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 forgiveness in the perfect satisfaction
of the Son of God, hears the promise of forgiveness in that cross when he comes by faith,
and flees in faith to seek all his salvation in the cross.
It all happens at the same time, and efforts to sort it out in some kind of time
chart fail to recognize the power of the Spirit’s work in a sorrowing sinner. But it is the Spirit’s work and His alone. The sorrow of one with a broken spirit and a
contrite heart gives no thought to a neatly packaged list of duties and what comes next on
the list.
The
Marrow Controversy
But we must return to the
controversy itself.
From a certain point of view,
the issues in the Marrow Controversy were not the issues that had just been decided on the
General Assembly. We dealt at such length
with these issues because the controversy cannot be understood without knowing something
of these things. But the controversy itself
had a different origin.
The origin of that controversy
is this. During the lengthy debate on the
Auchterarder Creed at the General Assembly, Thomas Boston leaned over and whispered in the
ear of John Drummond, a fellow delegate, that he knew a book that answered admirably all
the points that were under discussion on the floor. The
book he referred to was Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Thomas Boston had seen this book on the shelf of
a cottage of one of his parishioners, and being unacquainted with it but interested in it,
had borrowed and read it. He was impressed.
The book was read by some, and
James Hog, a friend of Thomas Boston and pastor at Carnock, decided to have it reprinted. He added a highly commendatory preface to it. This gave the book wider circulation and many
within the Presbyterian Church of Scotland read it. Both
Thomas Boston and James Hog were ministers in the church.
Boston is still famous for his book Human Nature in its Fourfold State,
which has become something of a classic in Presbyterian literature. He was pastor of the church in Ettrick, where he
spent most of his career as pastor.
Because of the popularity of The
Marrow of Modern Divinity and because of its doubtful teachings, the book soon became
the object of official scrutiny. Principal
Haddon of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews condemned the book in a sermon opening the
Synod of Fife. The sermon was later
published. It pointed out Antinomian
teachings in the book and quoted references from it that were contrary to the teachings of
the Westminster Confession of Faith. James
Hog published a reply to the criticisms that Principal Haddon made. The scene was set for a bitter controversy.
The General Assembly of 1719
instructed its commission on purity of doctrine, by this time a very busy commission, to
study the book and the pamphlets that appeared as a result of the book, and bring a report
to the Assembly. The committee pointed out
five separate heresies in the book; it also proved that the charge of Antinomianism was
justified. The Assembly adopted the report,
forbade ministers to use or recommend the book, and told them that they must warn their
parishioners against it.
The errors found in the book by
the commission on doctrinal purity were: 1)
The book taught that assurance was of the essence of faith.
(Note: the Westminster Confession in Chapter 18, paragraph 3, denies that assurance
is of the essence of faith.) 2) It taught a
universal atonement and pardon in Christ’s cross.
3) It took the position that holiness was not necessary to salvation. 4) It said that the fear of punishment and the
hope of reward are not allowed to be motives of obedience.
5) It held that the believer is not under the law as a rule of faith.
Twelve men, called the Marrow
Men, and including Thomas Boston, Thomas Hog, and the two Erskine brothers, Ebenezer and
Ralph, protested these decisions. The matter
was further discussed by the commission as well as the assemblies of 1720 and 1722, but
the outcome was that the Marrow Men were condemned by an overwhelming vote, although they
were not disciplined — in spite of the fact that they informed the Assembly that they
would never live with nor be able to abide by these decisions. Their determination to maintain the doctrines of The
Marrow is significant.
In 1730 the Marrow Men, along
with others, left the Presbyterian Church of Ireland to establish a Secession Church. It is not clear what role the Marrow Controversy
played in the Secession. There were other
issues that became the immediate occasion for secession, but it is striking that the
Marrow Men, for the most part, left the church in 1730.
Understanding the Times:
Mr. Calvin Kalsbeek
Mr.
Kalsbeek is a teacher in Covenant Christian High School and a member of Hope Protestant
Reformed Church, Walker, Michigan.
(Preceding article in this
series: January 1, 2004, p. 150.)
Eastern Ideas (5)
Their Influence on the Church (cont.)
“And
the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what
Israel ought to do, the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at
their commandment.”
I
Chronicles 12:32
They
could be right! Erwin Lutzer and John
DeVries, that is, in their fourfold explanation of Satan’s strategy to deceive the
nations (see SB Jan. 1, 2004). The
question is: how could the mainline
Protestant churches of the West be duped into accepting these strange Eastern ideas? One might be able to understand that the secular
West would be receptive, or at least tolerant, of these strange Eastern ideas, but surely
not those in the tradition of the great Protestant Reformation? Impossible! How
can these things be?
James Herrick, Professor of
Communication at Hope College, believes this has happened because,
Pluralism has come to dominate the Western
religious scene in the past thirty or so years. The
pluralistic perspective affirms that all religions provide unique insights into the
transcendent and reflect a similar human longing for the divine. In addition, pluralism insists that no single
faith can make an exclusive claim to truth and that there is no superior spiritual
perspective from which other perspectives can be assessed. 1
Herrick’s
evaluation rings true; especially when one considers that more and more it is claimed that
all religions are just different ways to worship the same God. Less and less is there room these days for
theological exclusivism, that is, the idea that there really is only one way of
salvation. Herrick goes on to suggest that
current religious pluralism is unified by an emphasis on mystical experiences. Whereas in the past, Western Protestantism was
rooted in actual history as expressed in the infallible Word of God, now it is open to
subjective religious experience as its foundation of truth.
Evidence for this turn-about in religious thinking can be found in some startling
statistics that demonstrate that an increasing number of evangelical youth reject the
concept of absolute truth. According to a
poll that was taken, in 1991 52% of these young people said there was no absolute truth. This increased to 62% by 1994, 78% by 1999, and
91% by 2002. If this is indicative of Western
Protestant belief, little wonder, then, that relying on experience now dominates. If there is no absolute truth, we are left to
depend on ourselves and what we experience as the basis for our decision-making. The following example illustrates the point:
…A
Reformed Baptist minister in England was invited to speak at a Christian Union house-party
weekend. On arrival he was informed that a
young lady had claimed that the Lord had appeared the previous day and told her personally
that she was to be the main speaker that weekend.
When the issue was put to a vote, most of
the students voted in favor of the young lady. The
visiting minister did not return home, but awaited the outcome. At the first session the young lady began, but in
less than three minutes dried up.
Heads turned to see if the visitor was still
present and available. He was. The rest of the weekend went according to the
original plan.2
That
religious experience has trumped the historical revealed Word of God as the rule
for the faith and life on much of Western Protestantism is abundantly clear. Consider very briefly a few examples. In Pentecostal circles, speaking in tongues and
the performance of miracles are the important thing. In the Toronto movement “holy
laughter” and /or the making of animal sounds during worship works. In the Episcopal
Church (and others) practicing homosexuals are fine — even in the priesthood. From many pulpits women preach because they have
“felt” the call. On many an
elders’ and deacons’ bench women sit because there they can best use their
perceived God-given gifts. It doesn’t
seem to matter what Scripture says about these practices; as long as it feels good, is
fulfilling, is fun, or attracts people it must be okay.
Taking
Leave of History
If Herrick is right in his
assessment, namely, that “Pluralism has come to dominate the Western religious
scene,” and what unifies religious pluralism is its emphasis on mystical experiences,
the obvious question that follows is: how did this happen?
Herrick’s answer is that Western Christianity is “taking leave of
history.” He writes, “…while
not denying the validity of individual experience, advocates of the Revealed Word
perspective have always insisted on history — not individual experience — as the
ground (emphasis mine, c.k.) of religion.”3 Herrick goes on to explain why this is so
important:
Should history ground spirituality, as the
Revealed Word tradition has insisted? Or
should myth, allegory and private spiritual experience—each cut free from external
events—provide the basis of our religious commitments?
We might say that the advantage and the risk of basing spirituality on history are
the same—the possibility of proof and disproof.
Vulnerability to historical scrutiny imports openness and candor. When a religious claim can be examined, tested,
subjected to critical review, the public being asked to accept the claim is at the very
least invited to participate rationally in a process of choice. When, on the other hand, a claim cannot be tested
or subjected to any of the ordinary tests of truthfulness, we are left with no recourse
but to trust the probity (integrity, c. k.) of the claimant.…
Does spirituality need history? The Revealed Word tradition has always answered yes;
the New Religious Synthesis says no.4
All of which begs a deeper
question: if Western Protestantism really
has to some extent taken leave of history, how did that come about? The obvious answer is that Western Protestantism
has compromised with evolutionary theory on the historicity of the Genesis account of
creation. This was done by accepting the notion that Genesis merely informs us that God
created, but it does not tell us how God created.
That fatal concession has had devastating consequences:
It is tragic to realize that Western Europe
rapidly changed from an area of strong Protestant faith to its present-day paganism. The cause was not evolution by itself, but
Christians compromising to make Scripture fit evolution….
Causes have effects. As Ed Wharton notes, “Any view of these
chapters in Genesis other than authentic history will necessarily regard the genealogies
and the tracing of the messianic seed-line as unhistoric and unimportant. This will eat away at trust in God’s Word and
cause faith’s fire to go out.”5
Sad
to say, these faith-quenching compromises to evolutionary theory were not confined to
Europe. Rev. Mark L. Shand traces in some
detail the history of these compromises by Presbyterian and Reformed churches both in
Europe and America (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, November, 2002;
April, 2003; November, 2003).
The gap theory represented a concession on
the part of theologians to the demands of geology that the crust of the earth required a
great deal of time for its formation. For a
while there was a measure of peace between the theologians and the geologists. However, that peace did not last, because geology
began to make further concessionary demands. It
soon became apparent that the problem presented by geology was not just the need for long
periods of time, but there were also issues concerning sequence…. Therefore, theologians felt compelled to develop a
further theory that would accommodate the new demands of geology. Geology was a demanding taskmaster, and the
theologians became her compliant servants.6
The
demands of evolutionary science at the expense of the historicity of Scripture continue. This can be seen from an article by Prof. David
Engelsma titled, “Pulling the Plug on the Flood.” He writes, “From the science department of
Calvin College have come, in quick succession, two violent assaults upon the foundation of
the Christian faith in Genesis 1-11. Howard
Van Till demolished the historicity of the creation-account. Now Davis Young has undermined the historicity of
the account of the flood.”7 From a quote in the Grand Rapids Press
concerning his rejection of intelligent design, it appears that Van Till has developed in
his errors:
We will experience God as creator better by
learning to see the need for God, the action of God, in everything that the creation is
gifted to do. I don’t think we should
look for evidence of the creator’s action in what the universe is unable to do, but
rather in the remarkable things it has been gifted to accomplish.8
Two
things from the above quote nearly jump off the page.
In the first place it appears that our “experience” trumps history in Van
Till’s perspective on origins, and in the second place, for Van Till what “the
creation is gifted to do” overrules what God has done. One is hesitant to place Van Till in the Eastern
camp, but his ideas are a better fit with Eastern mysticism or what Herrick calls the
“New Religious Synthesis” than with the “Revealed Word tradition.”
Some
Lessons for Issachar
All of which should lead
modern-day Issachar to sit up and take notice. That
this has happened to others in Western Protestantism should be warning enough that we are
not immune. Satan’s temptations are
often deceiving and attractive, even for Issachar. C. S. Lewis warned of this over 40
years ago when he wrote his classic book The Screwtape Letters. There the demon Screwtape teaches Wormwood how to
lead men astray.
Keep
his mind off the plain antithesis between true and false…. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is
to keep them in the state of mind I call “Christianity And.” You know—Christianity and the Crisis,
Christianity and the new Psychology, Christianity and the New Order…. If they must be Christians, let them at least be
Christians with a difference. Substitute for
the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.9
Isn’t
that exactly what is going on in the whole creation-evolution debate in the Protestant
churches? All of the attempts to reconcile
creation with evolution (the gap theory, the theistic evolution theory, the age-day
theory, the framework theory, etc.) are in Lewis’ words attempts at substituting
“for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.” It doesn’t seem to matter that Genesis 1 does
tell man how God created, Christians in general and Christian scientists in
particular continue to compromise on this in exchange for perceived respect from the
scientific community.
Strikingly, not all in the
scientific community are sufficiently impressed. Tom
McIver, writer of anti-creationist articles and books, condemns Christians for trying to
make Genesis fit evolutionary science. He
writes: “Each (theory, c.k.)
…involves critical compromises with the plainest, most literal reading of the Bible
to force Scripture into concordance with scientific evidence regarding the age of the
earth.”10 Another secular humanist, A. J. Mattill, concurs: “Many creationists have taken the dishonest
way of lengthening the days into millions of years, but the creationists make it clear
that such an approach is nothing but a makeshift and is unacceptable Biblically and
scientifically….”11
Compromising with evolutionary
science has serious consequences. Not only is
the historicity of Scripture undermined, at bottom its clarity, reliability, and
inspiration are also at stake. Which leaves
Western Christianity with no more to offer than Eastern mysticism. Both are left with man’s beliefs and
experiences as the basis of their religion. Which
means, of course, that Christianity becomes just another belief system in the whole cartel
of world religions.
But there is another temptation
for Issachar in this regard. Many in the Christian, science community (Institute for Creation Research, for example)
seem most interested in proving that God created the heavens and the earth. Consequently their emphasis is on what can be
discovered in the creation to support their belief in creation, rather than approaching
the whole issue from Scripture’s perspective. The
Bible is clear: “Through faith
(emphasis c.k.) we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). So let us be clear as well: neither creation nor
evolution can be proved. Both are based on
faith. The one is a faith rooted in man. The other is a faith rooted in God. The ultimate consequence of belief in one or the
other is expressed in this simple yet profound way by Prof. Herrick, “People who have
a God do not need to become one themselves.”12
Understanding these times would
seem to be depressing for Issachar: both
Western civilization in general and Western Protestantism in particular appear to be under
the growing influence of Eastern paganism. Yet,
for “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), opportunity knocks. Against this backdrop of spiritual darkness lies
opportunity for the light of truth to shine more brightly.
Thus Issachar has the privilege of knowing and presenting the message of hope in an
increasingly dark world.
Sons of Issachar, let us
continue to grow in our understanding of the times and live.
2.
Peter Bloomfield, “Ongoing revelation?” Evangelical Times
February, 2003: 29.
3. Herrick, p. 252.
5. Fred
Wilson, “Compromises and Consequences: The
Genesis Account,” Impact January, 1994: 3-4.
6.
Mark L. Shand, “In the Space of Six Days (2),”Protestant Reformed
Theological Journal April, 2003: 24.
7.
David J. Engelsma, “Pulling the Plug on the Flood,” The Standard Bearer
15 September, 1995: 511.
8.
Matt VandeBunte, “Scientist debunks intelligent design bill,” The
Grand Rapids Press 8 November, 2003: B3.
9. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1978) 43-44, pp.
115, 116.
10. Tom McIver, “Formless and Void: Gap Theory
Creationism,” Creation/Evolution XXIV, Volume 8, Number 3, 1988.
11. A. J. Mattill, “Three Cheers for the
Creationists,“ Free Inquiry Vol. 2, Spring 1982) pp. 17, 18.
Taking Heed to the Doctrine:
Rev. Steven Key
Rev.
Key is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Hull, Iowa.
The Perseverance of the Saints
Having
discussed the truth of the preservation of the saints, we now turn to the perseverance of
the saints. Preservation and perseverance
— two very similar words and two words that go hand-in-hand. While our assurance rests in God who preserves us
to the end, the way in which God preserves us is the way of our persevering in the faith.
God preserves, we persevere. God keeps us in the palm of His hand, we continue
in the way of salvation. God guides us by His
counsel, we walk the pathway to everlasting glory.
Our
Calling
God calls us to persevere in the
faith. Our Canons speak of persevering
“in a state of grace.” On the one
hand, that state of grace is the state of being delivered from God’s wrath and
brought under His fatherly love and grace. But
on the other hand, in that state of grace the believer experiences the Spirit of God and
the fruits of the Spirit in his heart. To
persevere in that state of grace, therefore, means that the believer continues steadfast
in faith, in repentance, in love, in hope, in joy — in all the benefits of the
gracious salvation God has worked in him.
In his brief inspired epistle,
Jude says (vv. 20-21): “But ye, beloved,
building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves
in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal
life.”
The apostle Peter points us to
the fierce attacks of our adversary, the devil, saying, “Whom resist steadfast in the
faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the
world” (I Pet. 5:9).
The Lord Christ, speaking to the
church at Smyrna (Rev. 2:10), says, “Fear none of those things which thou shalt
suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye
shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown
of life.”
So also we read in I Corinthians
15:58, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding
in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the
Lord.”
We might say, in fact, that all
the admonitions set before us in Scripture are so many calls to persevere in the faith. And “he that shall endure unto the end, the
same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13).
We do well to remember, however,
that these very admonitions are the means that God uses powerfully to accomplish His work. Through the almighty, calling word of His power,
God, by His Holy Spirit, moves us to perseverance, so that we actively enter into that
work.
Our perseverance, therefore, is
not a work independent from or even in distinction from God’s work. It is not a matter of finally coming to what we
can do for God. Our perseverance is the fruit
of God’s preserving work. We
persevere, working out our own salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who
works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12, 13).
The
Great Struggle
Perseverance is a truth that
emphasizes the struggle, the battle of the Christian life.
The very word persevere presupposes difficulty. It is to continue walking a certain pathway even
in the face of difficulty and opposition.
The Christian life is no game. The Christian life is not a life of ease. We have unspeakable joy, yes indeed. But our joy is mingled with sorrow. We enjoy the peace that passes all understanding. But the peace that we have is a peace in the midst
of warfare. The victory is ours in Christ
Jesus, to be sure. But it is a victory only
through conflict, and the final experience of that victory awaits the peace of heavenly
glory.
So we are left no alternative
but to join the fight of faith. A neutral
bystander there is not. The true church of
Jesus Christ consists not of dead firewood, but of living members who bear the flame of
the gospel torch, their lights shining to the glory of God, even according to the gifts of
the Holy Spirit that God has given them.
Perseverance is running the
race, fighting the fight, guarding against the enemy.
We must not be surprised, therefore, when our life seems filled with obstacles and
when we are troubled by opposition, when we bear affliction, and even suffering for
Christ’s sake. In fact, the greatest
battle is with our own sinful flesh (see Romans 7).
But run the race we do. We fight the
fight. And we endure unto the end. That is the doctrine of perseverance. In dependence upon our faithful heavenly Father,
we persevere.
Of
Saints
The Arminians, and all those who
join them in rejecting this doctrine, argue that this doctrine is “a cause of
indolence and is injurious to godliness, good morals, prayers, and other holy
exercises” (Canons of Dordt, Fifth Head, Rejection of Errors, Article 6). They insist that this doctrine of the certain
perseverance of the saints encourages carelessness and destroys the motives for godliness.
But there is a reason why we use
the expression “perseverance of saints.”
God’s people are made saints,
holy ones. As certain as is the perseverance
of the saints, so certain it is that without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Heb.
12:14)!
The Canons of Dordt, in
rejecting the error just mentioned, point us to I John 3:2-3, where the apostle John
writes, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we
shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see
him as he is. And every man that hath this
hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”
The way of salvation is the way
of holiness. Those who would lay claim to the
doctrine of preservation, while saying, “It really doesn’t matter how you
live,” show not only that they do not understand the doctrine of preservation and
perseverance, but also that they do not understand the Christian life!
It is impossible that one who
has been purchased by Christ’s blood, made one with Him, should continue in the
service of sin. That is the plain instruction
of Romans 6.
“For if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin” (Rom.
6:5-7).
So the truth of the perseverance
of the saints guarantees not only that we shall be delivered, but that we are delivered!
About
Sin
What about our sin, then? When our Canons of Dordt introduce the subject
“Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” they do so by defining saints as
those whom God has called to the communion of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and
regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and whom He has also delivered from the dominion and
slavery of sin in this life (Canons V, Article 1). But
they also point out that being a saint does not mean that one is altogether freed
from sin.
Though we are saints, we are not
yet delivered from the body of sin and from the infirmities of the flesh. We still have our old sinful nature, that old man
with which we constantly do battle. That is
why our perseverance depends upon God’s preservation of us.
Far from causing us to be
complacent, our calling to persevere and our consciousness of our daily sins and the spots
that adhere to the best of our works furnish us “with constant matter for humiliation
before God, and flying for refuge to Christ crucified; for mortifying the flesh more and
more by the spirit of prayer, and by holy exercises of piety; and for pressing forward to
the goal of perfection, till being at length delivered from this body of death, (we) are
brought to reign with the Lamb of God in heaven” (Canons V, Article 2).
By reason of these remains of indwelling
sin, and the temptations of sin and of the world, those who are converted could not
persevere in a state of grace if left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who having conferred grace,
mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end (Canons V,
Article 3).
It is in fact to teach us our
complete dependence and reliance upon Him, that God sometimes allows us to fall into sin. If left to our own strength, we cannot stand a
moment. And sometimes our falls can be
grievous and hard falls. The Bible gives us
many examples, as does our own experience. Nevertheless,
God continues to preserve us, so that we also persevere.
For in the first place, in these falls He
preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration from perishing or being totally
lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually renews them to
repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may seek and obtain
remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a reconciled
God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own
salvation with fear and trembling (Canons V, Article 7).
And
while there are those who fall away, fulfilling such passages as Hebrews 6:4-8, I Timothy
1:19-20, II Timothy 2:17-18, and II Peter 2:20-22, it is of such that the apostle John
writes in I John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they
had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they
might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
The context of Hebrews 6, and particularly verse 8, speaks of them as bearing
“thorns and briers.” Even for all
their appearances, even the appearance of those who “were made partakers of the Holy
Ghost,” they prove that they are not of the true seed.
They are imposters, but weed seeds that bear thorns and briers, “whose end is
to be burned.”
Those who are Christ’s,
called saints, persevere. Being
preserved by God, they persevere. In sorrow
for their own sins, walking in the way of true repentance, they persevere. Laying hold of God’s Word, they persevere. Yes, God’s doctrine determines our walk of
life. Our persevering is the crown and seal
upon our doctrine. So we hold fast, that no
one take our crown.
But the glory for our
perseverance is God’s. For our salvation
is all of Him. So we may be “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).
When Thou Sittest in Thine House:
Rev. Wilbur Bruinsma
Rev.
Bruinsma is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
God’s Command to Mothers
“She
looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her
husband also, and he praiseth her.”
Proverbs
31:27, 28
The place of a mother in the home and family is a much disputed one. For years now unbelieving society has insisted
that the role of a mother in the home is no different than that of a father. Both are equals and therefore, to be fair, they
must split the labors of the family and the care of the children in half. The father has his time to go out and work as he
pleases, but then so does the mother. Both
may and should pursue careers of their own, and both, when they are around the house,
should split the chores.
This viewpoint of unbelief,
however, has caused a dilemma. When both
father and mother are busy pursuing their own careers and interests, what becomes of the
children? Children cannot and may not take
care of themselves. Everyone recognizes that
this would be neglect on the part of parents. But
mother has the right just as well as father to be out and about earning her own money. The wicked have come up with a number of solutions
of their own to the problem. First, do not
have children until later on in life. There
are so many convenient means available to assist in avoiding pregnancy. That way husbands and wives may go out and do
what they want to do without being hindered or burdened by children. Then they finally have a child or two, or none at
all, when the biological time clock is on its last minutes.
Then what?
In the last number of years
daycare has become a booming business. While
the children are young they are sent away all day to be raised by someone in a daycare
environment. Mom or Dad can pick them up at
night. When the children get a little older,
they are given the keys to the house and they can let themselves in and fend for
themselves until Mom or Dad comes home in the evening.
The results of all of this have left even unbelieving psychologists alarmed. We have a generation of children who have had to
make it on their own in this world, with little training and not much in the way of a role
model. The values children have learned have
been taught them in the movies and from the TV set. The
role models have been the godless, profane movie stars, who fill children’s lives
with violence and sexual immorality.
Ignored is a fundamental
principle of Scripture: the important and glorious role of a mother in the home. The ungodly hate this role. The feminist movement has convinced our society
that the role of a mother in the home, “looking well to the ways of her
household,” is degrading. A woman tied
to her house? Is she little more than a slave
to wait on her husband and children? How
demeaning! Women must be liberated from this
old chauvinistic mindset! Society, including
many within the realm of the church, have bought into this life style. But in the midst of all the name calling,
God’s people quietly and humbly see the wisdom of this role of a mother in the home.
But does the Bible teach that
the place of a mother is indeed in the home “looking well to the ways of her
household”? Yes it does, without a
doubt! And it all begins with the creation
account. In the last several verses of
Genesis 2 we learn of the creation of the woman. There
we learn that man was created first. It was
after Adam named the animals that God caused him to fall into a deep sleep. From a rib of man, God created the woman and
brought her to the man to be his wife. God
did this because “it is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Alone, Adam could not procreate. Alone, Adam could not function in society. He needed a female counterpart exactly fitted by
God to bring forth children and also to care for those children. So God created the woman to be a “help”
for the man. This role as a help to man was
confirmed after the fall of man into sin when God said to the woman in Genesis 3:16,
“and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Already the Bible, in these verses, defines the
role of a mother in the home.
The mother’s role in the
rearing of children is critical. The father
simply is not able to take upon himself the task of earning a living for his family, and
also taking care of his children to raise them carefully in the fear of his Creator. He cannot be off at work and at home at the same
time. If he is working, he cannot be at home
to instruct, guide, nurture, and discipline his children.
He cannot do both! For this reason,
God created the woman. A man enters into
marriage, and together he and his wife have children.
While the man is earning a living for his family by the sweat of his face, the wife
is his help. How? She remains in the home and cares for the children
God has given them. In this way the husband
and wife are perfect complements to each other.
Is this an ugly picture, as the
ungodly want to present it? I believe it is
most beautiful! Husband and wife work
together in harmony as a team accomplishing God’s will for them in their families. Together they raise children that grow up to be
responsible citizens of the country, laborers in the work place, and members of the
church. All because mother saw her role in
the home, not as demeaning, but as being vital and important!
The Bible everywhere testifies
to this glorious role of mother. The psalmist
draws this earthly picture for us in Psalm 128:3: “Thy
wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house….” In the days of the psalmist a householder would
oftentimes plant a vine just outside of his house. Some
people still do that today. The vine, as it
grows, will reach out and cling to the walls of the house, covering the house and keeping
it from rain and sunshine. This is the
picture of a godly wife and mother that the psalmist draws here. She is one who clings to her house. She is one who sees to it that her household is
protected and cared for. One is reminded here
of what Solomon wrote in Proverbs 31:11, 12, “The heart of her husband doth safely
trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.” All this is true because she is as a vine by the
sides of his house!
There are two passages in the
New Testament that also address the place of the mother in the home looking to the ways of
her family. One of these is I Timothy 5:14. In the context of this verse the apostle Paul
gives the requirements of a special group of widows who did alms deeds in the church. Those who belonged to this group had to be well
reported of, for the good works they did in the church.
Some of these works are listed in verse 10: bringing
up her children well, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet, and relieving the
afflicted. Another requirement of this order
of widows, however, was that they had to be sixty years old and upward. No younger widows were to be allowed into this
number.
The reason Paul gives for this
requirement is found in verse 14: “I
will therefore that younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none
occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”
In this almost passing remark concerning younger widows, Paul mentions that the
place of a young mother is to “guide the house.”
She is called by God to see to it that the house, that is, the family, runs
smoothly and well. Paul does not lay down
this idea as a law here. He simply assumes
that this is the role of a wife and mother in the home.
She guides her house. That, of course,
is no little task. The mother sees to it that
the children are clothed properly, are trained in social graces, are respectful toward
superiors, but most importantly are nurtured very, very carefully in the ways of God. Much of the spiritual training of children falls
upon the shoulders of mother.
We must not forget the active
role that father must take in all of this too! We
must not forget that God holds him ultimately responsible for all of this, since the
father is the head of the home. But that does
not detract from the fact that much of a child’s values in all things, including
things spiritual, is shaped and molded by mother. The
instruction Paul gives in I Corinthians 11 speaks of this wonderful truth. Paul sets forth the chain of authority in life:
God, Christ, man, woman. A ground he gives
for this is, “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the
woman for the man” (I Cor. 11:8, 9). But
Paul does not leave it at that. In verses 11,
12, he adds this: “Nevertheless neither
is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man
also by the woman; but all things of God.”
The man is by the woman. The
woman was created out of the man, but the man is also by the woman. This not only means that it is the woman who gives
birth to the man. But it also means that the
man is shaped and molded by the woman! The
man is who he is by means of the woman.
Great men have stood up in the
church and defended fearlessly the truths of the Scriptures. Great names have been recorded in the history of
the church. Men have become famous for their
faith. But we ought not to forget the quiet,
humble nurture that such men received by the hands of their mothers when they were but
children. Augustine acknowledged this when he
spoke so highly of the instruction and the prayers of his mother, Monica, for him. Elders and preachers of the church are shaped by
mothers who took seriously their calling to be in the home “guiding the house.”
This same sort of instruction
was given by God to the young preacher Titus. Titus
was told to exhort the older women of his congregation to “teach the young women to
be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers
of the home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not
blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4, 5). This verse is
definitive on God’s command to mothers. It
reveals not only that a mother and wife in Zion must be a “keeper of the home”
(homemaker), but also that her whole life must be wrapped up in her husband and family. The wicked chafe at the calling given here. The young wife and mother of the church strives to
fulfill it because she sees in this Word of God an exciting and a challenging line of
work, which will give her all the purpose and fulfillment that she needs in this life!
Oh, it is hard work! It will have its ups and downs. But what this work accomplishes is worth it all. All the money in the world could not pay the
dividends that this line of work pays. To see
sons and daughters who in strength and noble truth are like pillars that grace the palace
of our King, Jesus Christ — that is worth every drop of blood, sweat, and tears that
go into this work.
“Her children arise up, and
call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.” For godly women of Zion, that’s powerful
motivation. But there’s more. The inspired writer fixes the value of the
virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 for all time. “Her
price,” he says, “is far above rubies.”
That’s God’s estimation. And,
in the final analysis, that’s all that counts.
Search the Scriptures:
Rev. Ronald Hanko
Rev.
Hanko is pastor in the Protestant Reformed Church of Lynden, Washington.
(Preceding article in this
series: February 15, 2004, p. 227.)
Haggai: Rebuilding the Church
The
First Prophecy (cont.)
9.
Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did
blow upon it. Why? saith the Lord of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run
every man to his own house.
10. Therefore
the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit.
11. And I
called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon
the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon
men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labor of the hands.