI;
Toronto, ON; and Burlington, WA.
Representatives of these churches began meeting in 1981 to discuss church order and
federation. The OCRC was formally organized
in March 1988 with seven congregations. The
denomination is now ten congregations, divided into Classis East and Classis West.
Our second minister was Rev. Bronsveld, who was ordained under Article 8 not long
after the Listowel Church was organized
The Listowel OCRC had a humble beginning and also some trying times. At one point the membership was down to four
families. It was at this low point in their
existence (1985) that the pressure was on the consistory to close its doors. Just when the church was ready to disband, four
families from a local CRC took interest in this church.
They worshiped with the saints in Listowel, visited with the consistory, and came
to the conviction that the biblical, Reformed preaching of this church was the very
teaching they were missing in the CRC. When
we consider the preaching of Rev. Bronsveld, we can understand why PRC views are so
familiar to us. We heard from him that: marriage after divorce is accursed of God;
belonging to unions is not biblical; and God’s grace is particular, not common.
In 1988, with eight families, the church bought an old mechanical shop in Wingham. With much volunteer work, the congregation
transformed it into our current building. We
have since added a lunch room/nursery. Between
services we have lunch together. Our services
are at 10:30 and 1:00 because some members have a lengthy drive. The time between services is for us a wonderful
opportunity for fellowship.
After fifteen years of faithfully bringing forth the Word of God (all of them in
Wingham/Listowel) Rev. Bronsveld retired. Being
without a pastor was new to our church, and finding a new pastor was more difficult than
first thought. A candidate from the Free
Reformed Church, Mr. Alfonso d’Amore, came to be stated supply for us for two years. We extended a call to him, which he declined. He has never entered the ministry full-time.
Rev. Garry Vanderveen was our next minister. He
was a member of the OCRC in his youth and graduated from Greenville Seminary. He was pulpit supply for us for two years, was
ordained, and served as our minister for a year and a half.
He accepted a call to serve the Langley Reformed Evangelical Church. Rev. Mark Zylstra (URC) was our pulpit supply for
about four months.
The next man to preach for us was Mr. Don VanderKlok. He is from Grand Rapids, and has done much in the
way of preaching. He is a member of the HNRC. Upon retirement, Mr. VanderKlok began attending
seminary class, classes in the HNRC seminary, and some in the PRC seminary. Although the PRC name had come up during the
history of the Wingham OCRC, we didn’t know much about the federation. As Mr. VanderKlok got to know us, he came to
understand that the doctrinal standard and the biblical standards we held were much the
same as the PRC. Soon our church foyer had a
new tract rack filled with PRC and HNRC materials. For
approximately four years, the Lord gave traveling mercies to Mr. Vander Klok as he
unselfishly drove five hours each Friday and Sunday so that he could teach catechism and
preach for us.
It was exciting for us, as we could see the Lord leading us to a denomination where we could be united with an entire federation — that is, all churches believing the same truths. This is something we were missing in the OCRC. As we came under PRC preaching and had much interaction with their Contact Committee, it was amazing to see your oneness in faith. The messages of the ministers and professors and the guidance of the members of the Contact Committee were always consistent, never contradictory, always Reformed, and always in complete harmony with the Reformed creeds. This clearly showed us some of the blessings that abound because you have your own seminary. The seminary and the professors are truly a blessing for the churches. Let us never take this for granted. Remember always to keep in our prayers those who are teaching, who are being taught, who have been taught, and for those in authority over t