III John 11

The third epistle of John was a twin to the second.  II John was written by the apostle John to the elect lady.  This elect lady was one of the churches in or near Ephesus in which John labored.  It could have been one of the churches addressed by the Lord in Revelation 2 and 3.  III John was written by John to the well beloved Gaius, a prominent and faithful member in the same church to which II John was addressed. 

                  In this third epistle, John made mention of two other members of the church.  There was Dio­trophes, a very evil man, whose many faults were to be attributed to the fact that he loved to have the preeminence.  But there was also Deme­trius, who had a good report.

                  It was in connection with these two figures that John warned Gaius to follow not that which is evil but that which is good.  To follow is to mimic, to imitate.  Gaius had within the church both the good and the evil that he could imitate.  He was charged to imitate the good.  We must do the same.

                  The importance of this is seen in the fact that he that does good is of God:  but he that does evil has not seen God.  Be careful whom you imitate.  Imitate those who are of God and who have seen Him.  If you are careless, you will imitate those who are not of God.

                  The good and the evil!

                  That which is good is that which is in harmony with the law of God.  Goodness has an absolute standard.  Ultimately, God is good.  He is the source of all good and standard of all good.  And He has revealed His goodness to us in His law.  That which is good, therefore, is that behavior or lifestyle that conforms to the holy law of God.  But that which is good is also that which is helpful and beneficial.  It is the nature of God’s goodness revealed in the law that promotes the welfare of the church, the gospel, marriage, the family, and society. 

                  That which is evil is just the opposite.  It is that which is contrary to the law and will of God.  For that reason it is also destructive.  Those practices that conflict with God’s good laws always tear down instead of build up.  They bring ruin, and with ruin they bring trouble and sorrow.

                  You will find both the good and the evil in the church!

                  The contrast here is not the good that is found in the church and the evil that is out in the world.  That contrast exists, but it is not the focus here.  The good and the evil are both found within the church as well.

                  You will find good in the church, due to the presence of such men as Gaius and Demetrius.  Of Gaius we read that the truth was in him and that he walked in the truth (v. 3).  Special mention is made of Gaius’ hospitality to missionaries sent out by John to preach to the pagan Gentiles.  The missionaries found shelter at the home of Gaius on the way.  Then there was Demetrius.  He had a good report of all men (v. 12).  There will always be members in the church that are like these two brothers.  They do good and even abound in that which is good.

                  But you will also find evil in the church, due to men such as Diotrophes.  Of Diotrophes we are told that he loved to have the preeminence.  In this evil pursuit to be chief he would receive neither John nor those whom John sent to labor in the gospel.  Furthermore, Diotrophes was guilty of speaking malicious words against the apostle and of casting out of the church those who supported John and his work.  Yes, there will always be church members like Diotrophes, whose lives are filled with evil and who fill the church with their evil.  That is true especially in churches where Christian discipline is not exercised. 

                  Do not imitate that which is evil, but that which is good.

                  Much of what we do is imitation of others.  It is the very nature of a child to imitate what he sees in his parents and older siblings.  This is how he learns.  But even the behavior of adults is imitation.  This is in keeping with the truth of Ecclesiastes 1:9, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:  and there is no new thing under the sun.”  Much of what we do is what we have seen others do.  This includes our behavior in marriage, the raising of our children, the way we entertain ourselves, our conduct in church.

                  We are instructed to imitate that which is good and not that which is evil.  This means that we must evaluate all that we see around us.  This evaluation must be done in light of Scripture.  After proper evaluation we must imitate and put into practice only that which is good.

                  Interestingly, this warning came to a mature believer.  We might expect it to come to a child or young person.  Certainly this is appropriate also for a weaker member of the church who is struggling with sin.  It certainly should come to a Diotrophes, who was living in sin.  But instead it comes to Gaius — a mature, faithful member of the church.  Because of our sinful nature, we are all vulnerable to the influence of bad examples and evil behavior.  We must all be on our guard constantly.  Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (I Cor 10:12).

                  How important this is!

                  For he that doeth good is of God:  but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

                  For one to be of (out of) God, his spiritual source or origin must be in God.  One’s spiritual source is either God or the devil.  If one’s source is in God, he bears His image.  He reflects in his very being the goodness and perfections of God.  If, however, his spiritual source is the devil, he bears the devil’s image and reflects in his being the devil’s evil.  In short, he is totally depraved.

                  By nature we are all of the devil.  This is the result of the fall.  To be of God requires the new birth of which John speaks so much in his epistles.

                  Your spiritual source determines whether you do good or evil.  Those who are born of God and thus have their source in Him do the good.  Bearing the image of God, they are not only able to do the good, they are also inclined to the good.  Their lives are filled with that which is good.  And it is all the fruit of their being of God.  Those, in turn, who are of the devil do that which is evil.  They are just as depraved as the devil himself, incapable of any good and inclined to all evil.

                  But there is more.  He that doeth evil hath not seen God.  

                  We cannot see the essence or being of God.  But we can see God with the eye of faith.  I John 3:16 connects this spiritual sight to abiding with God and knowing Him.  “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:  whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.”  Notice three elements here.  There is the element of abiding with God.  This is to live in constant and close fellowship with Him.  Then there is knowing God.  We live with those whom we know.  And the more we live with them, the more intimate our knowledge of them becomes.  The same is true with God.  Only when we come to know God in faith can we abide with Him in fellowship.  The more we fellowship with God, the more intimate our knowledge of Him is.  That brings us to the final element, our seeing God.  We see those with whom we abide and live.  We see them often.  So also do those who know and abide with God see God.  They see Him in faith as they abide in His presence daily.

                  This is the fruit of being of God.  Those that are of God have received the gift of faith to know Him, abide with Him, and see Him daily.  This is how they are enabled to do that which is good. 

                  But those that are of the devil have not seen God.  They have not known God, nor do they abide with Him.  Neither therefore have they seen God.  And that explains why they do that which is evil.

                  This is all set before us to impress upon us the importance of imitating that which is good and not that which is evil.

                  By imitating the practices and behavior of others, we are ultimately imitating either God or the devil.  When we imitate that which is good, we imitate those who are of God and have seen God.  And so we ultimately are imitating God.  When, however, we imitate that which is evil, we imitate those who are of the devil and who have never seen God.  And ultimately we are imitating the devil. 

                  Our calling is clearly to imitate God by imitating the good of those who are of God.  “Be ye followers (imitators) of God as dear children”  (Eph. 5:1).  

                  We are to bear this in mind especially with respect to our life in the church. 

                  There were those in the church in John’s day who claimed to be of God and to have seen God in fellowship.  Yet they did that which was evil.  Diotrophes was a case in point.  The point that John was making to Gaius was that such claims of evildoers were false.  Do not be lured into following their example, lest you become imitators of the devil.

                  And the same applies to the church also today. 

                  There are many in the church who claim to be of God and to have seen God.  Yet they live in sin.  They live in adultery by divorcing and remarrying.  They profane the Sabbath by their work and entertainment.  They dishonor those in authority both in the home and in the workshop.  Women usurp authority by intruding on the offices of the church.  Many alter the worship that God has ordained for the church, introducing elements that are contrary to the will of God.  In many cases false doctrines have led them in this direction.  What we believe determines how we live.  The church world is awash with false doctrine of every kind.  Those who hold these heresies and follow the evil practices inherent in them also claim to be of God and to be those who have seen Him.  But we must not be deceived.  Those who do evil are not of God, neither have they seen God.  Do not listen to their claim and do not follow their example.

                  And how is it possible for us to imitate that which is good?

                  Only if we ourselves are of God and have seen God.

                  Have you seen God?  You see Him in the preaching.  You see Him in the sacraments.  You see Him in prayer.  You see Him in the fellowship of the saints.

                  In the power of that sight imitate that which is good and not that which is evil.  

Editorials:

Prof. David Engelsma

Covenantal Universalism: 

New Form of an Old Attack on Sovereign Grace (2)

                  A new form of covenant theology takes hold in many of the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America.  In accordance with its fundamental teaching, this doctrine should be called “covenantal universalism.”  In the April 15, 2004 issue of the Standard Bearer, I showed that covenantal universalism is a bold attack upon all the truths of the gospel of sovereign grace.  The attack consists of denying that grace is sovereign in the sphere of the covenant.

                  Covenantal universalism denies that eternal, sovereign predestination—election and reprobation—applies to the children of godly parents in the sphere of the covenant.  In the sphere of the covenant, all the children are elect, including those who eventually perish in unbelief.

                  Covenantal universalism rejects the doctrine of limited atonement as regards the generations of believers.  Christ died for all the physical, baptized children of believers.  Indeed, He died for all who receive the sacrament of baptism, those who finally are damned, as well as those who finally are glorified.

                  Covenantal universalism teaches that grace is resistible in baptized children.  Many children in whom God begins the work of salvation, uniting them to Christ, resist this grace and go lost.

                  Covenantal universalism emphatically repudiates the perseverance of covenant saints in covenant holiness.  Many who once were truly engrafted into Christ and enjoyed the spiritual blessings of the covenant are cut off from Christ, forfeit the blessings of salvation, and perish everlastingly. 

                  In the sphere of the covenant, grace is universal, resistible, and losable.

                  Those who teach this covenant theology claim to maintain the doctrines of grace, the “five points of Calvinism.” But the doctrines of grace do not apply to the covenant.

                  Evidently, there is contradiction in the saving work of God.  Outside the covenant, on the mission field, God saves by sovereign grace.  Within the covenant, grace is powerless.  Outside the covenant, grace depends upon the will of God alone.  Within the covenant, grace is dependent upon the will of the baptized child.  Outside the covenant, grace is efficacious.  Within the covenant, grace can successfully be resisted.  Outside the covenant, grace is particular.  Within the sphere of the covenant, grace is universal.

                  The attempt of these teachers to distinguish covenant grace from the grace of God confessed as particular and sovereign by the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession of Faith is futile.  The grace of God in the sphere of the covenant is saving grace, grace that has its origin in election, the grace of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, grace that applies the atonement of the cross of Christ, grace that has eternal life in heaven as its purpose.  And according to covenantal universalism this grace is not particular and sovereign, but universal and resistible.

                  Despite the loud protestations of those who teach covenantal universalism that they are orthodox, it becomes plain that they nurse a latent hostility to the Reformed confessions, especially the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession of Faith.  They are forced to be cautious, because they are Reformed officebearers, who have sworn to be faithful to the creeds.  Nevertheless, they like to stress the inadequacy of the creeds.  They present themselves as innovators.  They are men who have discovered new truths for the modern Reformed church. 

                  Not only have they discovered new truths.  They have also created a new way of teaching spiritual truth.  They are critical of Reformed theologians of the past for their emphasis on propositional truth, for their concern with theological system, for their zeal for doctrinal purity and soundness. All of this is condemned as “scholastic.”  The men of the “federal vision,” as they call their movement, herald a new way of religious thinking and teaching.  Theirs is a “biblical” and “covenantal” way of thinking and teaching.   

                  This, of course, is a thinly veiled attack on the systematic theology of the Reformed confessions.         

                  The proof is in the pudding.  The message produced by this new, fresh, exciting “biblical” and “covenantal” method of theology is in violent conflict with the Reformed confessions, beginning with the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

                    Not long ago, one of these men gave vent to the attitude that lives in their hearts toward the system of doctrine contained in the Canons of Dordt and in the Westminster Confession of Faith.  He publicly railed against the “solas” of the Reformation.  The “solas” of the Reformation are the grand, essential truths of the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ:  “by faith alone”; “by grace alone”; “Christ alone”; and “to the glory of God alone.”

 Development of an Older Doctrine of the Covenant

                  Even though covenantal universalism attacks the Reformed confession at its very heart—the sovereignty of God in His grace—most of the reputedly Reformed and Presbyterian churches are open to it.  They are wide open to it.  They permit the teaching. They tolerate the teachers.  Criticism is muted, so oblique that no one could take offense at it, or non-existent.  When faithful church members take the heretics and their heresy to the assemblies, the ecclesiastical assemblies exonerate the false teachers.  The churches are unwilling or unable to condemn covenantal universalism and to root it out.

                  The reason is that covenantal universalism is a development of an older doctrine of the covenant, which all these churches have embraced for many years.

                  The older doctrine of the covenant that the men of the “federal vision” are developing taught that God makes His covenant with all the children of believing parents alike, by promising salvation to them all at their baptism.  In this important respect, the covenant is universal.  The older doctrine added that the covenant is conditional.  It depends for its realization, that is, for its continuation with the individual child and for its actual saving of any child, upon the child’s faith and covenant-obedience.

                  This doctrine of a universal, conditional covenant was taught by Klaas Schilder and the “liberated” Reformed Churches.

                  The men who are teaching covenantal universalism openly acknowledge that their covenant doctrine is essentially that of Klaas Schilder and the “liberated” Reformed.  Especially when they come under fire, they defend themselves by appealing to the doctrine of the covenant of the “liberated” Reformed.  “We are not introducing novelties.  Our theology is the covenant doctrine of Schilder and the ‘liberated’ Reformed.”

                  Covenantal universalism, with its radical denial of the entire gospel of sovereign grace, is a development of the doctrine of the covenant that the Protestant Reformed Churches rejected in their great internal struggle in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Necessary Development of the Older Doctrine

                  The teachings about the covenant and its grace by Shepherd, Barach, Wilkins, Wilson, and the others are legitimate, natural, and inevitable, indeed necessary, development of that older doctrine of the conditional covenant.  That older doctrine made the covenant and the covenant promise universal—to all the physical children of godly parents alike.  But the covenant promise is grace.  Its origin is the favorable attitude of God toward those to whom He makes the promise; it is gracious in its very nature and content; it purposes grace and salvation for those to whom God makes it.  Therefore, the older covenant doctrine made grace universal in the sphere of the covenant.

                  The new development of this older doctrine draws the implications:  all the children are united to Christ; all receive the saving benefits of the covenant; all are saved—temporarily.

                  The older doctrine made grace and salvation, in the covenant, conditional.  The universal, gracious covenant and covenant promise depend upon the faith and obedience of the child.  Faith and obedience, even though they may not merit, are the ground, or basis, of salvation in the covenant.  They are a certain worthiness of the sinner to be saved.

                  The new development of this older doctrine draws the implication.  Justification in the covenant depends on faith as a man’s own work of obedience and on the good works faith performs.  In the covenant, justification is by faith and works.

                  The older doctrine taught that the covenant promise can fail of giving the salvation it promises to someone.  It taught that the covenant itself, established with someone personally by promise at his baptism, can be broken, so that the covenant is with him no longer.  The result is that he perishes.  Failing to fulfill the conditions of the covenant, a child breaks the covenant in the sense that he nullifies the covenant made with him by promise and renders the promise of God to him void.

                  Covenantal universalism draws the implication and teaches the falling away of those who once enjoyed union with Christ, the blessings of salvation, and saving grace.

                  The older doctrine of the covenant strongly opposed any control over the covenant, the covenant promise, and covenant salvation by the eternal decree of election.  How Schilder and the “liberated” Reformed cried out, “The covenant is not identical with election.”  What they meant was:  “Election does not control the covenant.  Election does not determine to whom God makes the covenant promise.  Election does not determine with whom God establishes the covenant.  Election does not determine whom God saves in and by the covenant.”

                  In the covenant doctrine of the “liberated” Reformed, there always lurked enmity against God’s election as eternal, sovereign decree.  Sometimes that enmity surfaced.  Already in the 1940s, Prof. Benne Holwerda was teaching that election in Scripture, including such passages as Ephesians 1:4, does not refer to an eternal decree, but to a temporal, conditional election in the history of the covenant.  A John Barach is merely echoing Benne Holwerda some sixty years later, as Barach himself has observed.

                  The new form of the older doctrine seizes upon this separation of covenant grace and covenant salvation from the eternal decree of election and runs with it.  Universal grace in the sphere of the covenant completely swallows up election as a divine decree.  The election permitted to exist in the sphere of the covenant is ruled by universal grace and by the will of the member of the covenant.  All the baptized are elect originally.  Thus election is determined by universal grace.  Many lose their election, however, and become reprobates by failing to fulfill the conditions.  Thus election is determined by the will of the members of the covenant.

                  In short, the older doctrine of a gracious covenant and covenant promise for all, dependent for their efficacy on conditions that the children must fulfill, was implicitly a message of universal, resistible grace.

                  The new covenant theology is making this explicit.  It repudiates outright every one of the doctrines of sovereign grace and openly substitutes the teachings of universal, conditional, resistible grace.

                  This is the reason why the churches are powerless to combat covenantal universalism.  They are committed to the conditional covenant.  Sounder theologians oppose the new developments, especially the gross heresies of justification by faith and faith’s works and the falling away of saints.  But they cannot, or will not, get at the root of the heresies.  They themselves hold the error from which these heresies spring:  universal grace in the sphere of the covenant, conditioned by the faith and obedience of the covenant member.

Covenantal Particularism

                  In the early 1950s, the Protestant Reformed Churches battled almost to the death—their death—on behalf of the gospel of salvation by sovereign grace in the sphere of the covenant.  They battled for sovereign grace by contending against the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

                  Not one Reformed or Presbyterian denomination came to their defense.  Not one Reformed or Presbyterian theologian stood with them.

                  Not one.

                  Now the Reformed and Presbyterian churches are troubled by the full-blown covenantal universalism that has developed from the doctrine of a conditional covenant.  Inasmuch as the truth of justification by faith alone is jeopardized, they themselves must see that their very existence as true churches of Christ is in danger.  The entire sixteenth century Reformation was one with Luther in warning that the truth of gracious justification, apart from any and all works of the sinner, is the “article of a standing and a falling church.”

                  In the face of this danger, one of the gravest since Dordt, will the churches at last consider that the only safeguard of the gospel of salvation by sovereign grace is the doctrine of the unconditional covenant of grace with Christ as head of the covenant and with the elect in Him?

                  The issue is stark.

                  The loss of the gospel of sovereign grace.

                  Or, covenantal particularism.

 New RFPA Book on Worship

                  The second volume in the Reformed Free Publishing Association’s paperback series, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, has just come out.  The title is Reformed Worship.  The book is a timely treatment of the lively, controversial, and crucially important issue of the public worship of the church.

                  The book demonstrates from Scripture, the Reformed confessions, and the Reformed tradition that the worship of the church must be regulated by the Word of God.  God does not leave the “how” of worship up to the worshiping people.  The fundamental issue in the current “worship-wars” is the second commandment of the law of God.

                  The critique of various expressions of the increasingly popular “progressive” worship points out that “progressive” worship invariably dislodges the preaching of the gospel from its place at the heart of worship.

                  Reformed Worship responds to the charge that “traditional” Reformed worship leaves the congregation passive.

                  In the course of its examination of biblical, covenantal worship, the book considers such controversial matters among those holding the “regulative principle” of worship as the observance of the Christian holidays, the use of instrumental accompaniment, and exclusive psalmody.  It pleads for peace regarding these differences and offers grounds on which this peace may stand.

                  Three ministers in the Protestant Reformed Churches, Prof. Barrett L. Gritters,  Rev. Charles J. Terpstra, and Prof. David J. Engelsma cooperate in this fresh, informative, and provocative study.  

                  The publishing project, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, makes available in book form series of articles on theological, ecclesiastical, and ethical subjects that originally ran in the Standard Bearer.  In this way, the witness to the truth of the Reformed faith and life spreads.  In addition, those who read the series of articles in the Standard Bearer have the material in the useful form of a single volume.  The books are small—about one hundred pages.  All are published in the same attractive format.  The first in the series was David J. Engelsma’s Common Grace Revisited:  A Response to Richard J. Mouw’s He Shines in All That’s Fair.

                  The RFPA intends to send Reformed Worship to all members of the book club as a gift.  The gift expresses appreciation for the support those members give to the work of the RFPA, financial and otherwise.  At the same time, the RFPA hopes that members of the book club and readers of the Standard Bearer will order copies of the book for family members, friends, and acquaintances.  Copies of the book can be ordered from the RFPA at the low price of $6.95 per copy.  The RFPA urges evangelism committees, within the Protestant Reformed Churches and without, to use Reformed Worship in their witness.  Copies will be available to evangelism committees at cost.

                  Societies and discussion-groups will find the book an ideal basis for the study of the supreme calling of the church and the individual member:  the right worship of the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

— DJE 

All Around Us:

Rev. Gise VanBaren

Rev. VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

“Theologians debate God’s foreknowledge”

    It was the headline in Loveland, Colorado’s Reporter-Herald of December 6, 2003. (Thanks to one of our “contributors” from Loveland for the article.)  The article, though dated, is really very current.  Its report concerning the position of some calling themselves evangelical Christians shows the degree to which “Calvinists” or “conservative” Christians have fallen.  The eternal foreknowledge of God represents one of those undebatable subjects for Christians—particularly Reformed Christians.  It is surely part of the creeds of Reformed churches.  There are also many scriptural texts that come to mind that set forth this doctrine.  Romans 8:29-30 presents the order of our salvation—from foreknowledge to final glorification.  There can be such an order only if God eternally knows all things that take place.  There is Joseph’s statement to his brothers after the death of their father Jacob: “Ye meant it for evil but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20).   That could only be on the basis of God’s foreknowledge.  There is Ephesians 1:4, “According as he hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world….”  Peter presents the most striking instance of God’s foreknowledge on the day of Pentecost.  In speaking of the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, Peter declares it to be from the ascended Lord.  Then in Acts 2:23 he states, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

                  Both confessionally and scripturally, the truth of God’s foreknowledge is clearly set forth.

                  It is, therefore, unsettling to read of those called “evangelicals” who are proposing that God does not have foreknowledge.  The Loveland newspaper, in its religious section, has an article by Bill Broadway of the Washington Post.  He begins:

              John Sanders began to wonder about God’s intentions after his brother was killed in a motorcycle accident.

              As a 16-year-old high school student, Sanders was a photographer for the local newspaper in Hoopeston, Ill., when he was sent to the accident scene not knowing the victim’s identity.  After seeing the horror before him, he turned to God and asked, “Why did you kill my brother?”

              Sanders, now a professor of philosophy and religion at Huntington College in Indiana, said his confusion increased when well-intentioned friends said that his brother’s death was part of God’s plan—and that the plan must be to help Sanders accept Jesus as his Savior.

              “I asked, ‘God killed my brother so I would become a Christian?’”

              Thirty-two years later, Sanders, an evangelical Christian, still considers such arguments absurd and, over the years, has developed a view of God that he believes to be more realistic.  He no longer asks whether God does terrible things to people, he said.

              Instead, Sanders lays the responsibility directly on humans, arguing that they have the free will to make choices that determine events.  God knows everything that happened in the past and is happening now, but God has no foreknowledge of events because the future has not happened, he said.

              For promoting this view, called “open theism,” Sanders and other evangelical scholars have been challenged through increasingly vehement criticism on the Internet, in seminary trustee meetings and at gatherings of the Evangelical Theological Society, a 54-year-old professional association whose members must affirm biblical inerrancy and the doctrine of the Trinity.

              …This dispute among academics reflects a growing debate among evangelicals at large over such issues as the relationship between God and humans, the effectiveness of prayer and the significance of making moral decisions.

              Open theists, in essence, say there would be no point in praying for a sick child if God already knew what the outcome of the illness would be.  Why struggle over making the right decision, they ask, if God has decided for you in advance?  And how can you love anyone, even God, if that love is forced on you or away from you.

              “It’s a fundamental incoherence to say we’re determined, yet I love,” Sanders said.  If there is no free will, he added, “is God dancing with mannequins?”

                  The article continues by pointing out other evangelicals, especially Roger Nicole, 87, an internationally known theologian and native of Switzerland who advocates the predestination views of John Calvin.  One can rejoice that there are many Reformed Christians who disagree with Sanders and continue to hold to infallible Scriptures.  Indeed Sanders “has developed a view of God that he believes to be more realistic.”  Sadly, however, it is his own “development” and is not scriptural.

                  It represents one more instance of the attempt to influence, infiltrate, and ultimately to destroy what is scriptural and Reformed.  That we, mere mortals, have questions about the work of God’s foreknowledge is understandable.  He is God—we are but men.  But that does not allow one to “develop” doctrines that do not adhere to and are not derived from Scripture.  By grace we must confess the scriptural presentation of God’s “foreknowledge.”  That foreknowledge is not simply an awareness of what shall happen, but an awareness that is determinative at the same time.

“Marriage amendment and Christian beliefs”

                  Doubtlessly, all of our readers are aware of the raging debate about homosexual “marriages.”  The debate really began a number of years ago when homosexuals insisted on “coming out of the closet” and flaunting their homosexuality before all of society.  Churches became involved when homosexuals claimed to have the right of full membership though living in their sinful relationships.  Then there was the claim that church members practicing homosexuality should have the privilege of functioning in the church offices.  Now, sadly, increasingly there are  those who claim to be Christian who insist that the right of homosexuals is a constitutional right.  The constitution protects the “rights” of all religions—and forbids Congress from establishing a religion.  

                  An instance of this idea was presented in Letters to the Editor in the Grand Rapids Press of March 15, 2004.  There a certain Melanie Glover wrote:

              I am writing in response to the Public Pulse letter “Standing up for God” as well as many of the arguments I have listened to in my conversations with all concerned about the legalization of gay marriage.  The main arguments against gay marriage include phrases like “We started off as a Christian nation.”  “America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.”  “What will come next?”  And “Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman only.”  These all stem from religious beliefs held by many, but unfortunately they contradict the U.S. Constitution.  If the U.S. Congress were to ban gay marriage, it would in fact violate the First Amendment that prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.

              Religion, by definition, consists of a set of beliefs, one that is much too prevalent in the support of a ban on gay marriage that consequently would declare America as the Christian nation traditionalists favor.

              This religious justification for the ban comes at the expense of the gay community’s right to freedom of expression through its own sexual identities.  If the U.S. government gives every American the right to determine his or her own religion, we should not expect every American to choose Jesus as the only way, regardless of founding values.

              We should not assume God’s laws to be upheld by a Constitution that explicitly states that every American may choose by what values and morals he or she will live.  As a believer in Christ, I do not think imposing my Christian beliefs on a man or woman who defines his or her sexual orientation differently than I do will bring them closer to the arms of God.  Taking away one’s free will undermines that God-given gift and rejects the power of God to change lives through values like acceptance and openness.

                  One might debate the wisdom of defining constitutionally what marriage is (especially when laws already make this plain).  One might debate whether in fact this nation was established on Christian principles—though indeed the Deity is mentioned by founding fathers.  No Reformed Christian would agree that there is a “free will” as a “God-given gift.”  But what is particularly disquieting, and this letter is but representative of a growing attitude of “Christians” of our day, is that we must, constitutionally, allow all religions to adhere in our country to their own religious convictions—since Congress may not establish (nor condemn) any religion nor its practices. 

                  I say this is disturbing.  The letter-writer states, in fact, that one has a constitutional right to define his or her sexual orientation in a way different from the norm.  By extension, the Muslim presumably has the right in our land to marry many wives and divorce them arbitrarily by fiat.  When government cannot interfere with the “rights” of any religion to define its own forms of marriage—surely the Muslim may marry many wives.  The government that may not interfere with religious practices of any religion, must honor the religious laws of the Muslims.  If their religious laws demand the cutting off of the hand that steals, surely the government cannot forbid this.  The same applies to the religion of the Mormons.  The position still held by many of them is that they may have multiple wives—indeed ought to have this.  So—what right does the government have to interfere with their religion?

                  And if one has a constitutional right to practice his own “sexual orientation differently than I do,” then what about pedophiles?  If it is one’s nature to have a sexual relationship with young children, what right has the government to forbid this?  One might conclude that whatever one’s “orientation,” he ought to be given the right to follow it.

                  We are rapidly approaching the condition of Israel in the days of the Judges when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”  Today, many would maintain, it is one’s constitutional right to do according to his own personal convictions.

                  Yet governments must maintain a certain “ethic” consistently.  If not the “Judeo-Christian” ethic, then what?  A combination of the ethics of all religions found in this country?  But that would result in anarchy.  It is true that the government cannot impose Christianity on all its peoples.  Scripture does not teach that either.  Still, marriage between one man and one woman is a creation ordinance.  One can violate that ordinance only to his own hurt. 

                  In Romans 2:15 we are told: “Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”  It is the work of the law written in their hearts—not the law itself.  The law forbids adultery—the wicked, though refusing to hold to God’s law, nevertheless know within themselves that adultery is wrong.  So it is also with marriage.  What we are seeing, then, today is the fact that God is “giving them up unto vile affections” (Rom. 1:24) and that “God gives them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:28).   Our country increasingly wallows in the cesspools of iniquity and increasingly reflects the evils of Sodom and Gomorrah of the Old Testament.  It is the judgment of God that we are seeing.  It is sad, then, that any Christian should defend all of this as a matter of “constitutional right” because of one’s “orientation.” 

Taking Heed to the Doctrine:

Rev. James Laning

Rev. Laning is pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Walker, Michigan.

Ecclesiology: The Study of the Church

                  We now move on to the fifth section of Reformed dogmatics, known as ecclesiology.  Ecclesiology is the study of the church.  It includes a study of what the church is and of how she grows and is governed.  It can be distinguished from soteriology, which we have just considered.  Soteriology is the study of how God saves an individual believer; ecclesiology is the study of how God saves the church as a whole.

                  The church is an object of faith.  We confess that we “believe an holy, catholic church.”  The Roman Catholics, and others, confess that we believe in a holy catholic church.  The Romish church desires the confession to read “in” the church because they insist that everyone must believe, not in God, but in their corrupt institution.  It is important, therefore, that we understand that we confess “an” holy catholic church, just as we confess that we believe the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.  When we say this we are confessing that we believe that there really is a holy, catholic church, a communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, etc.  Although there are times in which it does not clearly appear that there really is one holy church that is being gathered out of all the nations of the world, we believe, on the basis of Scripture, that there really is such a body of believers, with Christ as her Head.

                  We grow in our understanding of what the church is and does when we consider what the Scriptures teach over against the many false views that have arisen over the centuries, and that are still maintained today.  Roman Catholics and Baptists, postmillennialists and premillennialists, are just some of those who have a very wrong view of what the church of Jesus Christ is and of what she is called to do.  Some give the instituted church an authority greater than that of Scripture.  Others consider the instituted church to be of little or no importance and reject the idea that the preaching of the gospel by the instituted church is the chief means by which faith is worked in the hearts of His people.

                  In this section of dogmatics, as with all the others, we will need to set forth the truth distinctively, so that it can be clearly contrasted with that which is not true.  We begin with a consideration of what Scripture tells us the church is.

The Church:  the Body of Christ, not the Body of God

                  The main term used for the church in the New Testament is a word that means literally “that which is called out.”  In the Old Testament, one of the main terms for the church has as its meaning “that which is called together.”  Putting these ideas together, we can say that the church is a group of people whom God has called out of this world and has gathered together into a new body.  By nature we are one with the ungodly world.  So for us to be brought into the church we must be called out of this world and called together into the body of Christ.

                  The church is referred to in Scripture as the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23) and the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23-32; Rev. 21:9, 10).   The church is very really the body of the One who is God in the flesh.  His life is her life.  His mind is her mind (I Cor. 2:16).   His will is her will.  His Spirit is poured out into her, so that, although He is in heaven and many members of the church are on earth, Christ and His body are governed by the same Spirit.

                  There are many who try to pervert this truth by claiming that the human race and the entire creation is the body of God.  By applying the theory of evolution to God Himself, they teach that God and the world are evolving together, with God being the soul of this world, and the world being the body of God.  God, however, is Spirit, and He is absolutely distinct from His creation.  The church is the body of the Son of God in human flesh.  Because the Son of God has become a real man, we, the church, can be united to Him as His body.

                  A true church shows she believes herself to be the body and bride of Christ by the way she lives in devotion to her Husband, and by the way her members commune and live together as one body.

 The Universal Church and the Church Institute

                  A biblical distinction that the Scriptures make is that between the church universal and the instituted church.  The church universal consists of all the elect, including those who have not yet been born.  A church institute is a group of believers and their children, who have organized into a church with properly called and installed elders and deacons.  A true instituted church is a manifestation upon this earth of the universal body of Christ.

                  When distinctions are made it is very important that we prove that the Bible makes such a distinction.  This distinction between the universal body of Christ and the church institute is a biblical distinction.  A passage such as Revelation 21:9 speaks of the universal church, the bride of Christ, descending out of heaven from God.  This passage is clearly referring to the complete universal church, consisting of all the elect, and only the elect.  But there are other passages of Scripture that undoubtedly refer to the church institute.  Christ, through the inspired apostle Paul, said to the congregation of believers in Corinth, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular” (I Cor. 12:27).   He did not tell this congregation that she was part of the body of Christ, but that she was the body of Christ.  This is understood to mean that the instituted church in Corinth was a complete picture of the universal church of Christ.

                  The instituted church that pictures the universal body of Christ is not the man-made institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.  The institute that pictures the universal body must have the same characteristics as the universal body.  It must be an institute in which the members are united by a common belief in the truth, since Christ is the truth.  Only those instituted churches that preach the truth, and that properly administer and explain the truth concerning the sacraments, and that discipline those who refuse to confess the truth and to walk in the truth, are true churches of Jesus Christ.  Only these churches are manifestations on this earth of the universal body of Christ.

                  There are many today who reject the truth concerning the church institute.  On the Lord’s Day they may be found worshiping in their home, claiming that they do not need to join themselves to an instituted church on this earth.  I am not, now, talking about those people who, for a time, are having difficulty finding a true church to which they can, with a clear conscience, join themselves.  I am talking about those people who see no importance in joining with like-minded believers in the instituted church.  Such people claim that they have their Bibles, they can read, sing, and pray on their own, so they do not need to gather for worship with the members of an instituted church.  They are members of the universal body, they say, and that is the only church membership that is important.

                  Sometimes the reason for this attitude is an ignorance concerning what the instituted church is.  The instituted church is called the house of God (I Tim. 3:15).   This statement makes known the significance of the instituted church, and points out the relationship between the instituted church and the universal body of Christ.

The Church:  the House of God

                  I Timothy 3:15 is clearly referring to the instituted church.  Paul is writing to Timothy, who was the pastor of the instituted church at Ephesus.  In the middle of the epistle, he states his purpose for writing,

14)  These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15)  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

                  That Paul is referring to the instituted church when he writes these words is evident from the fact that the letter contains instruction about life in the church as institute.  It begins with an exhortation to make sure that no false doctrine is taught in the church (I Tim. 1:3).   It gives instruction concerning prayer in the official worship services of the church (I Tim. 2:1-8).   The qualifications for special officebearers are set forth in detail (I Tim. 3:1-13).   Thus it is clearly evident that it is the instituted church that Paul is referring to as the house of God.

                  Obviously the universal body of Christ, consisting of the total number of elect, is the house of God.  God is everywhere present; but it is with His people alone that He is present in His grace, causing them to enter into covenant communion with Him.  There is an application of this truth, however, also to the church as institute.  The instituted church is the one place upon this earth where God dwells with His people, and causes them to enter into close fellowship with Him.  If one wants to dwell with God, and to experience covenant friendship with Him, it is of utmost importance that he be a member of a true instituted church.  Only there will he find the chief means of grace, the preaching of the gospel, which is the means that God uses to work conscious faith in His people and to draw them into fellowship with Him.

                  The reference to the instituted church as the house of God clearly shows the importance of the church institute, and also indicates the relationship between the universal body of Christ and the manifestation of that body upon this earth.  In studying the church, it is good to start with considering the truth concerning the universal body of Christ, and then to go on to see how this truth applies to the instituted church on this earth.  I plan to do that in the articles that follow.  

Feature Article:

Slabbert LeCornu

The Reformed Churches of South Africa:

A Reformed Perspective on the
History and Current Struggle in the Dopper Churches of South Africa (3)

Slabbert Le Cornu is married to Dorothea, and they have three daughters: Joanette (6), Hannelie (3) and Doret (1).  He is fourth-year theological student at the Reformed Churches of South Africa’s Theological School, in Potchefstroom.  They are members of the Reformed Church, Potchefstroom-South.  Slabbert is the founder and director of Die Esra Instituut (‘The Esra Institute’), which is a teaching ministry to advance the biblical-reformed faith and worldview in the world today.  He is also the editor of the magazine Die Esra Verslag (‘The Ezra Report’).  For further information, he can be contacted at: esra@netlab.co.za

       (Preceding article in this series can be found in the April 15^th issue, page 322.)

5. The deformation in the GKSA

                In this section, I would like to mention three synods of the GKSA, which in my opinion made decisions that have radically altered the direction of these churches in 1939, 1985, and 2003.

Synod 1939

                  As mentioned above, the Reformed church that arrived at the Cape in the seventeenth century was a Psalm-singing church.  They followed Article 69 of the Synod of Dordt strictly, which stated that the 150 Psalms must be sung, together with some six other hymns (five scriptural songs and the Apostles’ Creed)[1] .  Any other hymns were to be abolished.  In a very important and informative article, emeritus-pastor, the Rev. LS Kruger, shows clearly that the Dordt fathers, which included the synods of Dordtrecht (1578), Middelburg (1581), and Dordrecht (1618/19), used the name ‘hymns’ for all songs that were not part of the 150 Psalms.  This would then include the scriptural songs like the songs of praise by Mary and Simeon.  The scriptural songs were included in Article 69 because of the pressure of the state, and not because the churches felt the need for ‘NT songs.’  It is also important to mention that the list of six hymns that was given was not given as a justification for introducing as many new songs as possible, but in fact to limit it to only those six hymns.  Many believers have forgotten or have never heard of this historical background.  When the Rev. Postma helped reestablish the Reformed church here in SA, he himself made this shift when he said that ‘songs that find their text in the Bible, are the best and safest.’  Later theologians and historians used this shift of Postma away from Dordt to justify the introduction of many other scriptural songs. 

                  Irrespective of that, the GKSA was until 1939 mostly an exclusively psalm-singing church, with the exception of the six hymns.  At the Synod of 1939 it was decided that a collection of ‘Enige Gesange’ (‘A Few Hymns’) would be added to the Psalmbook, which also led to the following additional sentence to Article 69:  “…Other Hymns (scriptural songs) which the Synod have approved are entrusted to the local churches to decide on.”

                  What was the reason for this sudden urge to sing scriptural songs other than the Psalms?  One can only speculate at this point, but a possible clue could be found in the Acts of the Synod of 1939, when the synod asked for scriptural songs ‘especially for Christian feast days.’  This meant that Article 67 (concerning feast days), which has never been dealt with biblically and was in fact tolerated through the centuries, called for ‘scriptural songs’ and especially hymns.  Intentionally or unintentionally, it was believed that the Psalmbook was not sufficient for “the whole manner of worship which God requires of us …” (Article 7, Belgic Confession), and by instituting feast days, such as Christmas, which the Scripture does not command (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 96), the churches felt that they had to invent some songs to make up for that which could not be found in Scripture. Hymns were thus needed for Christmas and other festive days. 

                  It is my own opinion that this decision made by great Calvinistic men is part of the reason why the GKSA is currently facing such a crisis.  Why would the Psalms not be sufficient for singing about the ‘salvation facts’ of our Lord Jesus Christ?  Could it be that even way back in 1939 theologians and preachers were beginning to doubt whether the Psalms were really Messianic, and, more importantly, if they were, were they not Messianic enough to be sufficient for all our worship?  The 2001 rhymed Psalmbook openly confesses that the Psalms are not Messianic (it uses footnotes to explain why this is so, mentioning only, for example, that ‘Christ uses Ps. 110 in reference to Himself’).  At the 2003 Synod, and currently, the foundation has been laid for singing so-called ‘dogmatic songs,’ such as Lord’s Day 1, Q. 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism, etc.  If the 150 Psalms are not sufficient, no amount of songs will be sufficient.[2]  It is clear that true reformation is needed here, to return consistently to exclusive psalmody, or else the GKSA will end up denying its reestablishment of 1859, and confessing to the NG and NH churches that they were wrong with their church-apartheid of the past 140 years, regarding this matter. 

Synod 1985

                  In 1933 the Afrikaner church people received the Bible in their own language translated from the original biblical languages, later to be called the Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling (OAV = Old Afrikaans Translation).  This translation was a concordant translation, in the tradition of the Statenvertaling and the King James Version.  In 1983 the Afrikaner people received a second translation, surrounded by much controversy even today, called the Nuwe Afrikaanse Vertaling (NAV = New Afrikaans Translation).  This translation was the very opposite of the OAV, being a dynamic equivalence translation (some would suggest that it would be more honest to call it a ‘paraphrase’), using the critical NA/UBS text tradition.  At the 1985 Synod, the GKSA decided that “The Synod emphasized that the 1983 translation should not replace or phase out the 1933/53 translation in any way.  The 1933/53 and the 1983 translations of the Bible can be used alongside each other by the churches.”

                  Local churches and the theological school mostly pay only lip service to these words, because most churches, in practice, do not work with the OAV anymore.  Some of the criticisms leveled against the NAV are that the dynamic equivalence translation method is unacceptable in principle because it is not faithful to the original text, it changes the meaning of the original text; the unity of Scripture is attacked; the Messiah was not recognized in the Old Testament; there is no clear distinction between the names of God; many words are left out or added, and so on.  Irrespective of the critique, Synod 1988 confirmed their decision of 1985. 

                  If one studies the book by Prof. Jacob van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, it is clear that the dynamic equivalence translation method introduces a new view of God, man, and the world.  This translation is centered upon man and modern communication, and not on God and His revelation.  This leads me to believe that one of the reasons why, in the GKSA churches of today, members on either side of the battle cannot understand each other, even though they would really like to, is that a generation is divided on the different readings of God’s Word, and the old historical reformation-centered terms are not used anymore.  A new translation, however, also needed a new songbook.

Synod 2003

                  At the January 2003 Synod of the GKSA, under the cloud of many complaints against many decisions,[3]  it was nevertheless decided to accept the controversial new psalmbook.  In effect this caused another church schism in South Africa.  The criticisms against the new psalmbook were many (more or less the same biblical and theological reasons as those against the NAV), but the most devastating and important critique was the self-confession of the main poet of the new psalms, Prof. T.T. Cloete, an NG Church member, who himself stated that “ Ps. 110 is … according to my theological advisers, according to the NAV … not a Messianic Psalm” (Algemene Kerkbode, 11-13 April, 2002).  Elsewhere he stated that ‘based on new (theological — SLC) research’ he removed messianic references from certain Psalms (The Rapport — News Paper, 4 November, 2001).  I bumped into the professor himself one day, doing banking here in Potchefstroom, and he verbally confirmed the above views to me in person. 

                  Synod 2003 was a watershed synod in the history of the Reformed Churches of South Africa.  Maybe it was the offshoot or fruit of different theologies — even of many non-Reformed ones — being tolerated and accommodated over the years and decades, that at this synod the decision to allow women in office, specifically in the office of deacons, was also pushed through.  Ironically (and I was a witness at this session of the synod), the members of the synod acknowledged that ‘we’ are not clear on what Scripture teaches on the office of women deacons and that more studies should be done.  But then the brothers went on and voted by a two-thirds majority to accept women in church office!

                  In the very first issue of the Kerkblad after the synod (29-01-2003), the previous (outgoing) editor, Prof. G.J.C. Jordaan (professor in NT, at the GKSA theological school) warned against the possible new direction of the GKSA.  He correctly mentioned that we must work from Scripture to practice, and not from practice to Scripture.  By this he clearly implied that the current crisis in the GKSA could be traced back to different views of Scripture. Historically the GKSA has been a strong adherent and promoter of what is called openbaringshistoriese of heilshistoriese prediking (‘reve­lational-historical or redemptive-historical preaching), and it seems that a ‘new hermeneutic’ is busy replacing it, or at least is taking a stand alongside it, which could be called ‘socio-historical’ kind of preaching and understanding of Scripture. 

                  Prof. Jordaan also then warned about the possible ecumenical implications of the decisions of Synod 2003.  These decisions could lead back to the NG Church in SA, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, and even right back to the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (with which the GKSA broke ties in the 1970s because of t