Matthew 7:12

     This instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ has aptly been called the Golden Rule. 

      It certainly is a rule for life.  In all your dealings with others, do unto them as you would have them do unto you.

      This rule is certainly golden.  It is one of those rules that serve as sure guides in every situation.  We often wonder what is the best course in dealing with others.  Following this rule, we will never err. 

      All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

      How different life would be, were we all to follow this rule!

      To gain a proper understanding of this golden rule, we must bear in mind that Jesus is addressing us as citizens of the kingdom of heaven.  This rule appears in the Sermon on the Mount.  The theme of this sermon is the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness.  Jesus begins His sermon with the Beatitudes, in which He describes the spiritual characteristics of the citizens of the kingdom.  They are the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, those that hunger after righteousness, etc.  They are not this naturally but by reason of the new birth in Jesus Christ.

      When Jesus gives us this golden rule for living, He gives it to us as born again citizens of this kingdom.  That is important to bear in mind so that we may have a clear understanding of what it is that we want others to do to us.  That’s different for a citizen of the kingdom than it is for the natural man.

      The natural man, fallen in Adam, is corrupt and depraved.  His goals in life are completely earthly, selfish, and sinful.  He wants material wealth, prestige, power, and the life of ease that comes with it.  He also wants the pleasures of sin.  And what does he want others to do to him?  He wants others to do those things that will enable him to attain his earthly, selfish, and sinful goals.  He wants others to assist him in accumulating wealth.  He wants others to help him in his quest for power.  He wants others to join him in sin.  And when he gets into trouble because of his sinful life-style, he wants others to cover up for him. 

      All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

      This certainly is not what Jesus had in mind with this golden rule.

      Now let’s consider the citizen of the kingdom, born of grace.  The goals of his life are entirely different.  When his life is controlled by grace, he seeks neither the things of this earth, nor the pleasures of sin.  He seeks rather the kingdom of God and His righteousness.  It is true that this is given as an admonition later on in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:33).   Nevertheless, Jesus gives this command to strengthen the resolve that is already in the citizen of the kingdom.  What the citizen of the kingdom wants others to do unto him is all that enables him to enter the kingdom and enjoy its righteousness and life.  He wants others to help him find the forgiveness of his sins in Jesus Christ.  He wants others to assist him in resisting temptation and meeting his obligations to the kingdom in a godly walk.  And, yes, he wants his daily bread.  That too is important for seeking the kingdom during this life.

      All these we should want that men do to us.

      These desires are present by reason of the new birth.  They must be cultivated by the Word and by prayer.

      All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

      Many abandon this rule and follow rules of their own making.  One such rule is to do unto others as they have done unto you.  According to this rule, you do good to those that do good to you, and you return evil for the evil others have shown you.   Another rule is to do unto others before they can do it unto you.  You suspect that someone is about to do evil to you, so you protect yourself by doing that evil to him first. 

      But the rule of the kingdom is, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

      The meaning is quite simple.  In your dealings with others, consider what you would want them to do to you.  How would you like to be treated in this situation?  Do the same to others.

      Notice that Jesus adds, “in all things.”  This means that we must apply this rule to every neighbor.  We must behave this way not just to our friends, but also to strangers and even to our enemies.  We must follow this rule no matter what it costs us in terms of money, time, energy, or reputation.      

      Jesus emphasizes one more thing that is not reflected in our English translation.  We must continually do all things whatsoever we would that men should do to us.  In following this rule we find that some do not appreciate what we do, nor do they respond in the way we desire.  Our efforts sometimes do not seem to help.  Never mind.  Continue to do all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you.

      For this is the law and the prophets.

      The law and the prophets were the Old Testament Scriptures, the sum total of Scriptures that had been given, up until this point in history.

      The law was not just the ten commandments but also the whole Mosaic law that governed Israel’s religious and civil life.  It was a law that proclaimed the gospel to Israel.  There were the ceremonial laws that governed Israel’s worship around the temple with the altar, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the feast days.  When these laws were followed, Israel had a beautiful picture of the salvation that was to come in the promised Christ.  The civil laws organized Israel into a nation, giving them a picture of the future kingdom of heaven.  And the ten commandments not only showed Israel the need for the Savior, but also served as a rule for gratitude.

      The prophets did all their work in the context of that law.  The Mosaic law dominated all of Israel’s life in the Old Testament, including the revelation of God given later through the prophets.  The word through the prophets merely developed the gospel of grace revealed in the law to a richer, fuller measure. 

      Since the time that Jesus gave this instruction, God has also given us the New Testament Scriptures.  These follow in the great tradition of the law and prophets.  They reveal how the promises of the law and prophets are all fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

      The golden rule must govern our behavior because of the law and the prophets.

      This means, first, that the golden rule is the practical application of what the law and the prophets require of us in our relationship to the neighbor.  The law and the prophets require that we love God with all our being and love our neighbor as ourselves.  These are the two great commandments of the law.  This golden rule is a practical application of the command to love the neighbor as ourselves.  Certainly this great commandment of the law means that we are to love ourselves.  We are to love ourselves as the workmanship of God.  If we truly love ourselves, we will seek our eternal welfare in the kingdom of heaven.  This is also what we should want others to do unto us.  And if we love the neighbor in the same way, we will also do the same to him.

      But there is more.

      The law and the prophets empower us to follow this golden rule.

      Of ourselves we cannot and will not keep this rule.  By nature we are so corrupt that we hate God and the neighbor.  Consequently, we always fall short of this rule.  We tend to do unto others as they have done unto us.  We may even keep this rule some of the time, with some people, under certain circumstances.  But we will never do it out of the deep spiritual principle of love that Jesus sets before us.

      But the law and the prophets (today we would say the whole of Scripture) change all that.  The law and the prophets proclaim salvation in Jesus Christ from the depravity and power of sin.  Not only do they proclaim salvation, they are also the power of God to bring us that salvation.  The result of that salvation is that we do love our neighbor as ourselves, and in that love we do follow this golden rule with him.  By calling our attention to the law and the prophets, Jesus is simply calling us to live the salvation He has given us.

      Therefore!

      This golden rule is the conclusion to what Jesus has just taught about prayer.

      Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.  What man is there of you, who, if his son ask bread, will give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven.

      Therefore!

      In this golden rule Jesus draws a conclusion.  If God so loves us that He will look to our welfare with His good gifts, so must we also love our neighbor by looking to his welfare.  And this is accomplished by doing unto him as we would have him do to us.

      As we deal with one another, let us pray fervently for God’s good gifts of love.  You cannot follow this golden rule without such prayer.  For only when you have received in prayer the goodness of God’s love will you be motivated to love the neighbor as yourself and to follow in that love this golden rule.  

Editorials:

Prof. David Engelsma

Faith Is Assurance: The Reformation Gospel

      True faith is assurance of personal salvation.

      Assurance is not the fruit of faith for a few old people after many years of doubt.  Assurance is not the “well-being” of faith (for the few believers who are “God’s best and dearest friends”) in distinction from the “being” of faith.

      Assurance is what faith essentially is.  Personal assurance of one’s own salvation by the grace of God in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ is the very being, or nature, of faith.  Faith knows and trusts Jesus Christ as the Savior of the one who believes.  Weak faith is certain of salvation, as well as strong faith.  Faith is certain of salvation at the very beginning of the believing life, for example, in a covenant child, as well as faith at the very end of the way, for example, in a dying, old saint.

      Faith is assurance.

      Denial that faith is assurance was the fundamental cause of the deep, widespread, continuing doubt of salvation that characterized the congregations of the Puritans.  It is the fundamental cause of the same doubt in Reformed and Presbyterian congregations today languishing under typically Puritan preaching.  There are other causes of doubt as well:  unsound emphasis on introspection; dependence on spiritual experiences; the deadly notion of “preparatory grace”; and the conditionality of the covenant and its salvation.

      But the fundamental error is denial that faith is assurance.  This error fills churches with doubters—comfortless, terrified doubters.

      The previous editorial on assurance (Standard Bearer, March 15, 2004) showed that Scripture teaches faith as assurance. 

      Recovering the gospel of Scripture, the sixteenth century Reformation of the church taught that faith is assurance of salvation.  With one accord, all the Reformers taught that assurance is the very nature of faith.

“Does Not Waver, Wobble, Shake, Tremble, or Doubt”

      In his 1535 “Theses concerning Faith and Law,” Martin Luther distinguished true faith from false faith this way:  “True faith says, ‘I certainly believe that the Son of God suffered and arose, but he did this all for me, for my sins, of that I am certain.’”  Luther went on:  “True faith with arms outstretched joyfully embraces the Son of God given for it and says, ‘He is my beloved and I am his.’”  According to Luther, it is exactly “that ‘for me’ or ‘for us’” that “distinguishes it [true faith] from all other faith, which merely hears the things done.”

      Luther defined faith as “the firm and sure thought or trust that through Christ God is propitious and that through Christ His thoughts concerning us are thoughts of peace, not of affliction or wrath” (commentary on Gen. 15:6).

      Late in his life, in 1543, Luther exulted in faith’s essential certainty:

Faith is and, indeed, must be a steadfastness of the heart, which does not waver, wobble, shake, tremble, or doubt, but stands firm and is sure of its case….  When this Word enters the heart by true faith, it makes the heart as firm, sure, and certain as it is itself, so that the heart is unmoved, stubborn, and hard in the face of every temptation, the devil, death, and anything whatever, boldly and proudly despising and mocking everything that spells doubt, fear, evil, and wrath.  For it knows that God’s Word cannot lie.  Such a person is . . . made certain, as the Word of the Lord is certain.  So Paul says:  “I know . . . and am persuaded (II Tim. 1:12) ” (commentary on II Sam. 23:1).

      Richard Marius is correct, in his recent, fine study of Luther, Martin Luther:  The Christian Between God and Death, in stating that for Luther faith was assurance.

Faith is the only way to God, and as Luther presented it, faith seems always to have a warmhearted, existential content.  It involves a personal, emotional binding with Christ.  True faith is not merely to believe that the stories recounted in the Gospels are true; such belief “is no help, for all sinners and even the damned believe that.”  True faith, that faith filled with grace, is to know “that Christ was born for you, that his birth was for you, that it was all for your good.”

      Although Luther struggled all his believing life with hellish temptations to doubt the goodness and grace of God, he always affirmed that faith is assurance.  All his life, despite his struggles against doubt, his own faith was assurance.  By this confident faith, he constantly battled and overcame his temptation to doubt, and lived in the assurance of his own salvation.

      Martin Bucer defined faith as “an undoubted persuasion of the mercy and fatherly good will of God towards us, made through the Holy Spirit and founded on the propitiation of Christ” (commentary on Romans).

The “Minutest Particle of Faith”

      John Calvin’s entire, lengthy treatment of faith in the Institutes—chapter two of book three—is a sustained argument that assurance is of the very being, or nature, of faith.  “We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.” 

      Contrasting true believers with those who “are harassed by miserable anxiety while they doubt whether God will be merciful to them,” Calvin declares that “our faith is not true unless it enables us to appear calmly in the presence of God.  Such boldness springs only from confidence in the divine favor and salvation.  So true is this, that the term faith is often used as equivalent to confidence.”

      Calvin expressly repudiates the later, Puritan notion that faith must grow into assurance over a long period of time, so that new, or young, believers cannot expect to enjoy assurance:  “As soon as the minutest particle of faith is instilled into our minds, we begin to behold the face of God placid, serene, and propitious.”  The reason why even the believer with the smallest, least developed faith—the “minutest particle of faith”—has assurance of salvation is that the “clear knowledge of the divine favor … holds the first and principal part in faith.”

      Although Calvin is well aware that “believers have a perpetual struggle with their own distrust,” he insists that “he only is a true believer who, firmly persuaded that God is reconciled, and is a kind Father to him, hopes everything from his kindness, who, trusting to the promises of the divine favor, with undoubting confidence anticipates salvation.”

      Calvin demolishes the Puritan notion that one can be a believer, indeed, can be a believer for years, but lack assurance of salvation, and that, in fact, this is the case with most believers.  “No man, I say, is a believer but he who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death.”  In support of this contention, Calvin appeals to the glorious words of assurance that the Holy Spirit puts in the heart and on the lips of every one who believes the gospel of grace, in Romans 8:38, 39:   “I am persuaded that [nothing] shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”   

      Lack of assurance is unbelief.  One who lives persistently in doubt, perhaps under the sickly preaching that assures him that doubt is normal for most believers, is an unbeliever.

      That faith is assurance is for Calvin a matter of the greatest importance.  He does not simply teach this.  But he emphasizes this at every opportunity.  In his Sermons on Melchizedek & Abraham, preaching to his congregation on Genesis 15:6, Calvin asks, “What then is Belief?”  His answer is:  “It is to receive whatsoever is spoken unto us from the mouth of God, with such reverence, as that we hold it to be certain and sure.”  But this is “not enough.”  This is not enough to constitute “Belief.”  Belief, or faith, regards the Word of God as “such a sure and certain word unto us as may make us approach near unto God, and make us partakers of his bounty and goodness:  and not to doubt but that he will be our Father and Savior, and so thereupon may be bold to call upon him, and hold ourselves for his children, and fly unto him for succor and aid.”

      Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva, likewise taught assurance as faith’s very nature.  In his handbook of Reformed theology, The Christian Faith, under the heading, “How faith is necessary, and what faith is,” Beza gave this description of faith:

The faith of which we speak does not consist only in believing that God is God, and that the contents of His Word are true:—for the devils indeed have this faith, and it only makes them tremble (James 2:19) —But we call “faith” a certain knowledge which, by His grace and goodness alone, the Holy Spirit engraves more and more in the hearts of the elect of God (I Cor. 2:6-8).   By this knowledge, each of them, being assured in his heart of his election, appropriates to himself and applies to himself the promise of his salvation in Jesus Christ….  Whosoever truly believes trusts in Him alone and is assured of his salvation to the point of no longer doubting it (Eph 3:12) [emphasis added].

A Lame Defense of Apostasy

      From the teaching of the Reformation that faith is assurance, the Puritan doctrine of assurance is a radical departure.  Advocates of the Puritan doctrine have noticed this, of course, and have offered what must certainly rank as one of the lamest defenses of apostasy from Reformation orthodoxy in all the history of doctrine.  The Presbyterian theologian William Cun­ning­ham acknowledged that the Reformers spoke “very strongly of the importance and necessity of men being personally assured about their own salvation.”  But the Reformers were mistaken in their doctrine of assurance.  Their views on assurance were “extreme and exaggerated.”  The later Puritans and Presbyterians were right in denying that assurance is of the essence of faith and in denying assurance to most believers.  According to Cunningham, the reason for the Reformers’ “high views” of assurance was that they themselves received a special dispensation of grace:  “God seems to have given to them the grace of assurance more fully and more generally than He does to believers in ordinary circumstances.”

      Apart now from his explanation of the Reformers’ doctrine of assurance, Cunningham made significant admissions.  He admitted that the later Puritan denial that assurance belongs to the essence of faith conflicts with the teaching of the Reformation.  He also admitted that this deviation from the Reformation tends towards Roman Catholicism.  “It is no doubt true that in so far as there has been a deviation from the views [on assurance] generally held by the Reformers, it has proceeded in a direction which tends to diminish the differences between Protestants and papists”  (see William Cunningham, “The Reformers and the Doctrine of Assurance,” in The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation).

      In the language of the warning of the Canons of Dordt, by the Puritan doctrine of assurance, particularly the denial that assurance belongs to the essence of faith, “the doubts of the papist are again introduced into the church” (Canons, V, Rejection of Errors/5).

      Cunningham’s explanation of the Reformer’s doctrine of assurance is mistaken.  The Reformers’ doctrine of assurance had nothing to do with their own, allegedly special experience and certainly nothing to do with a special dispensation of grace in the sixteenth century.  One could as well explain away their doctrine of justification by arguing that the Reformers were justified in a special way at a special time in the history of salvation.

      The Reformers taught that faith is assurance for all believers, in all times, because this is what the Bible teaches about faith.

      The Reformers taught that faith is assurance for all believers, because the Reformers saw that faith has respect to God’s work of sovereign grace in Jesus Christ.  Looking to grace, in dependence upon a sure promise, faith is certain.  Assurance is the blessed fruit of the gospel of grace.

      The Puritan teaching on assurance, therefore, is serious error.  It is radical deviation from the teaching of the Reformation.  It is false doctrine about faith.  It robs many of the only comfort in life and death.  And it betrays a grievous departure from the gospel of grace.  The Puritans and those who followed them shifted the center of faith’s attention away from the work of God in Jesus Christ, including the work of God in Jesus Christ within the elect sinner, to the sinner’s experience of salvation.  Puritanism did this deliberately.  It was bold to proclaim itself a “second reformation.”  Thus Puritanism, with no little arrogance, judged the sixteenth century Reformation inadequate and heralded itself as accomplishing the vital thing left undone by the “first” Reformation.  The vital thing consisted of concentrating on the sinner and his experience.

      The result was fatal.

      Doubt.

Editorship of the Standard Bearer

T    he Editorial Committee hereby informs the readers of the Standard Bearer of a significant development as regards the position of editor of the Standard Bearer.  In the October 1, 2003 issue, Prof. Engelsma informed the readers of the Standard Bearer of a change forthcoming (“New Editor Sought”).  He had notified the magazine staff (that is, the department editors) that he would not be available for reappointment as editor for the next volume year (i.e., volume 81, beginning October 1, 2004), citing his age and the number of years that he had borne the load of this work.  With much regret, the staff accepted his decision and appointed a committee (consisting of Professors Hanko and Dykstra, and Managing Editor Don Doezema) to search for a new editor-in-chief.

      The search committee knew at the outset that finding a new editor for the Standard Bearer would be no easy task.  After much discussion of the nature and duties of the work of editor, as well as the necessary qualifications of the editor, the committee approached various men who, in the judgment of the committee, were suited to the task.  However, none of the men believed that he would be able to handle the position of editor and do justice to his work, be it in the seminary or in the pastorate.  The search committee reported to the staff these findings as follows:

We were convinced of the validity of the concerns, and decided therefore to explore possibilities of a kind of shared editorship on a temporary basis.  We understand well that it is in the best interests of the magazine that there be one man writing editorials.  We should in fact commit ourselves to the goal of making such an appointment as soon as feasible.  But we also believe that, in an interim period when it is not feasible, a shared editorship can be made to work, not just tolerably, but well.

The committee, accordingly, came with a proposal for a joint editorship. They wrote to the staff:

         What we propose is that the editorials be shared by a small number of seasoned pastors who can conveniently meet — both to map out a strategy for dividing the labor and to monitor progress in fulfilling it.  The idea here is that every effort will be made to assure that editorials continue effectively to treat current, critical issues — in well worked out series of editorials.  We do not want 21 separate, randomly selected, sometimes overlapping editorials, with all sense of order or continuity lost because they come from various writers, each doing his own thing.

         We suggest that, to facilitate the kind of close cooperation necessary to achieve that goal, four men in the Grand Rapids area be appointed to a shared, temporary, interim editorship.  And, again, in an effort to be as helpful as possible to the staff, we did take it upon ourselves to ask four men if they would be willing to accept such an appointment.  Prof. Dykstra, Prof. Gritters, Rev. Koole, and Rev. Terpstra have said yes.  The four have agreed that five editorials per year from each would be a manageable task.

      A special meeting of the Standard Bearer staff was held in February of this year to discuss the proposals recommended by the search committee.  The staff likewise was of the mind that one man as editor-in-chief is much to be preferred.  In the end, they agreed that a shared editorship would work as an interim measure, and therefore approved the concept and appointed the four men recommended by the committee.  At the recommendation of the search committee, the staff also decided that Prof. Dykstra should handle the immediate decisions necessary for the week-to-week operations of the Standard Bearer.

      Thus it is that, the Lord willing, the Standard Bearer will enter into a new phase in the coming volume year.  We heartily commend these newly appointed editors to the grace of God with the confidence that the Standard Bearer will not waver in the task of setting forth the Reformed faith boldly and clearly. 

The Editorial Committee

Letters:

Irreverent Modern Versions

    I read with interest Mr. VanderWoude’s contribution in favor of vernacular language or common speech (Standard Bearer, April 1, 2004).  I disagree with the arguments in favor of it.  The common people in the time of the Reformation did not even have the Bible to read for themselves personally.  This was the “high” and “reverent” responsibility of Romish bishops and priests to the wee, simple folk, said Rome.  This is quite different from just mere language problems.  You do not have a language problem if you do not even have the Bible to read from in the first place!  That was a gift of Christ to His church by men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin, not to mention the countless other saints involved in this work to the honor and glory of their heavenly Father.  They put the Bible in the hands of the common, everyday people.  At the same time, they gave the people the Bible in their own language.

      Second, to be sure, one can use Elizabethan language in a sinful way.  Is that the truth of the King James Bible, or the Psalter, or our “Three Forms of Unity”?  There is uniformity in this, not irreverence.  What is true in the history of the Reformed churches in the past one hundred years is that voting to use a more “modern” Bible translation has led to irreverence, not only in addressing a sovereign God, but also in doctrine.  That is true.  Some of us have dealt personally with this issue, and we see the fruits of it as well.

      Third, Mr. VanderWoude laments that as time goes on we will be alienated from those who do not use the language of the King James Version.  The King James Bible, he says, is a barrier to Scripture comprehension, prayer-life development, and evangelistic efforts.  To be blunt, the language of today — what passes for English — in some instances does not have a lot to be desired.  Mr. VanderWoude’s concerns are irrelevant.  Our little children are taught the King James Bible just as we were when we were young ones.  If there were any “dumbing down” of language, it would be today’s modern English.  God’s Word does not return to Him void.

      Rev. S. Houck’s “The King James Version of the Bible,” Prof. D. Engelsma’s “Modern Bible Versions,” Rev. R. Cammenga’s “KJV-NIV,” Prof. H. Hanko’s “The Battle For the Bible,” Prof. D. Engelsma’s “The English Translation of Holy Scripture,” and Rev. R. C. Harbach’s “The Infallibility of Holy Scripture” are all pamphlets and articles written by faithful saints with respect to the Bible.  They are not hard to grasp and understand.  They are available for saints in the pew and saints on the mission field.  The writers are not popes and bishops.  They are faithful servants of God called to admonish and preach the truth of God’s Word and warn against error and false doctrine.  Why would they take the time to write these articles, if there was no apparent danger?  They do not wish to take the Word of God out of our hands and spell it out for such simple, wee folk as us.  They warn of that danger.

Ray Kikkert
Wingham, Ontario
Canada  

 In His Fear:

Rev. Daniel Kleyn

Rev. Kleyn is pastor of First Protestant Reformed Church in Edgerton, Minnesota.

Faithfully Afflicted

        Every child of God experiences afflictions.  Not just a little, but usually much of it.  The amount does indeed vary from time to time.  The severity also varies.  But if one adds up all the afflictions experienced in a lifetime, there are many.  As David said in Psalm 34, “Many are the afflictions of the righteous.”

      The believer confesses that these afflictions come from the hand of God.  Jehovah sends them.  They do not happen by chance.  Nor do they come from the devil.  They come from God.  His hand is behind them.  He is the One who eternally ordained them, and who sends them.  It is unbiblical and it is unbelief to say God sends the good things, but has little or no control over the evil things.  God is sovereign over all, including the evils and troubles that befall us.  “Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

      However, the believer also confesses that God sends these afflictions in faithfulness.  We say with David (Ps. 119:75): “I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.”

      This is quite a startling confession to make.  Quite often we are inclined to say that troubles demonstrate that God is being unfaithful.  When things do not go well we feel that God has forgotten to be kind.  But the opposite is actually the case.  Afflictions are themselves evidence of God’s faithfulness.  They demonstrate that God loves us.  If God did not afflict us, He would be unfaithful and unloving.  But when He afflicts, that very affliction is proof of His steadfast and unfailing love for us in Christ.

      That is true of afflictions because of who God is.  He is Jehovah.  He is the unchangeable God in Himself.  He cannot and does not change.

      God is therefore unchanging in His attitude toward His elect children.  That attitude is always love.  He loves them when He sends them good things in life — He also loves them when He sends evil things.  He loves them when He gives them joys — He also loves them when He sends sorrows.  He loves them when He makes their way easy — He also loves them when He makes their lives difficult.  Because we are His in Christ, never is God’s attitude that of hatred.  Not even when we sin.  Always He loves us.  And afflictions are always a proof of that love.

      Afflictions demonstrate God’s love because He uses them for our good.  The believer confesses this when he says (Ps. 119:71), “It is good for me that I have been afflicted.”  Or as we sing in Psalter number 329, “Affliction has been for my profit.”  Afflictions do not harm us.  It may seem to us that they do.  At times, due to our limited, earthly perspective and understanding of things, we feel that the troubles God sends are not doing us any good at all.  They overwhelm us and lead us to despair.  At times they seem to drive us away from God.  They appear to make our faith weaker.  That is because afflictions are also trials, and quite often we initially fail the test.  But ultimately God works even in these things for our salvation and uses the afflictions for our spiritual benefit.  He has promised to save and to glorify His people.  He will certainly do that.  He will do it and is doing it through absolutely everything that occurs in the world and in our lives.  He is carrying out a glorious work in us.  All afflictions are for the good of our souls.

      Why is affliction good?  Why is it proof of God’s love?  How is affliction for our profit?  Because affliction is also chastisement.  God uses it to correct His people and to turn them from sin.  Whom Jehovah loves He chastens.

      God is not like Eli.  Eli was a permissive parent.  He knew that his sons were sinning seriously in their office as priests, but he did nothing about it.  It is true that he spoke to them.  But his speech was weak.  It could hardly be called admonition or rebuke.  God is not like that.  God is not a Father whose so-called love allows His children to continue in sin without correction.  His love is so great that He corrects us.  That is true love.  For what kind of love is it that allows someone to continue on the road that leads to eternal destruction?

      God sees our sins.  He sees every one of them, including the sins within — our sinful thoughts, lusts, desires.  God also sees that we are by nature blind to our sins and need to be shown them.  So He afflicts.  He sends troubles in our lives in order to stop us in our tracks.  He humbles us.  He brings us low.  He does so in order that we might see how much we are in need of Him and His grace.  He afflicts us in order to lead us to Christ, through whom we receive pardon and peace and joy.

      Afflictions are therefore messengers of God.  God speaks to us through them.  He uses them to show us our sins and to turn us from those sins.

      Remember, though, that afflictions are not God’s way of punishing us for our sins, in the sense that they are payment for our sins.  That is never the case.  We have to distinguish between punishment and chastisement.  God punishes the wicked for their sins.  But God never punishes the righteous, the elect.  All of the punishment and payment for their sins was taken care of by Christ.  Therefore afflictions are chastisements.  They are sent in love, with the purpose of correction.

      It is also important to note that if you are suffering many afflictions, that does not mean you have committed many more sins than most other people of God.  An individual believer may think this way because it seems to him that his afflictions are much more in number and much more severe than those of other saints.  But that is not necessarily so.  All of God’s people have afflictions.  Many are the afflictions of the righteous — that is, of every one of them.  Some of those afflictions are obvious and easily seen.  But other saints suffer silently.  All God’s people suffer.  And that they do is proof of God’s love for them.  If you are suffering many afflictions, then remember this — it demonstrates the greatness of God’s love for you.

      Since afflictions are God’s messengers to us, we must ask the question, “What is God showing me?  What sins and weaknesses does He purpose that I see?”

      The sins might not be such terrible or gross sins as David committed and was for a time blind to, namely the sins of adultery and murder.  But each of us still has plenty of them.

      Perhaps it is worldliness.  Perhaps you place too much trust in earthly riches and pleasures.  And so God makes you sick in order to wean you away from the things of this life.  He reminds you that all is vanity without Him.  He makes you see again that earthly things cannot satisfy the soul.

      Perhaps it is pride.  Perhaps you consider yourself self-sufficient.  You are inclined to trust in yourself.  And so God places troubles in your life to make you realize how weak and frail you are.  He leads you to acknowledge that without Him you can do nothing.  You see clearly how dependent you are on your heavenly Father.

      Perhaps you have forgotten God.  You have failed to read the Scriptures.  You have not prayed.  You have neglected the means of grace.  Your spiritual life is shallow.  That’s often how we can be when all is going well in our lives.  Quite often we drift away from God and the things of His kingdom.  And so God must send heavy burdens and adversities in order to turn us back to Him — so that we think of Him, pray to Him, and place our trust in Him once again.

      In all these ways our faithful covenant God is doing His glorious work of sanctifying and saving us.  We might not see right away that He is doing so, or how He is doing so.  Often when the afflictions first come we are greatly troubled by them.  We do not immediately see the benefit and good of the affliction.

      But later, we realize that God did use it for good.  We needed that affliction.  We needed it spiritually.  Our hearts needed humbling so that we would sincerely seek Christ and His mercy.  We look back and see that the times in our lives when we were afflicted were the times when our faith was strongest.  We were closer to God then.  We were much more spiritual.  Our prayers were much more meaningful.  Yes, we know from experience that afflictions are indeed for our good.

      God is faithful.  In faithfulness He afflicts us.  It is good and necessary for us that He does.  Let us remember that in all the troubles He sends us in this valley of tears.  May our faithful Father use those afflictions to draw us nearer to Himself.

      “In my affliction this I found,
      That human help deceived,
      But ever faithful was the Lord
      In Whom my soul believed.”
                     (Psalter # 312, stanza 6) 

All Around Us:

Rev. Kenneth Koole

Rev. Koole is pastor of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church in Grandville, Michigan.

Gibson’s ‘Passion’ — Romish to the Core (And Therefore, It Is As It Was NOT)

        Seldom has there been such a hullabaloo over a film as there has been over “The Passion of the Christ.”  A regular firestorm of controversy, some might say. 

      The disturbances the film has caused have been worldwide.  This writer was in Singapore late February, and even there the film was becoming a matter of public debate.  Should it be allowed into the country at all, or should it be banned?  According to the Singa­porean news media the government at that time was leaning towards banning it.  The fear was that that film would be viewed as Christian propaganda and lead to unrest in the Muslim community.

      Closer to home, criticism came from the Jewish sector, namely, that the film would incite anti-Semitism.  Meantime, various Christian organizations have given it highest accolades and praise.  Protestantism itself has been almost universal in its approval.  A film that moved viewers spiritually as they were never moved before!  One will never view the cross and Christ’s suffering in quite the same way as before!  A must see! 

      However, criticism from within Protestantism, be it a few lonely (wilderness) voices,  has not been unknown.  This magazine has been one of those voices.  Amongst its criticism of and objections to the film has been the assertion that this film, in addition to its being bold blasphemy, is propaganda, Roman Catholic propaganda, written with the express purpose of promoting Romish doctrines and errors.  To say that not all have appreciated this line of criticism is an understatement, to say the least. 

      Be that as it may, this assertion is truth.  That this is truth has been demonstrated irrefutably by no less an authority than a certain Romish theologian, Dr. Mark Miravalle, Professor of Theology and Mari­ology (sic!— kk) at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.  In an article entitled “Gibson’s Passion and Mary ‘Co-redemptrix,’” Dr. Miravalle lays out the doctrine of Mariolatry in simplest, one might say crassest, terms and then points out how the theology of Mary, Co-redeemer, is central to the whole theme and message of the film.  Read on as the veil is lifted and the true message of the film is laid bare.

         What does the Co-redemp­trix title mean?  From the Catholic perspective, it refers to Mary’s unique human participation with Jesus (and entirely subordinate to her divine son) in the historic work of saving humanity from sin.  Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or “buy back” the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin.  But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature.

         In light of her immaculate Conception in which she was conceived without original sin through the foreseen merits of her Son, Mary is the sinless virgin Mother in total “enmity” or opposition with Satan, who becomes the ideal human partner with Jesus in the salvation of the human race.  Early Christian writers called her the “New Eve,” who together with Jesus, the “new Adam,” accomplished the work of salvation for all the fallen children of the original Adam and Eve. 

      Thus far the doctrine of Mariolatry for beginners, which Mariolatry, under the present Pope especially, has become the heart and soul of the Romish religion.  According to Rome it is through Mother Mary that Christianity expresses its real nurturing warmth and has true contact with suffering humanity.  Now note what Dr. Miravalle says next.

         Mel Gibson has given the world its most powerful cinematic portrayal of the Mother of Jesus precisely as the Co-redemptrix in his blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ.

         From early in the film it is clear that Mary alone has a special participation in Jesus’ saving mission.  As the soldiers of the Sanhedrin bring Jesus in to stand trial before Caiaphas, Jesus looks at Mary from across the courtyard and Mary says softly, “It has begun, Lord...so be it.”  The Mother knows that the mission of human redemption has begun.  She offers her sorrowful “so be it” to this mission to accompany her joyful “so be it” at the announcement of the angel Gabriel which first brought the Redeemer into the world.

         Throughout the film, it is only Jesus and Mary who see their mutual adversary Satan, in his androgenized (human-appearing — kk) form....

         Earlier, Satan appears during the scourging of Jesus carrying a demonic child, which conveys the Old Testament Genesis prophecy of the battle between the ‘woman’ and her ‘seed’ (Jesus Christ), and the serpent (Satan) and his ‘seed’ or offspring of evil.  After the scourging, Mary is inspired to soak up the blood of the Savior, splattered throughout the area of the pillar, with linens.  She alone knows that each drop of this divine blood is supernaturally redemptive.

         Many times during the savage process of the passion (for example, at the scourging, during the way of the cross, at Calvary), it is the glance of his Mother that gives Jesus the human support that strengthens him to proceed to the next stage of suffering.  After one fall on the Via Dolorosa, Mary crawls next to her mutilated son and re-assures him:  “I’m here.”  Jesus regains some focus and replies to her concerning the mission:  “See Mother, I make all things new.”

         It is not Jesus alone, but all the disciples (Peter, John, the Magdalene), who call Mary, “Mother” (that is, in the film they do this.  The gospel accounts scrupulously avoid such a unique designation, calling Jesus’ mother, “Mary,” throughout.  But good Romish theologians have never been known to allow the scriptural record to interfere with their fanciful imaginations and doctrines — kk).  On Calvary, Mary receives from Jesus her designation as universal Mother.

         As Jesus, who is affixed to the cross, is being raised up from the ground, Mary, whose hands clutched the rocky ground as her sons’ hands were nailed to the cross, rises from her kneeling position in proportion to her son’s being raised on the cross.  She then stands upright as her son is now upright on the gibbet.

         After some time, Mary approaches the cross with John, the beloved disciple.  She kisses Jesus’ bloodied foot, and pleads for permission to die with him at this climactic moment of redemption:  “Flesh of my flesh, Heart of my heart, my Son.  Let me die with you!”  Jesus responds to his mother and to John:  “Woman, behold your son.  Son, behold your mother.” 

         As the fruit of her sufferings with Jesus, Mary becomes the spiritual mother of all beloved disciples, and of all humanity redeemed at Calvary.

      Now, pay special note to Miravalle’s concluding paragraphs!

         In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way.  He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her son’s heart.  This mother’s heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent son.  Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose:  to buy back the human race from sin.

         Mary Co-redemptrix has been given her first international film debut in a supporting role, and it’s a hit.

      A hit!  With whom?  Protestants, no less!  Why do you think this Roman Catholic theologian is so ecstatic?  Protestants, no less, hail this production that obviously plays fast and loose with the scriptural accounts, as gospel truth, hailing it as a wonderful evangelistic tool.  Protestants of every stripe, without criticism, have seen Rome’s elevation of Mary to nearly divine status in a most powerful way, and instead of being offended,  “Lo, to their (our?) eyes, too, she was very good, and a thing to be desired!”  What next but to worship together once the lights go back on?

      Those within Protestant circles, our own included, best pay close attention to what this Roman Catholic theologian and film critic has to say about this film before we naively drink it in and call it “a great evangelistic tool” and “food for men’s souls.”

      Talk about Satan’s presence at the scene!  It is not just disciples of the first century A.D. being tempted to deny their One Only Redeemer and Lord! 

Massachusetts’ Marriage Amendment (Portent of Things to Come)

        When Pontius Pilates govern and legislate you can be sure that, in the end, the perverse will rule the land.  Rule by expediency and trying to satisfy all parties, all the while trying to preserve one’s own political career, is never the recipe for rule by laws of righteousness and truth.  So it has proved in Massachusetts again. 

      Give the conservative caucus in Massachusetts credit, they succeeded in introducing into their state’s legislature an amendment declaring same-sex “marriages” unconstitutional.  What became of the amendment once the legislatures were confronted by the amendment is another matter.  Through maneuverings and counter-maneuverings the politicians, governed in the end by expediency and the “best possible proposal under the circumstances,” have crafted a proposed amendment that will reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples, but grant homosexuals the right to enter into “civil unions,” and then grant to these civil unions all the rights and privileges and benefits previously restricted to marriage.  And the difference is...???  As R. Albert Mohler Jr. points out in an article entitled “Latest Turns in the Marriage Debate,”  “The proposal will disappoint defenders of traditional marriage.” 

         The Massachusetts’ vote came after weeks of wrangling and turmoil, and the actual amendment adopted by the special constitutional convention may satisfy no one in the end.  As finally adopted, the proposed amendment is worded to protect the term “marriage,” but grants to civil unions all the legal rights previously restricted to marriage.

         In its final wording, the proposed amendment states:  “It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized in the commonwealth.” 

So far, so good.  But too good to be true.  The proposal continues:

         Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they otherwise meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage.  Civil unions for same sex persons are established by this Article and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded to persons married under the law of the commonwealth.

         Is this the shape of the future?  The battle in Massachusetts portends a pattern in which “marriage” may be legally restricted to heterosexual couples, but civil unions will be granted full marital rights.  The Massachusetts compromise means that homosexuals walk away with civil unions as the legal equivalent of marriage.  Will this really matter in the end?

         The Massachusetts amendment is, both sides claimed, the best that could be negotiated by the legislators.  Supporters of traditional marriage object that the proposed amendment concedes far too much and in mandating civil unions it effectively undercuts the definition of marriage itself.  “This amendment stinks,” Rep. James H. Fagan told The New York Times.  “But at least it gives the people a chance to vote for something.  It’s a lousy amendment.”

         Gov. Mitt Romney agreed with Fagan and was reported by lawmakers to have told them, “It was the only one on the table and therefore should be supported.”  Rep. Viriato Manuel deMacedo accused his fellow legislators of duplicity in claiming to defend marriage while establishing civil unions.  “Is that honest?  You know it’s not.”...

         The Massachusetts proposal points to the quandary faced by cultural conservatives who are determined to defend marriage as a union of a man and a woman.  In state after state, supporters of homosexual “marriage” have used the concept of civil unions to force conservatives to face a difficult choice — accept civil unions or give up hope for an amendment outlawing same-sex “marriage.”

      As Mohler points out “...get ready for the future — it’s likely to include a whole series of similar battles [to the one in Massachusetts].”  He reports that, according to a recent Gallup poll, 54 percent of those polled favored civil unions, a significant increase in just a few months time.  A similar battle is being waged in Kentucky, apparently with similar results to Massachusetts.  And this in a state that passed a “Defense of Marriage Act” just a few years ago.  

      You know the phrase, “The handwriting is on the wall!”  There are not many Daniels out there these days, just a lot of Pontius Pilates and Belshazzers.  And so the perverse more and more rule the land.  

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:

Prof. Herman Hanko

Prof. Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

      The preceding article in this series can be found in the April 15, 2004 issue, page 329.

The Marrow Men (4)

Introduction

        The doctrinal issues in the Marrow Controversy are still issues in the church today.  They revolved around the question of the preaching of the gospel and the extent of the atonement of Christ.  The Marrow Men wanted an offer of the gospel to all upon condition of faith and based on a universal atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  The Marrow Men were Arminian, and they corrupted the gospel of grace.

      The concern of the Marrow Men was rooted in what they perceived as being an insufficient interest in the salvation of souls on the part of many within the church.  They detected a false sense of security in church members, and a certain spiritual carelessness, which indicated that many, even though members in good standing, were unconverted.

      There may have been something to this.  The Presbyterian Church of Scotland was the national church, and many within it were indeed unconverted, while worldliness was rampant.  This is an inevitable consequence of a national church.

      It was concern for these unconverted that drove the Marrow Men.  They wanted a gospel that would press home as strongly as possible the demands of the gospel and leave people without an excuse to avoid what the gospel required.  Briefly, this position was that the gospel was an offer.

An Implied View of Preaching

      In making the gospel a well-meant offer, the Marrow Men were basing their view on a particular view of preaching.  And this view of preaching was in turn rooted in a particular view of the church.

      This view of the church was, of course, that of a national church.  In a national church all the citizens of the nation belonged technically to the church, and the church was responsible for the spiritual welfare of the entire populace.  This is still the position of Rome, and the pope to this day claims that he is the spiritual father of everyone on earth.  In a national church, the government promoted this one denomination as the one to whom all the citizens ought to belong, and everyone was as a rule baptized and married in and by the church, and was buried out of the church in a church graveyard.

      But the question was more difficult.  It was apparent that many, if not most, in the church were unconverted.  And the Marrow Men, correctly, insisted that not mere membership in the church would guarantee salvation, but that conversion was necessary for a man to be saved.  Conversion was the one point that ministers were called to press home on people.  This was their concern.

      However, even apart from the idea of a national church, an idea the Marrow Men were willing to give up if necessary, they did not consider the church as the gathering of God’s covenant people, but thought of it in terms of people who, for the most part, were unconverted.

      This conception of matters within the church of Scotland had an effect on the preaching of the gospel.  We already noticed that the Marrow Men considered the preaching as giving men a warrant to believe and to close with Christ.  But there were other ideas that we need now to notice.

      The Marrow Men held to a view of the law and the gospel that separated the two.  The preaching of the law with its demands of obedience had as its purpose to bring people under the conviction of sin.  The preaching of the gospel had as its purpose to show men the way of salvation.

      This distinction led to other errors in the preaching.  The Marrow Men (and their successors) held to the notion that the preaching of the law could be in the service of the gospel, because the effect of preaching the law was a conviction of sin necessary to see Christ as the way of salvation.  The difficulty was that this conviction of sin could be present in the unconverted, that is, in the unre­generated.  Some even spoke of a grace that came to all who heard the gospel, which grace prepared them for the gospel by convicting them of sin.

      Such people could be so under the conviction of sin that they bewailed their sins, cried out in anguish over them, longed to escape from the chains of sin, and dreaded with a great dread the horrors of hell that were about to come upon them.  But such conviction of sin did not guarantee that they would “close with Christ.”  They might be under such conviction for a long time, only, finally, to reject Christ and turn away from the Christ presented to them in the gospel.

      These people were called “seekers,” and the effect of the preaching of the law was a preparatory work to the preaching of the gospel.  To these people the gospel offer had to be presented.  It had to be pressed on them in the anguish of their sin by gentle entreaties, earnest pleas, and a passion for souls, which urged the sinner to “close with Christ” and find his escape in the arms of the Savior.  To make these pleas and entreaties as forceful as possible, the sinner had to be told that he had a “warrant” of salvation, that God loved him, that Christ was dead for him, and that there was absolutely no obstacle to his clinging in trust to Christ.

      Hence the well-meant offer of the gospel.

The Wrong of It

      The wrong of such a view was, first of all, the wrong idea of the church that the Marrow Men had, and, in close connection with this, the wrong idea of the church as the covenant people of God.  We cannot go into that in detail, for that would carry us far away from the purpose of these articles.  But it is of sufficient importance to clarify what the Reformed view of the church as God’s covenant people is.

      The church of Christ as manifested on this earth is the gathering of believers and their seed.  That means that the church is the assembly of the covenant people of God.  This church is not composed of some believing adults while the majority, and especially the young people and children, are unconverted.  The church is the gathering of believers and their seed,