Vol. 80; No. 8; January 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 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
Ministering to the Saints – Rev. Douglas Kuiper
A Word Fitly Spoken – Rev. Dale Kuiper
In His Fear – Rev. Richard Smit
Taking Heed to the Doctrine – Rev. Steven Key
Search the Scriptures – Rev. Ronald Hanko
Book Reviews:
- Redeeming Pop Culture: A Kingdom Approach, by T.M. Moore. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2003. Pp. vii + 167. $11.99 (paper). [Reviewed by the editor.]
- The Prophet
and His Message: Reading Old Testament
Prophecy Today, by Michael J. Williams. Phillipsburg,
New Jersey: P&R, 2003. Pp. xi + 220.
$12.99 (paper). [Reviewed by the
editor.]
News of Our Churches -- Mr. Benjamin Wigger
Meditation:
Rev. Ronald VanOverloop
Rev.
VanOverloop is pastor of Georgetown Protestant Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan.
Whence the Diversity
“But unto every one of
us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high,
he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.”
Now the Spirit leads the apostle
to apply these doctrines to the lives of these recently converted Ephesian Christians. The first application concerns the unity of the
church of Christ and the necessity to keep or preserve this unity (4:1-16). As these recently converted Christians grow up in
the faith, there will be many temptations to disagree with each other, to make war with
each other, and to separate from one another. In
the face of these temptations, they are urged to make every effort to “keep the unity
of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
The reason why the calling to
preserve the unity of the church is so important is that the basis of this unity is found
in the seven “ones” of verses 4 - 6. Preserve
the unity of the church precisely because there is “one body” of the church, a
spiritual, invisible reality. The one church
is the result of the activity of the “one Spirit,” who alone produces and
maintains the one life in every member of the one body.
The goal of the Spirit’s work in the members of the body is to lead them to
the “one hope.” The one body has
one Head, even the “one Lord.” They
are all given the same gift of the “one faith.”
And they all have been given the spiritual reality of the “one baptism,”
namely, all of the members are washed in Christ’s blood. This wonderful unity is because there is “one
God,” but also because all the members have the “one God” as their
“Father.” They are children of the
same family.
As amazing and as wonderful as is
the unity of the body of Christ, it is just as amazing and wonderful that in the unity
there is a diversity. While all the elect are
one in Christ, they are not identical. Though
we are so much one, yet we can be addressed in this verse as “every one of us.” We retain our individual selves, our own
personalities. The unity of the body must not
be conceived as uniformity. Uniformity means
that every member is identical in every respect, without variations or differences. The glory of the unity of Christ’s body is
that we are not merged together into a single, solid mass, without individual identity,
but that there is a diversity in the unity, and a unity that comprehends endless
variations. 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!
This is an amazing truth. But let us all recognize that it is one thing to
say a loud “Amen” to this truth, and another thing to have a genuine
appreciation for the various members of the body!
How can the unity and the
diversity be present at the same time in the body of Christ? They co-exist because the source of the unity is
also the source of the diversity. The source
of the unity is Christ, the Head of the body. And
the source of the diversity is Christ, the Giver of the various gifts in each member.
Christ is the Giver of the
variety of gifts enjoyed by the church as a whole and by each member in particular. It is not that the members, as parts or pieces,
have to be put together and made to harmonize. Rather,
the unity is first, and the parts arise out of the unity.
This truth is pictured in the human body. Just
as the body begins with one cell that contains in it all the different parts of the human
body, so the body of Christ begins with its unity — in its Head. That the unity of the body is first is implied in
the fact that the calling given to us as members of the body is to keep or preserve the
unity, not to make it.
The truth that Christ is the Giver
of every diverse gift and manifold grace in His body was spoken approximately 1,000 years
earlier. The apostle is inspired in verse 8 to quote
Psalm 68: 18,
“Thou hast ascended on high, thou has led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men.”
The Spirit gives here in
Ephesians 4:9,10
an explanation of
Psalm 68:18,
“(Now that he ascended, what is it
but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended
up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)” According to the psalmist, when God delivered
Israel from their enemies, it was as if God Himself came down to deliver them, and then,
having done so, ascended into heaven again. First,
notice that the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle, when quoting the psalmist, to apply the
quote to Jesus Christ. While the psalmist
speaks clearly of Jehovah, the Spirit moves Paul to speak of Christ. This proves the deity of Jesus Christ.
Also worthy of note is the
difference between the Psalm and the quote in Ephesians.
Psalm 68:18
speaks of receiving gifts for men, and
Ephesians 4:8
speaks of giving
gifts unto men. Do not see this as a contradiction. The
same Spirit inspired both. Jesus did receive gifts of the Father
(Acts 2:33),
and it is those gifts that He received that He gave to
the members of His body.
Our text declares that the possibility of Christ giving gifts is to be found in the fact that He descended. When our text explains
Psalm 68:18,
then we are to
understand that God’s coming down to deliver Israel is applied to God the Son
descending, humbling Himself to come in the likeness of our sinful flesh in order to
deliver His people from their sins. The
apostle explains that if Jehovah ascended, He had to descend first. Jehovah begins above, and if He ascends, then He
must have descended first. And Jehovah did
descend. He did so in Christ Jesus, the only
begotten Son of God. He descended into the
“lower parts of the earth” — a graphic description of God, the Son,
humbling Himself to come in the likeness of our sinful flesh. Jesus Himself described His incarnation this way. “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”
(John 3:13).
The point of the apostle is that
it is Christ’s humbling descension that earned for Him the gifts He later distributes
to all the members of His body. He came down
in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to conquer, by means of His suffering, that which
held His people captive, namely, sin, the devil, death, and hell. Sin holds man captive. We are deceived into thinking that a life of sin
is freedom, doing what we want. However, that
is the greatest slavery of all. It is the
slavery of being under the curse of the law. But
Christ Jesus defeated that which holds us captive. To
lead “captivity captive” refers to the practice of a conquering king leading his
conquered enemies in a victory parade. The
Lord Christ forgives us all our trespasses and He blots out the handwriting of ordinances
“that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing
it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it”
(Col. 2:14, 15).
After defeating His and our
enemies, the conquering Christ is exalted, set at God’s right hand “in the
heavenly places, far above all principalities, and power, and might, and dominion, and
every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come”
(1:20, 21). He is given a name above every
name (Phil. 2:9, 10). All things are put
under Christ’s feet, and He is given to be “head over all things to the church,
which is his body” (1:22, 23). His
resounding defeat of His and our enemies earned for Him the right to be Head of the
church, and in the position of Headship, He dispenses the various gifts all the different
members of His body possess.
Let us not miss the point: the
Spirit wants us to know that the presence of the diversity of gifts in the one body of
Jesus Christ is the result of nothing less than God descending to the earth in order to
destroy the enemies of the church, and then ascending back to heaven. There is no doubt that the very presence of the
body of Christ and the unity of this body required the same descending and ascending of
God. But the application here is only to the
diversity in the church. Let no one think
less of the diversity in Christ’s body than He does!
When we, the members of
Christ’s body, consider the unity and the diversity of the church, then we see that
the various members, each being gifted with a function to perform for the whole, are
altogether under the one and only Head, Jesus Christ.
We see that every one of us is given grace. This
grace is a part of the grace of salvation — that grace by which we are saved (2:8). This grace is the grace of the functions or
positions given to each member. We have
“gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,”
or ministry or teaching or exhortation, or giving, or ruling, or showing mercy
(Rom. 12:6-8).
All the members have “received the gift,...as good stewards of the manifold grace of God”
(I Pet. 4:10).
To every member of the church is
given the grace that enables him or her to perform a particular function. To each member is given a unique position and
function in the body, and with it is given the ability to exercise that function. Christ’s distribution of those gifts is
according to the measure He had determined. Each
member is gifted according to a perfectly wise plan, so the result is the functioning of a
beautiful, harmonious body, of which Jesus Christ is the Head.
We have not only different
gifts, but also different capacities for the use of those gifts. Consider the tremendous variety in the human body! So in the church, the body of Jesus Christ, there
are given various gifts: wisdom, knowledge, exhorting, giving, encouraging, praying,
serving, teaching, ruling, loving. Doctor
Luke, fisherman John, and rabbinically trained Paul differed one from another and yet fit
together in the body. Every member must be
busy in his position, functioning for the sake of the whole. And no member may despise
other members just because they differ. The
eye may never exalt himself over the foot, nor may the foot consider himself unnecessary just because he is not an eye
(I Cor. 12:14-25).
There is an equality even though
some gifts appear to be more important than others. As
in the human body, some parts are more comely than others, yet the uncomely ones are as necessary
(I Cor. 12:22).
The functions
differ — and they are meant to be different. Yet
they are all essential to the harmonious working of the whole. Each member must labor “that there should be
no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another”
(I Cor. 12:25).
Each member
must labor for the same commendation: “Well
done, thou good and faithful servant!” Each
must be faithful in the use of that which was given to him by the grace of God. And each must realize when looking at the other
members of the body, that if the different members have been given grace by God, then they
are viewed as indispensable.
The differing grace will make
for apparent inequalities (especially from our human perspective). Instead of being disturbed by this, we must see
that each member is graced for the sake of the full and harmonious functioning of the
church. When we recognize these differences
and gradations, then we must respect them; for in respecting them, we respect Him who
gifted or graced them.
Let us see the implications of the
truth of the diversity within the unity of Christ’s body. First, let every one of us confess our pride and
proneness to jealousy. Let us confess our
self-seeking and our feelings of being neglected or unimportant because we are not like
another member. Let us humble ourselves
before the Head and ask Him to forgive us, to cleanse us, and graciously to continue to
use us in His body.
Also let us humbly recognize
that what we have is what we have received. We
do not have anything of ourselves. “Who
maketh thee to differ from another? And what
hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if
thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?”
(I Cor. 4:7).
Let us confess with Paul, “I am what I am by the grace of God”
(I Cor. 15:10).
And because it is all of grace, then no one can boast. Because it is all of grace, each member is
essentially equal with all the other members. That
equality is that each is damn-worthy, and it is only by grace that he is brought into the
body of Christ.
Let us be content with what we
have been given. Let us consciously be used
by God for the sake of the other members of the body.
Let us seek to use the gifts we have been given, however lowly we may sinfully
think them to be. Let us use the gifts we
have received for the glory of the Giver. He
who glories, let him glory in the Lord, the Giver of the gifts, and the Head of the
church.
Editorial:
Prof. David Engelsma
Certain Assurance
The assurance of which Scripture speaks and which believers and their children have, and
ought to have, is certainty. It is certainty
about God, about the spiritual things made known in the Bible, and about salvation. Another word for this spiritual state of the soul
of the believer and child of believer is confidence.
This certainty is absolutely
sure. There are no degrees of certainty, as
though there can be certainty that is 75% sure, but 25% unsure, and certainty that is 90%
sure, but 10% unsure. If certainty is not
100% sure, it is no longer certainty, but uncertainty, that is, doubt.
The opposite of certainty is not
partial certainty, but doubt. Doubt is
uncertainty.
If you and I are walking in
mountains with which I am familiar, and we come to a wooden walkway over a deep ravine,
and you ask me, “Are you certain that the bridge is strong enough to bear our
weight?” you do not mean, “Are you 75% sure?” but, “Are you fully
confident?” And if I respond, “I
am 75% sure of the bridge,” you do not walk across the bridge with glad hosannas
about my partial certainty, but you stay off it because of my doubt.
There are reasons why a believer
is sometimes uncertain about his salvation, why he finds himself miserably doubting, but
the reason is not that assurance itself is uncertain.
Rather, the uncertainty of his sinful nature, or the doubt instilled into his soul
by the devil, or even a lack of certainty that is a judgment of God upon him has
temporarily eclipsed his assurance.
Full
Assurance
When we read in
Hebrews 10:22
of
“full assurance,” we must not suppose that the reference is to assurance that is
finally 100% in distinction from assurance that used to be only 50%, because in the past
it was accompanied by 50% doubt. The apostle
exhorts us who believe the gospel from the heart to draw near to God in assurance, which
is always full assurance, and can be nothing else but full assurance. And this assurance, which is by the very nature of
assurance full, belongs to faith: “full
assurance of faith.” The
Geneva Bible, great predecessor of the marvelous King James version, did not even use the word “full” in translating
Hebrews 10:22,
but spoke simply of
“assurance”: “Let vs drawe
nere with a true heart in affurance of faith.” The
King James translators chose to make explicit what is implicit in “assurance”
and added “full.”
That assurance is certainty is
of the greatest practical importance. The
Puritans of whom I spoke in the previous editorial, and those influenced by them, are
confused about this. They speak of “full
assurance” and the search for full assurance as though one can have partial
assurance, which then, by ardent seeking, may become full assurance. The consequences of this confusion are disastrous. It fills churches, Reformed in name and
confession, with members who, although they profess to believe the gospel, have
only “partial assurance,” that is, members who are profound doubters.
The opposite of full
assurance is no assurance.
It is as erroneous to contrast full
assurance with partial assurance, as it is to contrast full faith with partial
faith.
Assurance can and must grow in
us, just as our faith can and must grow. But
the growth is not from partial to full, from 10% to 100%.
Rather, assurance, like the faith of which it is an integral part, develops (under
good, sound, healthy, doctrinal, expository, Reformed preaching!) from a principle—a
beginning—to maturity. The example is
not filling up a glass of water that was half-full—and half-empty. But the example is the growth of a seed, which
contains everything the plant will be, into a mature plant.
Certainty
about Scripture
That about which the child of
God can be, is, and ought to be certain—absolutely certain—includes
several things. First, he is assured that
Holy Scripture is the inspired Word of God. Because
Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it is reliable.
Upon it the believer can and does depend. This
certainty is fundamental to all the other aspects of assurance. If I do not know and trust Holy Scripture as the
wholly divine, inerrant Word of God, if I have doubts about Scripture, I must have doubts
about all that it teaches, including Jesus Christ the Savior, faith in Him as the alone
way of salvation, my own salvation, and the future salvation that Scripture promises.
The reason why doubt is
widespread in liberal Protestant circles, as in evangelical churches and seminaries that
have succumbed to the same modernist malady but are not yet quite so far along in the
process of dying, is unbelieving criticism of the Bible as merely a historical, human
document—the fallible words of men.
I do not say more about this
aspect of assurance, for this is not my main concern in these editorials. But I remind us that certainty about the Bible is
the foundation of all assurance, including that aspect of assurance that is the main
concern of these articles, namely, assurance of salvation. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”
(II Tim. 3:16).
Of this, believers and their children are
sure—absolutely sure.
Certainty
about Jesus Christ
Second, believers and their
children are assured that Jesus Christ is the Savior—the only Savior—from
sin and death and woe appalling by His incarnation, His atoning death, and His bodily
resurrection. Implied is our certainty that
our misery is the guilt of our sin in the just judgment of the holy God.
Also this aspect of the
assurance of the child of God is, and must be, an undoubted certainty. Surely, no Christian will allege that his
assurance that Christ is the one and only God-appointed Savior is 75% certainty and 25%
uncertainty. The Christian is absolutely
certain that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God in human flesh, is the only Savior of
sinners.
So basic is the assurance that
Jesus is the only Savior that without it there can be no assurance of personal salvation. Besides, one who lacks the assurance that Jesus is
the Savior really does not have the certainty that the Bible is the inspired Word of God,
for the message of the Bible is that Jesus is the Savior.
Nevertheless, doubt that Jesus
is the Savior can creep into a church. Against
this doubt, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was fighting. Some of the Jewish members of the early church
were inclined to observe again the Old Testament sacrifices, ceremonies, and worship as
necessary for their salvation. This was the “wavering” and “drawing back” noted with alarm in
Hebrews 10.
Professing Christians, members of the churches,
were wavering with regard to Jesus Christ and were drawing back from Him. They were beginning to doubt that He is the one
and only Savior.
Still today, wherever the
teaching enters a church, that in addition to the work of Christ a work of the sinner
himself is necessary for salvation, there is doubt concerning Jesus the only Savior. The teaching denies that Jesus is a complete
Savior and thus casts doubt on the truth that He is the only Savior. The immediate effect of the teaching is that those
who believe it are doubtful about their salvation, since the teaching has convinced them
that their salvation depends upon themselves. If
this doubt about Jesus’ being the only Savior is not removed from the church by the
condemnation of the heresy and by the deposition of the false teacher, if the doubt is
tolerated, it will develop into doubt that Jesus is God incarnate and doubt that Scripture
is God’s Word.
Certainty
about
Vitally important as these
aspects of assurance are, they are not the subject of these editorials. The subject of these editorials is the certainty
of the believing child of God of his own salvation personally. It is the certainty, not only that Jesus Christ is
the Savior of sinners, but also that He is the Savior of me personally. It is the certainty, not only that the Bible is
the inspired Word of God, but also that the Bible is the Word of God, as good news of
grace and salvation in Christ, to me personally. It
is the assurance of my own salvation.
The assurance of salvation is
certainty that I am saved now. “These
things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that you have eternal life”
(I John 5:13).
It is certainty that I will be
saved everlastingly. To be sure of salvation
today, but fearful that I may perish tomorrow and forever, is not certainty of salvation. Certainty of salvation includes that I am sure of
persevering, according to the Word of the Savior to all His own, “My sheep hear my
voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and
I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck
them out of my hand. My Father, which gave
them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand”
(John 10:27-29)
Assurance of salvation is also
certainty that I was saved from eternity past, in the decree of divine election. “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God”
(I Thess. 1:4).
Included in the comfort of this
rich and full assurance of salvation is certainty that my earthly life is so in the hand
of my heavenly Father, and so precious to Him, that He will provide all things necessary
and make all things work for my good. “I
am sure,” exclaims every (Reformed) believer, child and adult, “ I have no
doubt, but he [God my Father for Christ’s sake] will provide me with all things
necessary for soul and body; and further, that He will make whatever evils He sends upon
me, in this valley of tears, turn out to my advantage” (Heid. Cat., Q. 26).
The assurance of salvation is
certainty, absolute certainty, as much as is one’s certainty that the Bible is the
Word of God and that Jesus is the only Savior. It
is absurd to speak of an “uncertain certainty.”
An “uncertain certainty” is not assurance at all, but doubt.
Without the assurance of
salvation, certainty about Christ as Savior and certainty about the Bible’s being the
Word of God would be of no use to me. Positively,
the assurance of salvation is closely related to assurance that the Bible is the Word of
God and that the Christ revealed in the Bible is the only Savior. For the Bible promises that every one who knows
and trusts in Jesus Christ alone for salvation is saved, has been saved from eternity, and
will be saved everlastingly.
About the assurance of
salvation, we have our questions.
Is this possible?
Is this possible for all
believers?
Can we believers and children of
believers be certain with absolute certainty?
How is this possible?
What about doubts in the
experience of some believers?
What if I have doubts? even strong doubts?
The gospel as rightly understood
and taught by the Reformed faith has answers to our questions.
Answers that do not encourage,
nurture, and even breed doubt.
But answers that assure.
Letters:
More
on Responsibility
I thank Rev. Kortering for his detailed answers to my questions regarding his article on
“Mission Preaching in the Established Church,” in the Standard
Bearer
of June 2003 (SB, Nov. 15, 2003, pp. 79, 80).
However, the emphasis or viewpoint with which this article was written tends to
focus entirely too much upon man in God’s sovereign work of salvation.
In 1953, Rev. Hoeksema warned
that overemphasis on the responsibility of man will eventually lead to the loss of the
gospel (cd’s of 1953, Heritage Recordings). Let’s
not make man’s response to the call of the gospel the focal point of salvation, but
rather, let’s see God’s glory as the sovereign Potter who shapes some vessels to
honor in Christ and others to dishonor. Let
us confess with all our hearts that God unconditionally saves His elect and that He
unconditionally applies to them in time, by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts,
all the benefits that are theirs in Christ. Thus
He shapes, molds, and fits the elect, causing them to walk in those good works that were before ordained for each of them (Phil. 2:13;
Eph. 2:10).
By the Spirit’s work in them, the elect become more and more willing partakers in all the blessings of salvation as joint heirs with Christ
(Rom. 8:17).
To do God’s law becomes their delight. God, by His work of sanctification, continually
draws His regenerated children into covenant fellowship with Himself and makes them His
covenant friend servants, giving unto them the privilege to represent His cause in the
midst of this world, so that the believer more and more says “no” to sin and
“yes” to God. Thus He changes His
bride from glory unto glory. The apostle Paul sums it all up so beautifully when he says in
Galatians 2:20,
“…I live, yet not
I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life
which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me.” And faith is the gift of God
(Eph. 2:8).
Rev. Kortering in his answer to
my questions says, “A working faith is the believer’s duty, which he owes to his
heavenly Father out of love and thankfulness for his salvation.” However, faith is neither the duty nor the work of
the child of God. Faith, as to both its
source and activity, is the free gift of God worked in us by the Holy Spirit as the Spirit
applies the gospel to our hearts. Faith is
not a condition to salvation. It is not, as
the children’s song puts it, “If I love Him till I die, He will take me
home on high.” But rather the truth is, “He
will love me till I die, He will take me home on high.” It is not as though Christ strings the electric
wire of faith between us and God and now it’s up to us to turn the switch on in order
to make that faith active in a life of good works. When
we are ingrafted into Christ by a true and living faith, we live! By this true and living faith we receive all the blessings of salvation that are ours in Christ from all eternity
(Eph. 1:3-6).
The blessings of repentance, of believing in
Christ, and of good works. By the
Spirit’s work in his heart, each child of God works out his own salvation with fear
and trembling, knowing that it is none of self but all of God. As ordained, some will work twenty fold and
others a hundredfold. In this light we understand that every man shall be rewarded according to his works
(Matt. 16:27).
The reward is not of merit but of grace.
I suppose that much of the
overemphasis on man’s response to the call of the gospel is done innocently enough,
at least I hope so. I suppose that ministers
see alarming trends in their congregation, denomination, and young people, and come to the
conclusion that the way to motivate their listeners to a godly life is by emphasizing
man’s responsibility. We need more
“mission preaching.” I fail to see
the source of motivation in this. Will you
scare the child of God into a life of thankfulness by somehow separating his
responsibility from Christ? If you do, then
you have lost the gospel of good news. True,
the preaching of the gospel must warn the child of God from ways of wickedness and call
sinners to repent, but that is not the “good news” of the gospel. Rather, let us look for the motive to godly living
in this, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in
you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). Such God-centered covenantal preaching becomes the
power of God unto salvation to us who are saved, and foolishness to those who perish
(I Cor. 1:18).
Herman
D. Boonstra
Hull,
IA
Response:
Since brother Boonstra does not
direct any questions to me or seek additional understanding regarding my published
articles, I will conclude this correspondence with him with a few observations.
1.
His concern for a proper emphasis upon God’s sovereignty is laudable and rare
in our day. I can, of course, join him in
praising God for the wonderful work of salvation, which is His work from beginning to end. We observed this in the rearing of our children,
in ministering over the years in our beloved Protestant Reformed Churches, and in some
ways even more so, in the amazing way God saves heathen.
If it were not by grace alone, all such efforts would be of none effect. It is good to hear one of our readers emphasizing
this glorious truth.
2.
I also want to assure him that my emphasis in the articles upon man’s duty to
respond properly to the preaching of the gospel was not done out of some sort of
innocence, ignorance, or inappropriate consideration.
“I suppose much of the overemphasis on man’s response to the call of the
gospel is done innocently enough.” As I
have already explained, and it is necessary to repeat for emphasis, God saves and judges
men through the confrontation of the gospel. God
is earnest when He calls men to repent and believe.
It comes to the hearer who has the natural ears to understand clearly what God
speaks. Even though the unsaved person does
not have the capacity to respond properly, that is, to repent and believe, he does have
the capacity to know right from wrong and deliberately to choose the evil and reject the
good. When he does such, God justly holds
him to account and judges him. The same is
true when God is pleased to give grace to the hearer, who then not only has the natural
ability to understand what God is saying, but receives grace that enables him to repent
and believe. Though there is no inherent
grace in the message itself, yet it is through the message that God calls one to
salvation. For this reason, the call to
repent and believe is just as much part of the good news of the gospel as the setting
forth of Christ as Savior and Lord. I differ
with his statement, “True, the preaching of the gospel must warn the child of God
(and also the wicked, JK) from the ways of wickedness and call sinners to repent, but that
is not the ‘good news’ of the gospel.”
3.
Faith surely is the gift of God, worked by grace in the heart of the elect sinner,
but that fact does not take away from the reality that faith is viewed in the Bible as the
act of man. “For with the heart, man
believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”
(Rom. 10:10).
God does not believe in man,
neither does Christ believe for man, but man believes.
In this sense, God directs the call of the gospel to the hearer, and upon the
operation of grace the hearer believes the good news set forth in the gospel. Our spiritual forefathers rejected the notion that
the hearer was some sort of “stock and block” or, in more modern terminology, a
robot. God saves in the way of conscious
involvement of the hearer. Even then, the
cause of salvation and the end result is God’s wonder work throughout.
— Rev. J. Kortering
All Around Us:
Rev. Kenneth Koole
Rev.
Koole is pastor of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church in Grandville, Michigan.
Hell
Hath No Fury Like...
Of all the evils that threaten the world and that Satan is using against the Christian
witness against sin, there is probably none so diabolical, dangerous, and influential as
the radical feminist movement. This movement
seems to mother, nurture, and carry all the other demons in its womb. It carries the seed of the serpent, is filled with
malice towards the Woman and her seed, and will stop at nothing to put itself and its
offspring in ascendancy. It, like Herod and
Athaliah of old, will even devour its own (through murderous abortion) if it feels these
offspring stand in its way. This movement is
dangerous because of the growing number of females (one blanches to call them women)
involved in the movement and the places of power they occupy (from the Supreme Court on
down) and places of influence they hold (Universities are shot through with them). They have an agenda that they are pushing with
fervor.
In
an insightful article, not to say troubling, entitled “Depraved New World: Radical Feminists’ Plan for America” (Chalcedon
Report, December 2003), Lee Duigon underscores what this movement is up to,
pointing out that the gay movement itself is riding on the — dare I say —
“apron-strings” (perhaps better, the steel corset) of the feminist
movement. As Mr. Duigon points out, while the
gay marriage campaign is getting all the publicity, it is really “only the
camel’s nose in the tent.”
The
gay activists get the publicity, but the serious work is being done behind the scenes by
academic feminists. They have a plan for America, and they have clearly articulated it in
print, at public meetings, and in their classrooms. Not
since Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kampf has a blue print for revolution been so openly
laid out.
What this agenda is was made
clear last spring at a conference on “Marriage, Democracy, and Families” hosted
by Hofstra University on Long Island, New York. Duigon
informs us that the participants “included the elite of America’s family law
profession, many of whom are lesbians and radical feminists.” Having listed a number of the leading
participants of one panel discussion dealing with an assault on marriage (referred to as
“Beyond Marriage”), Duigon asks, “Who are these people?” and then
informs us that:
They
are respected, highly paid professors of prestigious universities. Some of them are on a career track that can lead
to a federal judgeship, as was the case for U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.
They
are teachers and trainers of future lawyers and judges, founders and members of legal
advocacy groups..., authors whose works are regularly published in America’s law
journals.
...they
are...the power elite of American family law. As
such, they are in a strong position to influence public policy — especially through
the courts.
Now notice what they want and
intend to push for, things that are already being suggested in the public forum. According to Duigon:
First, an end to marriage. “The institution is a failure,” Fineman
says in the SCU Law Review. Indeed,
according to Fineman, traditional marriage is “plagued with violence” against
women and “inappropriate for many people in today’s world.” The family, says Ertman, is
“exploitive,” and not “normatively superior to domestic partnerships.”
“Gay
marriage,” for them, is only a step toward the goal of abolishing marriage
altogether. This makes good sense to
Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley. Rather
than fall into endless debate over gay marriage, “That solution is to end the
institution of marriage.” Family law
revolutionaries ignore the public debate and seek ends well beyond gay marriage. In place of traditional marriage, they would, in
Professor Stacey’s words, completely “redesign” kinship “with
creativity and verve.”
Between
them, Fineman and Ertman have developed a scheme to replace marriage by treating every
“intimate affiliation” — any relationship involving any number of
consenting adults (sic! kk) — as a legal contract among private parties, subject to
enforcement by the courts as other contracts — say, between a swimming pool owner and
a cleaning service — are enforced. Existing
contract law could be adapted for this purpose.
Notice that reference to
“any number of consenting adults”! Later
the article gives us the new word coined to cover this new abomination —
“polyamory.” As any novice in
Latin knows, this is an invented composite word that means
“love between many.” In
other words, sex communes would become recognized as marriage (marriages?), or, if you
will, “intimate affiliation” contracts, with all the rights and liabilities that
go along with such. Indeed, it becomes plain,
we haven’t seen anything yet! Not if
these radical feminists have their way.
This is the agenda of the
intellectual elite. For all their making
claims in the name of freedom and the expression of true democracy, they have no regard
for the rights of others. The elite are
tyrants at heart. In the name of freedom and
democracy they intend to demolish marriage, family, and Christianity, and impose their
cravings and will on the rest of the population, like it or not. They alone know what is good. Duigon points out:
As
Thomas Sowell explains in The Vision of the Anointed, these elitists believe
strongly that their exclusive possession of the truth authorizes them to say and do anything
to promote their policies. This is why
they habitually resort to the courts rather than subject their schemes to the
uncertainties of legislation or election. After
all, the non-anointed will probably get it wrong.
The radical feminists are like
the ruling pigs of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, who, while maintaining that
indeed “all animals are equal,” yet insisted that some (of us) “are more
equal than others.” These elitists, or,
as Sowell calls them, “the Anointed,” are hypocritical to the core, and
dangerous. What governs them is pride, lust,
and malice. An unholy trinity if ever there
was one.
As Duigon asks at the end of his
article, how long will it be before the proponents of these insanities demand
“penalties for churches that refuse to perform ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies,
restrictions on Christian homeschooling, and an end to the church itself as one more
‘restrictive’ social institution?”
One thing is certain,
Satan’s mistresses are hard at work. The
book of the Revelation does not describe the church’s great enemy in terms of being
the “Harlot” and the “Great Whore” for nothing, you know.
The Pluralism
What has been warned about above is no mere alarmism.
Those with the radical agenda are making progress, more than we sometimes may want
to acknowledge. In the same issue of the
Chalcedon Report as above (December 2003) in an article entitled Intolerant Tolerance, Warren
Kelly lays out evidence of this progress. He identifies the spirit of “pluralism,”
the ruling philosophy of the day, as the driving force behind the intolerance of all
things right and good and Christian today, pluralism — which claims to be committed
to toleration.
The
tolerance movement is an outgrowth of pluralism, which holds that all beliefs are morally
equal and need to be treated with equal respect. It
believes that all religions contain truth and no one religion or belief system is superior
to another....
Having pointed out that
pluralism has become “the dominant belief system of our media, Hollywood, and many of
our political and cultural leaders,” as well as increasingly “the committed
enemy of Christianity,” Kelly points
out:
For those who believe
in the god of pluralism, the only true sin is violation of its principle doctrine,
tolerance. Christianity is based on
God’s absolute values and ... is an abhorrent concept for pluralists.
The definition of
tolerance has gradually been adapted by our pluralist society. No longer is it adequate to allow (sic! — kk)
others to hold their own beliefs; tolerance now dictates that we must accept (sic! —
kk) the beliefs and practices of others and respect them as equal to our own, no matter
how distasteful they may be.
At this point Kelly confronts us
with the progress the radical movement, so hostile to and intolerant of Christianity, is
making.
Consider
the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would make it a criminal act for a
Christian employer, even a church, to deny employment to someone based on his lifestyle. If passed, this legislation will be used to force
churches and Christian schools to hire homosexuals.
Senator
Ted Kennedy’s proposed hate crime legislation will also be used against Christians. Again, the language has been carefully crafted to
make the legislation difficult to oppose. What
kind of person would be in favor of hate? The
strategy has been effective, as already forty-nine Senators have signed on as cosponsors
to the bill.
Unless
we take action now, it will soon be illegal for a pastor to condemn sinful lifestyles from
the pulpit. Even the reading of certain
Scripture will soon be illegal.
Many
would say that this is alarmist rhetoric and that it could never really happen. Tell that to our Christian brothers in Canada
where it already has. Just a few miles to the
north, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned all radio and television
stations airing anything negative about homosexuality.
In
Ireland, Christians faced up to six months in jail for distributing literature that
opposes same-sex unions because to do so would violate the 1989 Incitement of Hatred Act.
Kelly informs us that one such
piece of literature produced by the Romish Church (which opposes homosexual activity, but
not homosexuality) has already been targeted, simply because it is “likely to give
rise to hatred, which is against the Act.”
The evidence is irrefutable. The silencing of the testimony of the Christian
faith and its warning against sin is not just in the wishful thinking stage, the assault
has already begun. Can we afford to keep
silence in the face of these brazen outrages?
More
On “Therapeutic” Cloning: It’s
Murder
The
question of human cloning
remains a hot issue. While “reproductive cloning” (with a
view to producing fully developed children) has generally been condemned and banned in the
West, approval has been given to “therapeutic cloning.” Therapeutic cloning is justified in the name of
humanitarian purposes, namely, to grow healthy body parts (or as they say in PC language,
“body tissue”) for people with sickness and disease. Can love thy neighbor require anything less?
In
an article entitled “THOU MUST MURDER ? Killing
Clones around the world” (Reformed
Perspective, October 12, 2003) Ike Van Dyke points out that on closer inspection
therapeutic cloning is no more morally justifiable than reproductive cloning, and ranks
right up there with abortion when all is said and done.
Therapeutic
cloning is done with the intent of killing the clone and experimenting with its cells. Let me restate that to make it clear. In therapeutic cloning scientists create a human
being, and then kill it so that they can play with its body parts. I wish I could say this in some much more
horrifying manner, but hopefully you are already struck by the sheer vileness of this
idea.
Death
Demanded
Things
get worse when you consider what it really means to ban reproductive cloning while still
allowing therapeutic cloning. Creating clones
would still be legal, but it would become illegal to let them live and grow to maturity.
This
is the law of the land in Britain right now. In
that country reproductive cloning is illegal but therapeutic cloning is allowed. Clones can be created but these people must
be killed!
This
is worse even than the legalization of abortion. Yes,
by allowing abortion the state does stand idly by as millions of unborn infants are
murdered. But the British government has gone
even further with their cloning legislation — they don’t just allow the murder
of clones, they require it. It is illegal to
let clones live and be born.
No matter how you cut it, as Van
Dyke points out, “Clones, too, are people. It
doesn’t matter how their life began — it matters only what they are, and they
are human.” Therapeutic cloning adds
murder to the list of sins committed by reproductive cloning. So much for the tender mercies of the wicked.
Ministering to the Saints:
Rev. Douglas Kuiper
Rev.
Kuiper is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Randolph, Wisconsin.
The first installment of this series can be found
in the December 1, 2003 issue of the Standard Bearer.
The Fundamental Work of
the Deacons (2)
Procuring Many Good Means
The fundamental work of the deacons in God’s church is the relief of the poor and
needy. In order to do this work, the deacons
must have the means available to relieve those in need.
It comes as no surprise, then, that Reformed churches require their deacons
“diligently to collect alms and other contributions of charity” (Church Order,
Article 25), and again, to “collect and preserve with the greatest fidelity and
diligence, the alms and goods which are given to the poor: yea, to do their utmost
endeavors, that many good means be procured for the relief of the poor” (Form of
Ordination of Elders and Deacons).
Three points immediately catch
our attention as being noteworthy. The first
relates to what must be collected. Not only
must the deacons collect alms, but they may collect other things as well, as the following
phrases indicate: “and other contributions of charity”; “that many good
means be procured….” The second
relates to the gathering of these alms and other contributions: they must be collected,
and preserved. The third pertains to the
diligence with which the deacons must do their work.
Both works quoted above point out the need for diligence. In addition, the word “procure”
underscores this; generally it means “to get or obtain,” but the emphasis falls
especially on the care required to get or obtain. One
definition given for this word in the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is
“To put forth or employ care or effort; to do one’s best.”
“Alms” are charitable
gifts donated to the poor. The word as it
appears in the New Testament is a translation of a Greek word with the basic meaning
“mercy.” This Greek word refers particularly to mercy displayed in acts of kindness, as
Acts 9:36
indicates, speaking of
Dorcas having done “almsdeeds.” So
the alms are specifically those gifts given to the church, in order that she might perform
the ministry of mercy through her diaconate, in the service of Christ.
In our experience, alms most
often take the form of money. This is because
ours is a money-based society. Money is the
most convenient thing to give for the relief of the poor, because we get paid in money. And money is the most convenient thing to give to
the poor, because they can buy any material necessity with money. Money also fits nicely into the collection plate.
The deacons, however, are
permitted to collect more than simply money. And
they might consider doing so for good reason.
First, the poor whom they serve
usually have a specific need — such as a need for a house, car, furniture, or
groceries. While money can buy all these
things in a money-based society, it is obvious that the need of the poor would be relieved
if they were given the very thing that they need, rather than being given money to buy
what they need.
Second, giving gifts of money is
not always wise. With money, a man whose
family is hungry can buy more beer to quench his unsatisfied thirst for alcohol. With money, a woman whose children need clothes
can buy jewelry or whatever else will keep her happy.
When the specific needs of a family are supplied with the very thing needed, the
possibility of the misuse of the gift is greatly reduced.
“Many good means” can
also take the form of services, rather than material objects. Some in the congregation are not so much poor as
they are invalid; or perhaps they are both poor and invalid. Being invalid, they might need gifts of time and
energy, rather than possessions. Perhaps they
need transportation to and from places; or they need one to get their groceries for them. The task of making arrangements for such needs
properly falls to the deacons.
By requiring their deacons to
procure “many good means” for the relief of the poor, Reformed churches
indicate that the ministry of mercy that they expect of their deacons requires more than
simply receiving money and giving money to the poor.
Such churches also realize that every case must be dealt with individually. Each diaconate is given some freedom to be
creative, in determining how best to meet any particular need.
Perhaps this is a necessary reminder for our diaconates today. So accustomed are we to collecting and distributing only money, that we might tend to view one who comes to us with a different need as bucking the system, or as being bothersome, or as being at the wrong door with