Vol. 80; No. 11; March 1, 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.
Meditation – Rev. Martin VanderWal
Editorial -- Prof. David J. Engelsma
Letters
All Around Us -- Rev. Gise Van Baren
· Marriage -- Is It Necessary?
· "...famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places."
Marking the Bulwarks of Zion -- Prof. Herman Hanko
Understanding the Times -- Mr. Calvin Kalsbeek
· Eastern Ideas (5): Their Influence on the Church (cont.)
Taking Heed to the Doctrine -- Rev. Steven Key
When Thou Sittest in Thine House -- Rev. Wilbur Bruinsma
Search the Scriptures -- Rev. Ronald Hanko
· Haggai: Rebuilding the Church
Report on Classis East
News From Our Churches;-- Mr. Benjamin Wigger
· Varia
Meditation:
Rev. Martin VanderWal
Rev.
VanderWal is pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Redlands, California.
The Availing of Faith
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision;
but faith which worketh by love.
Blessed
argument!
The truth of God’s Word,
according to the Word itself, is to be argued and defended in all controversy. The epistle of Galatians is a masterpiece in
argument. It is a massive volley launched
from the citadel of the truth. It smashes to
pieces all the devices and engines set up by the enemies of the truth.
That volley is thorough. Its main fusillade is a number of the Scriptures
of the Old Testament that are applied to the controversy of justification by faith or by
works. Those Scriptures are rallied in
defense of the truth that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. But there are other elements in this volley also
fatal to the enemy’s forces. There is
the fervent zeal that pours itself forth in a torrent of strong words, even a deep, dark
word of anathema, Let him be accursed! Paul
expresses his desire that they would even be cut off who troubled the churches of Galatia.
The occasion for this volley is
an attack on the gospel. That gospel is the
truth that God’s elect are justified by faith alone.
The gospel is that they are justified by faith without any works. The blessed gospel of God’s salvation was
under siege. Its enemies claimed also to
bring the gospel. In truth, their gospel was
no gospel at all! For this gospel was a
gospel of justification by faith and by works. Chief
among the works they promoted was circumcision.
That attack must be repelled by
everything that might be hurled against it! The
munitions must be emptied, magazines emptied out, all for the destruction of that error
and for the survival of the true gospel of God’s gracious salvation in Jesus Christ. Let every argument conceived be brought out! The truth of the gospel is at stake!
As it was then, even according
to holy Writ, so it must be in the present.
One of these arguments in this
warfare is given in these words: “For in
Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which
worketh by love.” It is but a small,
sometimes overlooked element in the volley. It
carries no great vehemence. It is no anathema
or destructive wish. Neither is it an appeal
to the Old Testament Scriptures.
These words make a simple
comparison. It requires that we put two side
by side, and put the same question to each side. On
the one side is circumcision, joined by uncircumcision.
On the other side is faith.
Let us, for the sake of the
argument, go a bit beyond the words of Galatians
5:6 themselves. Let us consider the
context. For the argument is not only about
circumcision. (Neither let the present-day
enemies of faith alone say otherwise!) It is
about the works of the law, including circumcision. Yea,
more, it is about every human work, everything that might possibly be proposed as a
condition for salvation! Let us put all these
things together on the one side.
What an enormous weight appears
on this side: circumcision, uncircumcision, works of the law, human effort, human
achievement.
Here is the question we address
to this side: what does it avail? What is its
strength? What is it strong to produce?
The answer?
Nothing! Circumcision does not avail! Uncircumcision does not avail! The works of the law do not avail! Neither does human effort or human achievement.
Neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision availeth. Neither does the
gospel of circumcision. Neither does the
gospel of human effort and human achievement. They
cannot save! Those who believe these
“gospels” are still dead in their sins.
The other side is rather simple. It is faith.
And, we emphasize, it is faith alone! It
is faith without any works at all. In fact,
it is faith in opposition to works, in antithesis to works, exclusive of works!
We put the same question to this
other side, namely faith: What does it avail? What
is its strength? What is it strong to
produce?
The answer?
Everything! Faith is strong!
Faith does avail! Faith is mighty to
produce an abundance of fruit!
Faith is the victory! The gospel of justification and salvation by faith
alone is vindicated! The lie of justification
and salvation by faith and works lies vanquished and bleeding on the battlefield. It must beat a hasty retreat out of the faithful
church and the pious heart of the true believer.
That faith avails is declared in
the simplest way: it works!
How is faith this mighty
victory? How does it avail?
We need not go far at all to
find the answer. The proof of its might is
found in its working.
Faith does work! It is of power and strength. It does actually produce. Its product is good, the greatest good.
For, this faith “worketh by
love.”
Be very careful here. Be careful of the Judaizers of the present day who
would tell you that faith and love are here joined together, so that they operate in the
same way and on the same level. They would
thereby draw the conclusion that we are saved and justified by faith and love.
It is not so! We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, see
“faith and love” in this text.
“Faith which worketh by
love.” That is, faith makes its power
known in works of love. That is, do you
desire to know the proof of faith’s might and power?
Look for love. Look for deeds done in
utter selflessness, merely for the promotion of God’s glory and the neighbor’s
good.
Faith does indeed avail here. It worketh by love.
There is one more thing that we
must say about the love that faith produces. With
this one thing, we see the absolute power of faith, and that over against circumcision.
You see, it had been argued (and
today is still argued) that faith is forever and always exclusive of the law of God. The law is still important, so the Judaizers
said. For that reason, let us keep at least
this commandment of circumcision. At least,
in this small way, we shall show that we are still interested in fulfilling the law.
Oh, the foolish pride of man! Circumcision cannot fulfill the law. The circumcision made in the flesh, done by hands,
has no power to fulfill the law. For the
fulfillment of the law is love. The sinner,
though he be circumcised, is not brought a whit nearer love than he was before. Circumcision availeth nothing. Uncircumcision availeth nothing.
Only faith, which worketh by
love!
The reason is simple. That reason is to be found at the very beginning
of the verse: “In Jesus Christ.” Jesus
Christ is the end of the law to everyone that believeth.
He is the fulfillment of all the law. He is righteous, as the only begotten Son of
God. He was perfectly righteous in His life
upon the earth and especially in His death on the cross. That
righteousness is ours by faith.
That righteousness is ours by
faith alone, without any works of the law.
To that righteousness,
circumcision cannot possibly compare!
But by faith the believer is
also joined to Christ, so that the power of Christ is worked in Him. The availing power of faith is the availing power
of Christ! Faith wrought in the elect is the
good root that produces in him all manner of good works.
He loves God above all. He worships
and serves God. He confesses God’s name
and His truth. He loves the neighbor as
himself, giving himself to promote the neighbor’s well-being.
Here is power! Here is might!
Neither circumcision nor
uncir-cumcision availeth!
But faith, which worketh by
love!
No, this argument is not first. Nor is it the strongest. But its particular power lies in its practice. The believer knows the proof in his life. Believing in Jesus, He is filled with gratitude
for the gift of divine righteousness imputed to him.
In gratitude, he rejoices. Out of
gratitude he works, offering himself a living sacrifice of thanksgiving. He loves God from his heart. He loves the neighbor from his heart. He loves not out of a sense of obligation, to
merit with God, least of all to be justified. He
loves because he is beloved.
In that blessed way of love, the
believer knows the power of faith.
Keep the argument close to your
heart. Be ready to bring it out as the
battle of faith requires. Practice it, to
know its strength.
Faith availeth indeed, for it
worketh by love.
In Jesus Christ.
Editorial:
Prof. David Engelsma
Faith’s Assurance
Assurance
of salvation is an aspect of true faith. Assurance
belongs to the very nature of saving faith. Faith
in Jesus Christ according to the gospel of the Scriptures is assurance. Faith is certainty of salvation.
A believer can doubt his
salvation. He ought not doubt, but it is
possible that he does. But doubt is not part
of his faith. His doubt of his salvation is
his corrupt, unbelieving nature getting the upper hand in his consciousness.
According to his faith, whether
great or small, whether matured at the end of the Christian life or immature at the very
beginning of the Christian life, the believer never doubts.
Assurance of salvation by any
and every true believer is not presumption. Full
assurance (to use a redundancy) by a believer at any stage of the life of faith is not a
rarity. Certainty—absolute
certainty (which is the only certainty there is or can be)—of personal salvation by
the blood and Spirit of Christ in the eternal love of God is not an abnormality in the
Reformed congregations. Certainty of
salvation is simply the reality of faith.
Certainty of salvation is faith’s
assurance.
Assured
Union with Christ
Faith is assurance by virtue of
faith’s being union with Jesus Christ. When
the Spirit gives faith, He unites the elect with Christ.
Faith is the bond of mystical union with the Savior.
As Paul never tires of teaching, the one who has faith is “in Christ.” And Christ is in him. In this union, the assurance of the believer that
Christ is his and that he is Christ’s is as normal, and necessary, as the certainty
of the Christian wife that, united to her godly husband in marriage, she is his and he is
hers.
Assured
Knowledge
Faith is assurance as regards
the conscious activity of believing. Believing
consists of two distinct, but inseparably related, elements. Believing is knowledge. It is knowledge of Jesus Christ as revealed in the
gospel of Holy Scripture. Not only does faith
know Jesus Christ as the Son of God sent by God into the world as the only Savior from sin
and death by His atoning death. But faith
recognizes Jesus as the Savior of the one who believes.
The knowledge of faith—the
knowing that faith consists of—does not
respond to Jesus Christ presented in the gospel by saying, “Ah, this is surely
interesting, and undoubtedly very important; here is this person, Jesus, who is the Savior
of the world.” There may be a response
like this, at least for a short while, on the part of some, but it is the response of a
false faith. This false faith is sometimes
referred to as “historical faith.” It
does not last. It soon manifests itself as
outright unbelief, rejecting and despising the Savior by refusing to trust in Him, if not
by blaspheming Him. In any case, historical
faith is not the response to Jesus Christ of the faith worked in the elect by the Holy
Spirit.
True faith responds, “My
Savior and my Lord.”
Faith knows Christ in a living,
personal way—as the lost sheep knows his seeking shepherd, as a debtor knows his
gracious creditor, as the sinful creature knows his loving God.
This knowledge of Christ as the
believer’s Savior is certain. There is
no doubt about it. The reason is that
faith’s knowledge of Christ is Christ’s own gift to the elect sinner. Christ makes Himself known to the sinner in the
gift of faith, and faith knows Christ as the sinner’s own. Christ makes Himself known with certainty.
Already, then, as regards the
first element of faith, namely, knowledge—knowledge of Jesus Christ—faith is
certainty—certainty of personal salvation. If
it were not the case that faith knows Christ as the Savior of the one who believes, the
guilty sinner would never dare to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. Faith is not a risky leap into the dark.
Assured
Trust
The second element of the
activity of faith is trust. Logically
dependent upon faith’s knowledge of Christ, but one spiritual activity with this
knowledge, trust is the believing sinner’s coming to Christ for forgiveness of sins
and eternal life. The trusting sinner casts
himself upon this Jesus Christ for salvation.
In this trusting, this casting
oneself upon Christ, this seeking salvation where alone it is to be found, is assurance of
one’s salvation. Trust in Jesus, which
is an essential element of faith, is not, and cannot be, merely the certainty
that Jesus is the Savior. Merely to be sure
that Jesus is the Savior is not trust. Trust
is entrusting oneself to Christ, and to entrust oneself to Him, or confide in Him, or
depend upon Him, is certainty that He is the Savior of the one who trusts.
He trusts in Jesus, and he
alone, who is persuaded of the sure promise of the gospel that everyone who does trust in
Jesus shall be received by Jesus and shall find righteousness and eternal life. The activity itself of trusting is certainty, not
doubt.
In addition, when one has
trusted, he does not find merely that Jesus is a Savior of sinners. But he finds that Jesus is his Savior
personally. This is the promise. The promise is not, “Believe on Him, and you
will be convinced that Jesus is the Savior of many people.” What do I care about that? That is not my great need—to be convinced
that Jesus saves some people. I suppose
Satan is convinced that Jesus saves people. The promise of the gospel is, “Believe on
Him, and you—you yourself personally—will have forgiveness and
eternal life.” And one who has
forgiveness and eternal life certainly is assured that Jesus Christ, who gives him
forgiveness and eternal life, is his Savior.
To speak of people’s
trusting in Jesus for salvation while lacking, indeed being denied, assurance of
salvation is absurd.
We may distinguish faith’s
assurance that Jesus is the Savior and faith’s assurance that Jesus is my
Savior. But it is impossible to separate
these two aspects of assurance. If a man does
not have the certainty that he is saved by Jesus, the reason (apart now from certain
special circumstances in his spiritual life to which we return later in this series) is
that he does not trust in Jesus as Savior. And,
I may add, he does not trust in Jesus, because he does not know Jesus with the knowledge
of faith.
To know Him is to trust in Him,
and to trust in Him is to be assured of salvation by Him.
An illustration may help to make
clear both that we trust in one of whom we are certain that he is our helper and that the
activity itself of trusting in a true and faithful helper necessarily implies assurance. When I was a little child, I knew my parents as my
help and refuge. I went to them for
everything—food for my hunger, comfort for my childish fears, relief in my pain. Sometimes I literally threw myself into their laps
and arms. I trusted in them as in parents who
loved me, and I trusted them because I knew them as my parents.
That little child was sure that
his parents would help him. He never doubted
it.
In the very activity of trusting
in them, the child was certain that he was helped by them, and that he was helped by them
because he was their child, whom they loved. He
never doubted this either.
And this was what his parents
wanted. They encouraged trust because trust
is assurance of parental love, which is basic to the relationship of parents and child.
It certainly was not the case
(the thought is silly) that the child depended upon his parents and was helped by them
with all that belongs to covenant nurture and rearing, but doubted for many years whether
they were his parents, whether they loved him, and whether he was their child.
Trust is assurance. One can no more separate assurance from trust than
he can separate wet from water. As trust is
of the essence of faith, so is assurance of the essence of faith.
“Esse”
and “Bene Esse”
The great evil of certain
Reformed and Presbyterian churches resulting in the doubt of many members that they are
saved is the churches’ denial that assurance belongs to the very nature of faith. This grievous doctrinal error, with its dreadful
practical consequences, they have inherited from the Puritans.
Many, if not most, of the
Puritans taught that assurance is not of the “esse” (Latin for
“essence,” or “being”) of faith, but only of the “bene esse”
(Latin for “well-being”) of faith. Faith,
they said, is not itself assurance. Assurance
is only a fruit of faith. One can have and
exercise true faith without enjoying assurance of salvation. One can have faith for many years without enjoying
assurance of salvation. Indeed, according to
the Puritans, most Christians, although they have faith, lack assurance. Most Christians, although they believe, live in
doubt much of their life. Most believers
should expect to live in doubt—doubt whether they are saved—for a
long time, very likely all their life. The
Puritans taught that “full subjective assurance [that is, assurance—DJE]
is often withheld until the moment of death” (William K. B. Stoever, ‘A Faire
and Easie Way to Heaven’, Wesleyan University Press, 1978, p. 155).
For the Puritan, Thomas Brooks,
assurance “is not essential to faith.” Assurance
is “of faith’s bene esse [well-being], not of its esse
[being].” Assurance of one’s own
salvation is “an aspect of faith which normally appears only when faith has reached a
high degree of development, far beyond its minimal saving exercise.” Brooks spoke of assurance as “a reward of
faith.”
Thomas Goodwin, another notable
Puritan, taught that assurance is “a branch and appendix of faith, an addition or
complement to faith.” Insofar as he was
willing to view assurance as related to faith, he described assurance as “faith
elevated and raised up above its ordinary rate.”
“Scripture,” said Goodwin, “speaks of [assurance] as a thing
distinct from faith.”
According to Puritan scholar
James I. Packer, Brooks and Goodwin’s doctrine of assurance “was the general
Puritan conception of assurance” (James I. Packer, “The Witness of the Spirit: the Puritan Teaching,” in Puritan Papers,
vol. 1, P&R, 2000, pp. 20, 21; see also Packer’s The Quest for Godliness,
Crossway Books, 1990, pp. 179-189).
William Perkins, towering
Puritan theologian, taught that “no Christian attaines to this full assurance at the
first, but in some continuance of time, after that for a long space he hath kept a good
conscience before God, and before men” (cited by Robert Letham, “Faith and
Assurance in Early Calvinism: A Model of
Continuity and Diversity,” in Later Calvinism:
International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham, Sixteenth Century Journal
Publishers, 1994, p. 382). This was to
separate assurance from faith with a vengeance.
The causes of the Puritan denial
that assurance belongs to the very nature of faith are not now our concern. Certainly, two of the causes were the Puritan
doctrine of a conditional covenant and the Puritan penchant for suspending the certainty
of salvation upon “experience.” If
one must attain assurance of his salvation first by fulfilling conditions and then by
discovering within himself a sufficient “experience,” assurance is effectively
put out of the reach of all but the spiritual elite.
And insofar as the assurance of these elite rests on some “experience,”
by what the Puritans called the “mystical syllogism,” their assurance leans on a
broken reed.
What concerns us is the effect
of the denial that faith is assurance. The
effect is doubt. The Puritan preachers
preach doubt into their people. They profess
that they want the people to have assurance. No
doubt they are sincere in this profession. But
when they convince their people that faith in Jesus Christ—faith that believes from
the heart the gospel of Scripture—is not assurance of one’s own salvation by
this Jesus, that faith in Jesus Christ is not sufficient for assurance, that faith in
Jesus Christ is not itself the plainest proof from God in heaven that the one who has this
faith is saved by Jesus Christ, they create doubters.
They create whole congregations and denominations of doubters. They create lifelong doubters. They create doubters from generation to
generation.
The very next chapter following
James I. Packer’s description and defense of the Puritan denial that faith is
assurance, in volume one of Puritan Papers, is titled, “The Puritan’s
Dealings with Troubled Souls.” Indeed!
Those who deny that assurance
belongs to the very essence of faith are forever seeking assurance. To hear them, the believer’s relation to
assurance is a “quest” for assurance. This
is the title of the chapter in Stoever’s ‘A Faire and Easie Way to
Heaven’ in which he describes the relation between a Puritan and assurance: “The Quest for Assurance.” Always questing, and very likely never finding!
There is even, among these
people, a perverse esteem of doubt as a spiritual virtue.
The one who goes on doubting his salvation year after year, always seeking and
never finding, is regarded as quite spiritual. Not
infrequently he regards himself as quite spiritual.
He looks down on those who claim to have assurance simply by their faith in Christ
as “unspiritual.” Stoever notes
that the Puritan pastors made “a certain kind of earnest doubt itself a mark of
blessedness” (‘A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven’, p. 148).
But doubt is not blessedness.
Doubt is misery, the misery of
the sin of unbelief.
The misery of doubt is dreadful.
And the doubter knows it.
Try telling the old man on his
deathbed, terrified at the prospect of impending judgment, that the assurance he lacks
because of Puritan preaching merely belongs to the “bene esse” of faith,
not the “esse.”
Dealing
with Change
In
response to Rev. Kortering’s remarks
about change in the February 1, 2004 Standard
Bearer,
I would like to comment on the subject of how we, as Protestant Reformed Churches, deal
with change. As Rev. Stewart did, I too write
regarding the subject itself, which caught my interest, not directly to anything Rev.
Kortering wrote.
Not only is there a right way
and a wrong way to deal with change, but there also is a right way and a wrong way to
introduce change into the Protestant Reformed Churches.
One example mentioned was the
matter of introducing “you” and “your” in prayer. I think very few of us have any difficulty with a
“seeking soul” using “you” and “your,” or, for that matter,
saints in other countries addressing God this way, since they have never known any
different. Also, with respect to new converts
who join a Protestant Reformed congregation, it is understandable that it may take awhile
to adjust to praying “thee” and “thou.”
It is generally understood that the custom of praying “thee” and
“thou” is not a matter of principle, but a practice continued because it is a
reverent way to set God apart from men. Most
of us have been shown this by our parents and officebearers at a young age already. However, a non-principle issue does not imply
license for individuals to begin praying this way in our Protestant Reformed Churches. This is the wrong way to introduce change, and
will instigate a wrong reaction to change.
Scripture is our guide on such
matters. Acts 16:3 relates that Paul had
Timothy circumcised (during a time of change in the church), to keep from unnecessarily
offending fellow brethren. It is no different
in our churches today. For some members to
begin using “you” and “your” pronouns for God in public prayers, or
for those who join the Protestant Reformed Churches to make no effort to conform to the
established practice, will unnecessarily thus also offend fellow saints. Paul wouldn’t do such a thing, even when he
had a compelling and scriptural reason for change, because there was a right way to go
about it. The right way to introduce a change
on such a matter is by a decision of the churches as a whole, and this, for the sake of
decency, good order, and unity. After all,
the way we address our heavenly Father is not a passing fashion, in which a spirit of
independentism should prevail.
There may be a time to change to
“you” and “your.” It is
when we begin to address God a certain way, imagining that it is necessary for salvation. Again, Scripture speaks of the apostle Paul
dealing with this situation in Galatians 2:3 and Acts 15:1.
Even in such an instance of resisting legalism and the like, it should be done in
the proper way, the church orderly way that strives “to keep the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace.”
Individual members foisting
their own changes on the people must not be tolerated.
Jeff
Kalsbeek,
Grand Rapids, MI
All Around Us:
Rev. Gise VanBaren
Rev.
VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the Protestant Reformed Churches.
Marriage
—
The concept of marriage has been rapidly changing. Though
vows spoken often include the “until death do us part,” some 50% of marriages
are dissolved
through divorce long before death comes. It
is said that the same is true with marriages of those who belong to churches.
There are large numbers of
“single parents,” single not usually because of the death of one partner, but
through choice. Women will have children
outside of the marriage bond.
Then there is the growing
pressure to pass laws declaring that there can be also legitimate homosexual marriages.
In the past the churches have
taught, as Scripture insists, that marriage is for life.
It is Scripture that sets the standards for marriage—not laws passed by
legislators or validated by activist judges in the courts.
In his State of the Union
address, President George W. Bush proposed the expenditure of 1.5 billion dollars for the
promotion of “healthy marriages.” On the surface, that appears to be a very
praiseworthy way to spend tax dollars. The
difficulty is that again money is considered a significant, if not all-important, way of
curing the problem. Marriages are in trouble,
not because of a lack of Federal funding, but because of the widespread and growing
disregard of the clear teachings of Scripture.
An interesting editorial
appeared in the Grand Rapids Press, January 26, 2004, written by William
Raspberry (a conservative black writer). He
correctly points out the consequences of ignoring the permanency of marriage in society
today. His arguments are not, obviously,
based on Scripture, but rather on the consequences of rejecting the permanency of marriage
between one male and one female. He writes:
But wait: There’s a baby in there that
deserves more attention than some of us have been willing to pay.
…Take, for instance, the sacrifices
that are necessary to raise the kind of healthy, happy and competent children we want. These sacrifices are almost always unequal between
husband and wife. They are tolerable only if
marriage is accepted as a permanent arrangement.
Marriage has always been a way of tying
fathers to their offspring. But we’ve
come to believe that this is no longer necessary because women (in economic terms, at
least) no longer require the commitment of the fathers of their children. When dads become superfluous, it becomes more
difficult for men and boys to see useful social roles for themselves. Too often, young males become threats to the
families and communities that might once have considered them assets.
…If low-income women often opt out of
marrying the men available to them (“I can do bad by myself”), middle-income
women often opt out for the opposite reason: I can do just fine by myself. Even if there are children.
…About 10 years ago, the Annie E. Casey
Foundation reported a study that compared two groups of Americans—those who graduated
from high school, reached age 20 and got married before having their first child, and
those who didn’t. Only 8 percent of the children of the first group were living in
poverty a few years later. For the children
of those in the second group, the rate was 79 percent, nearly 10 times as high.
Marriage does matter, and I wish the
president’s proposal didn’t treat it so cynically. But the rest of us had better get serious about
doing what we can to restore marriage: by celebration, by exhortation, by making the
workplace more accommodating to marriage, and by creating jobs that can make marriage a
realistic option.
It is striking indeed that
someone declares boldly that many of today’s problems in society reside in the sad
state of affairs in marriage. Raspberry
correctly recognizes the consequences of the decline of marriage for society. He sees the sad consequences that all of this has
for a generation arising with only “single parents” to instruct and guide them.
Raspberry’s suggestions for
the improvement of marriages are, perhaps, as flawed as President Bush’s
recommendation to spend vast sums of money to strengthen marriages. The basic, underlying problem is the denial of
scriptural truths (separation between church and state, you know), and the taking of vows
without meaning what one says. One need not
wonder what our society will become as a consequence of this neglect of God’s Word. The worst is yet to come.
Union of Dutch Churches
There
is a brief report in the Christian
Renewal,
January 26, 2004, on the union of three churches in the Netherlands. The report states:
Three
Netherlands churches cast their final vote on union 12 Dec.
Each of the three synods met separately on December 12 and approved the merger. The churches will become the Protestant Church in
the Netherlands. The formal union will take
place 1 May, 04.
In the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands
(GKN), the vote was 66 to 6 in favor of the union. In
the Netherlands Reformed Churches (NHK), the vote was narrower, 51 to 24, just making the
two-thirds majority required. The Evangelical
Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (ELK) voted 30 to 6 in favor. The GKN was a founding member of the Reformed
Ecumenical Council in 1946. The new
Protestant Church in the Netherlands will continue its membership and be the first REC
member to include a Lutheran element in it. In
addition, the new PCN will be the host for the next REC Assembly in Utrecht in July 05.
The two Reformed denominations and one
Lutheran denomination have been in union discussions for decades, with the Reformed
churches beginning the talks in the late 1960s. The
Protestant Church in the Netherlands will have more than 2.5 million members, making it
the second-largest church in the country after the Catholic Church. [REC]
Such
is the development in the denomination in which many of our forefathers had their
membership. There was a time, now long ago,
in which doctrinal differences created debate and even ended in schism or separation. In our day doctrinal distinctives are not
considered all that important. Today the
“doctrines” of the church increasingly resemble the “politically
correct” positions of society at large. One
cannot but grieve at the developments taking place.
Who Will Lead Us?
We
are bombarded with ads and speeches by wanna-be presidents.
One must consider what these say and what they believe. One is appalled, however, by twisting of facts,
innuendos, charges, and questionable presentations.
There are other disturbing
things. One candidate is quoted by a secular
columnist with using a sexually suggestive word in an interview in Rolling Stone
magazine. If he used the “n” word
so freely, he would have no possibility of being nominated, much less elected to the high
office.
Another, suddenly showing a
certain interest in attracting the “Christian” vote, reported that his favorite
book in the New Testament was Job.
Another, as reported in World
magazine, takes the following position on abortion:
But presidential candidate Wesley Clark,
despite his relatively conservative reputation, has gone further than any of them in his
support for abortion. He has gone beyond Roe
vs. Wade, beyond any but the most radical pro-death theorists, whose philosophy he has
embraced. Not only does he say that he
believes in abortion till the moment of birth. Not
only does he say that he would appoint no pro-life judges.
He says that he does know when the fetus becomes a human being. As he told the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader,
“Life begins with the mother’s decision.”
Then
we have a president and many other leaders in politics who repeatedly insist that the
Christian, Muslim, and Jew all serve the same God. Many
teach that in the churches as well today.
The next nine months we will be
bombarded by many political charges and counter-charges.
It is good to pay close attention. Our
assurance must be that God is in control. He
will provide that kind of leadership that serves His purpose. His Word is being fulfilled. Shortly the Antichrist will manifest himself to
lead a kingdom that seeks to destroy the faithful church.
“…famines, and pestilences,
and earthquakes, in divers places.”
The
prophecies of Christ in Matthew 24 are being fulfilled.
But ... pestilences? Has not the
medical community produced medicines and surgical techniques so that life expectancy is 20
to 30 years greater than that of some of our forefathers?
Still, there is the fear that
plagues can come upon our land as well. We
have read of AIDS, and SARS, and other viruses that medicines might not be able to stop. There is concern about the possibility of a pan
endemic.
One of the headlines in the Grand
Rapids Press was: “The next plague,” followed by the statement:
“Killer bacteria defeat toughest antibiotic.”
The only thing Robert Thompson knows for
certain is that his patient died. Almost
everything else about the young man’s illness remains a mystery—and a warning. Now, five months later, the Seattle physician
still asks the same question.
How could a strong, athletic 19-year-old
walk into a hospital emergency room complaining only of weakness in his legs and lower
back pain and seven days later end up dead?
The initial diagnosis – MRSA
(methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or “golden staph”) – was
dire, but not hopeless. While the bacterial
infection is invulnerable to standard antibiotic treatment, it usually responds to
vancomycin, the so-called “drug of last resort.”
In this case it didn’t.
The teen had a stronger, more resistant and
more dangerous bug than Thompson ever had seen. The
infectious diseases expert recognized something new – and worrisome.
What befell this one average, healthy
teenager is happening in increasing numbers across the country and around the world. Antibiotics, the drugs that have saved millions of
lives over the last 60 years, now are failing their mission, outsmarted by the oldest,
most successful life form on the planet: bacteria.
The
article continued by explaining how this has come about.
What is worthy of our notice,
however, is that all of the cleverness of man, all of his inventiveness, cannot stop the
fulfillment of the Word of God concerning the signs of the end of time and Christ’s
soon return. Our society had thought that
many major illnesses could simply be cured with a prescription from the doctor. But man discovers that disease can still kill. New and untreatable diseases can come on mankind. Life expectancy will not always continue to rise. On the contrary, there is indication that it may
in fact begin to decrease.
All of this is presented not to
cause the Christian to worry or to be afraid. We
are to recognize that the prophecies of the Word of God are being fulfilled. Man is not almighty—but our God is. The child of God has more and more reasons to
pray, “Even so, come quickly, Lord.”
Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:
Prof. Herman Hanko
Prof.
Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed
Seminary.
(Preceding article: February 1, 2004, p. 204.)
The Marrow Men (2)
Introduction
The
Marrow Controversy, which troubled the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the early part
of the eighteenth century, had its roots in earlier history in the British Isles. Especially it had its origins in the struggle that
went on in England between a strong Calvinism and a lurking Arminianism and Amyraldianism.
The confessions did little or
nothing to stop the debate. The Thirty-Nine
Articles of the Church of England were weak on the doctrine of eternal predestination,
and efforts to add to them the Lambeth Articles failed.
Amyraldianism was represented at the Westminster Assembly and, while the
Westminster creeds were a victory of uncompromised Calvinism, the fact that they were
adopted as the creedal basis of a national church made the enforcement of them very
difficult.
John Owen’s book The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ and Edward Fisher’s book The Marrow of
Modern Divinity were destined to play leading roles in the controversy. The former was better known than the latter, but
the latter became the occasion for the bitter controversy that we discuss here.
The
Occasion for the Controversy
In
1708 John Simson was appointed professor of divinity at Glasgow, one of the schools in
which students from Scotland and Ulster received their theological training. In 1715 he was charged with teaching Arminianism,
and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland appointed a committee on
purity of doctrine to investigate the charge. The
committee reported in 1717 and informed the Assembly that Simson had indeed used
questionable statements, but had insisted that he intended to teach only what was taught
in the Westminster Confession of Faith. He
was, on the grounds of his intention, acquitted, but warned “not to attribute too
much to natural reason and the power of corrupt nature to the disparagement of revelation
and efficacious free grace.”
As a footnote, we might add that
only a few years later this same man was charged with Arianism, that is, a denial of the
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
On the very day that Simson was
acquitted of charges of Arminianism, a case involving what seemed to be an opposite point
of doctrine was treated. This case involved
an appeal to the Assembly against the presbytery of Auchterarder, in the Highlands of
Scotland. A certain William Craig was being
examined for licensure by the presbytery. Among
the questions put to him in the examination was one that asked him to assent to the
proposition: “It is not sound and
orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ and instating
us in covenant with God.”
The wording of the statement is
unfamiliar to us and is, for that reason, not so easy to decipher. Put in simpler language, William Craig was asked
to declare that it was heresy to teach that a sinner had to forsake his sin in order to
come to Christ. Or, to put it in a slightly
different way: “It is biblical to teach
that a sinner need not forsake his sin to come to Christ.”
William Craig refused to agree
to that statement and was denied licensure. He
appealed to the General Assembly. The General
Assembly was not pleased with the highly irregular conduct of the Auchterarder Presbytery
and summoned the Presbytery to appear before it. It
decided: 1) That subscription could not be
required by any presbytery to any statement that the General Assembly of the church had
not approved. The Auchterarder Presbytery
was, therefore, reprimanded for going beyond anything the General Assembly had required of
its ministers. 2) The Auchterarder Creed itself
was condemned as anti-nomian because it taught that repentance was not necessary to come
to Christ. 3) The Assembly also warned
against the evils of denying the need for holiness in the lives of people (antinomianism)
and warned against the teaching prevalent in the church that good works are the basis for
salvation (neonomism). The Assembly expressed
its abhorrence of the “creed” as most detestable, tending “to encourage
sloth in Christians and slacken people’s obligation to Gospel holiness.”
The Presbytery attempted to give
a good interpretation of the statement by insisting that all they meant was that a sinner
cannot go to the cross of Christ for forgiveness unless he takes his burden of sin with
him. If he does not take his sins with him,
he has no need of going to Christ. The
Presbytery accepted this explanation, but in 1718 forbad the use of such dangerous
expressions in the future.
Both Antinomianism and
Arminianism had been condemned, although some wryly noted that the former had been
condemned with greater ferocity than the latter.
The
Problem
It is, I think, quite clear what
the problem was.
The creed was condemned because,
so the Assembly said, it was antinomian. The
argument was that the Auchterarder Creed taught that a man could continue in his sin, have
no sorrow for it, and yet come to Christ. It
was not necessary to forsake sin and confess sorrow for it to seek forgiveness in the
cross. One can, therefore, go to Christ, find
forgiveness for sin, and continue in that very sin.
Anyone can see that this is
contrary to all that Scripture teaches and is, indeed, an antinomian statement.
However, the delegates of the
Auchterarder Presbytery also argued that if repentance from sin and sorrow for sin were
conditions to come to Christ for forgiveness, then sorrow for sin and fleeing from sin are
the grounds for forgiveness, and forgiveness is conditioned on the works of the sinner,
namely the works of sorrow and contrition. This
is Arminianism and makes forgiveness (justification) dependent on the works of the sinner.
The debate is illustrative of
the battle going on in the church between those teaching an Arminian doctrine and those
tending towards Antinomianism. The debate
over the Auchterarder Creed highlighted the differences and dangers.
What can be the solution to this
problem? Perhaps to pause a moment to discuss this matter is necessary.
Must a sinner forsake sin to
come to Christ? Or, perhaps to put the matter
a bit more cogently, What does repentance from sin, repentance that brings the sinner to
Christ, consist of? It seems important, first
of all, to emphasize that the repentance of a sinner is the work of the Spirit of Christ
in the hearts of His people, a work of the Spirit that is the Spirit’s means of
bringing the elect sinner to the cross. This
needs to be emphasized because, as we shall note later, many in the church did not ascribe
sorrow for sin to the saving operation of the Spirit.
But if we look at the whole matter from this point of view, there is no problem.
Obviously, the sinner does not
follow a pattern something like this: he first comes to see his sin as it truly is. Seeing
sin as it truly is persuades him that he ought to abandon this sin. At that point he decides that he must seek
forgiveness from sin. He then proceeds to go
to the cross to seek such forgiveness.
Nor is the matter thus: The sinner goes to the cross to seek forgiveness
without any desire to forsake sin and without any sense of the need to be obedient to God. That is what the Auchterarder Presbytery wanted
William Craig to say. That was wrong.
Rather, as the Spirit works in the sinner, all these things take place together. Under the Spirit’s working and by the power of grace, a sinner suddenly sees the horror of his sin, recognizes that he has come under the judgment of God, desires holiness that he is unable to attain by his own efforts, learns of