We have here a most remarkable Psalm.  As the first psalm in this memorable book of songs it sets forth the theme and tone for the entire book.  It does this by showing us the attitude of God toward both the ungodly and the righteous.  The first five verses describe the two.

      On the one hand, the righteous man does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, nor does he stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scorners.  On the other hand, he delights in the law of the Lord, meditates in it day and night, and is likened to a tree planted by the rivers of water.  This tree brings forth fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither.  As such the righteous prosper.

      In contrast the ungodly are like the chaff that the wind drives away.  Having no roots he cannot and shall not stand in the judgment or in the congregation of the righteous.

      Our text serves as a conclusion to the Psalm and states the reason for what was said in the first five verses.  It tells us why the righteous are like a tree and why the wicked are likened to chaff.

      From a spiritual point of view the way of man is the way he himself chooses to walk according to the dictates of his own heart.  It is also the way that God determines and regulates and on which He leads man according to His sovereign good pleasure.

      The child of God is righteous in two different senses.  He is righteous by faith, which means that he has not earned his righteousness but has been declared righteous by God.  He is also righteous by the Spirit of Christ, which results in a walk of righteousness that is really a walk in the way of sanctification.  His walk is in harmony with his righteousness.  It is the latter sense that has the emphasis in our text.  The righteous delights to do God’s will and commandments.  It is his will and desire to meditate on that way.  That way is externally determined by the law of God and internally by the choice of a regenerated and sanctified heart.

      Similarly, the way of the ungodly is internally determined by his own life’s choice.  An ungodly man is free only to do evil, a way in which he meditates and delights.  From within he is bound, so that the only thing that he can do is sin.  Externally he follows the will of the prince of darkness.  As a result, in the counsel of the ungodly he plans and plots ungodly things.  If you look for him, you will find him in the way of sinners and in the seat of the scorners.

      Thus, the two ways are quite different.  The one is hard and dark; the other is smooth and straight.  This is the experience both of the righteous and of the ungodly as God determines and directs their ways.

      However, according to some, the ways are very much alike.  They will agree that the end of each is different, but they insist that the ways themselves are alike, in that both the righteous and the ungodly are the objects of God’s good favor and grace.  We have heard of this before under the guise of what is called common grace. 

      In no sense of the word are the two ways alike, for from the external point of view the ungodly prosper while the righteous have trouble and suffering.  This is everyday experience as well as the testimony of God’s Word.  In Psalm 92:7 we read, “When the wicked spring as grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.”  And Christ in Matthew 5:11 declares, “Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you.”

      Everyday experience bears this out.  Generally speaking, from the viewpoint of temporal prosperity the wealth and goods of this world are not in the hands of the righteous, but in the hands of the ungodly.  The same is true with respect to might, power, name, position, and honor.  Furthermore, one does not find that the righteous persecute and subjugate the wicked. No, it is just the other way around.  It is the righteous that suffer and are oppressed.

      This situation exists exactly because the ungodly have all these things through their ungodliness, while the righteous are oppressed and must suffer precisely because of their righteousness.

      Contemplating this, a question begins to form in our minds:  must we measure the reality of the respective ways and judge those ways according to that which is external?  If we answer in the affirmative, then the next question that comes to mind is, must we measure God’s favor according to these external things?  If we also here answer in the affirmative, then we really have a situation that is worse than common grace.  Then the prosperity of the wicked is a revelation of the favor of God and the suffering of the righteous a revelation of God’s wrath.  That, of course, cannot be.  So what is the attitude of God toward the righteous and the ungodly?

      Very plainly the psalmist declares that the way of the ungodly perishes.  He does not say that the end of the ungodly is destruction, although that is true in itself.  Nor does he say that the way of the ungodly ends in or leads to destruction, although this also is true.  What he says is that the way itself perishes; it is a way of destruction.

      Three elements are implied here.  First, without a doubt the everlasting end of that ungodly man on that way is everlasting destruction.  Already from this point of view the ungodly is not to be envied because of his way.  It is much better to enjoy everlasting salvation with brief suffering of this time than everlasting destruction and pleasures for a brief time.  Secondly, it must be seen that the way leads to that destruction.  It certainly is not true that the way has nothing to do with the end.  That way leads to everlasting destruction for that is its direction. And thirdly, that way works destruction.  Hear the apostle Peter in II Peter 2:1 as he speaks of false prophets and teachers:  “and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

      The text under consideration brings this out by way of contrast: “the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous.”  In this way one enjoys God’s love.  God despises and hates the other way, the way of ungodliness.  The ungodly are not the objects of His favor, but of His wrath.  That is why the ungodly are never truly happy, for they experience the curse of God in their way.  The reason for all the unrest in the world is that the peace of God is not in the ungodly.  Everything that the wicked receive, no matter how good it may seem, must not be confused with blessings, but be understood rather to be a means to their destruction.  They become fat with sin and, thus, ripe for destruction.  God’s dispensation over the wicked is as expressed in Psalm 92:9, “For, lo, thine enemies, O Lord, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered.”

      How gloriously different it is for the righteous, the child of God.  God knows the way of the righteous. It would appear otherwise sometimes, but God knows that way from eternity.  This knowledge of God is a knowledge of love.  From eternity God has ingrafted the righteous in Christ.  From eternity He knows their life and their way.  Truly they are the workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which He has before prepared that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).   God delights in that way because it is the way of the righteous.

      This too is the experience of the child of God.  God knows the destination of that way because He has prepared for His people glory.  Through all the difficulties of life God is preparing us that we might be made like unto the image of His Son.  Therefore, He knows the way with all its experiences, for He has determined it, willed it, and prepared it.  It is a deep way, but this deep way is necessary in order that we may obtain the higher glory.  God knows the exact place in glory that each of His people shall occupy.  Not all receive the same reward; and the crown is different for each one.  And God knows the exact way that is necessary for us to attain that glory.  He does not make any errors.  He is not sidetracked by anything that is unexpected. 

      All in all, we may confess that the way of suffering is the necessary way for God’s people in general and for each individual member of the body of Jesus Christ.  That very way, with all its experiences, He knows with His favor.  The Lord our God is longsuffering to usward.  All of our suffering and adversity do not arise out of wrath.  No, God takes no pleasure in seeing His people suffer.  All that we experience arises out of the love of God.  As a father chastises his child in love to correct the child so that he walks in the fear of God, so our Father in love chastens us.  “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Heb. 12:6).

      Now we begin to see the blessedness of the way of the righteous.  It is blessed with a view to the end.  It is the way that does not perish.  When the righteous stand at death’s door they know that they shall pass through to the new, redeemed creation.

      It is blessed with a view to the way.  It is the right way, the way that leads to everlasting glory.

      And finally, it is blessed with a view to God’s favor.  It is the way that leads to the pleasures that are at God’s right hand.  That means also that we enjoy God’s favor on the way.  Therefore, we, as God’s people, should not envy the way of the ungodly, nor stand and walk in it.  Rather, let us walk by faith in the way of the righteous, which leads to glory.

Editorials:

Prof. David Engelsma 

Covenantal Universalism:

New Form of an Old Attack on Sovereign Grace (3)

     Many of the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches are nourishing in their bosom an open, frontal attack on the gospel of salvation by sovereign grace. 

      Seminary professors, ministers, and ruling elders publicly reject every one of the doctrines of grace, beginning with justification by faith alone.  They deny that these doctrines hold in the sphere of the covenant of grace. 

      Big names in the conservative Reformed realm plug their books.  Powerful colleagues protect and defend them at the assemblies, if ever a layman screws up his courage and protests the heresy.  Prominent seminaries pay their salaries. 

      Other ministers and elders remain prudently silent—prudently silent in the face of one of the gravest threats to the Reformed faith since Dordt.

Source of the Attack

      The source of the contemporary attack on the gospel of sovereign grace in the Reformed churches is a certain doctrine of the covenant.  The teaching that rejects the doctrines of grace, beginning with justification by faith alone, is covenant doctrine.  It advertises itself as covenant doctrine.  It grounds its rejection of sovereign grace in a definite covenant conception.  This is the power of its influence within the Reformed churches.  This is why the Reformed churches stand helpless before the onslaught, or welcome it, as the case may be.  God knows.

      The doctrine of the covenant spawning the denial of the doctrines of grace holds that God extends His covenant grace (which is His saving grace in Christ) to all who are in the sphere of the covenant.  God is gracious to every baptized child of godly parents.  God is gracious to every adult who professes faith and is baptized.  Such is the grace of God to all in the sphere of the covenant that He elects them all with the election of Ephesians 1:4 and II Thessalonians 2:13; Christ died for them all; all are savingly united to Christ; and all enjoy the blessings of the covenant of grace. 

      Universal grace in the sphere of the covenant!

      Covenantal universalism!

      All are objects of grace, but all are not finally, everlastingly saved, for this covenant of universal grace is conditional.  It depends for its continuance, for the continued enjoyment of its blessings, and for its accomplishment of final and everlasting salvation upon the faith and obedience of the member of the covenant.  Faith and obedience are conditions of the covenant.  Therefore, according to covenantal universalism, many lose their justification, lose their election, lose their atonement, lose their union with Christ, and lose their salvation.  They perish eternally.  They failed to fulfill the conditions. 

      The universal grace of the covenant is resistible.

      By implication, the reason why others, similarly united to Christ at baptism, do endure to the end and are saved everlastingly is that they did fulfill the conditions.  The reason cannot be the grace of the covenant, for the grace of the covenant is given to all alike.  In covenantal universalism, not the covenant grace of God, but the obedience of the sinner is decisive.  The work of the sinner in fulfilling conditions gives the grace of the covenant its power to save.

      This lethal assault on sovereign grace by the men of the “federal [covenant] vision,” as they like to describe their movement, has its killing power from the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

      Covenantal universalism is a new form of an older attack on sovereign grace.  Covenantal universalism develops the older doctrine of a conditional covenant.  It is especially the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”) that have taught the conditional covenant.  Their theologians were K. Schilder, B. Holwerda, and C. Veenhof.  They have influenced many Reformed and Presbyterian churches and theologians.  They were the main influence on Norman Shepherd.

      Admittedly, the doctrine of a conditional covenant is popular in Reformed circles.

      In the April 15 issue of the Standard Bearer, I described covenantal universalism.  I demonstrated its rejection of all the doctrines of grace in the sphere of the covenant.  The editorial in the May 15 issue showed that the teaching of covenantal universalism now troubling many Reformed churches bases itself on, and develops, the older doctrine of the covenant taught by the “liberated” Reformed Churches.

Reexamination of Covenant Doctrine

      The contemporary controversy over justification by faith alone, as well as all the other doctrines of grace, requires that Reformed and Presbyterian churches reexamine their doctrine of the covenant.

      The churches will not be able to resist covenantal universalism’s attack on sovereign grace without condemning the erroneous covenant doctrine from which this attack naturally arises.  The root of covenantal universalism’s attack on the doctrines of grace is the doctrine of a conditional covenant. 

      By the doctrine of a conditional covenant, I do not refer to the teaching that faith is the necessary instrument, or means, by which the elect sinner receives the covenant and its blessings, particularly justification.  Some orthodox theologians, including Francis Turretin, spoke of faith as the “condition” of the covenant, meaning only that faith is the necessary instrument of covenant salvation.  Turretin was at pains to spell this out:  “Faith has the relation of a condition in this covenant … as it is the means and instrument of our union with Christ” (Institutes, vol. 2, p. 187; emphasis added).

      Nor do I refer to the teaching that in the covenant faith and obedience are required of the member of the covenant.  Some otherwise sound men have called faith and obedience “conditions,” unwisely and inaccurately, when they meant nothing more, or other, than that faith and obedience are demanded by God and are the way of covenant life and salvation.  By “conditions,” they meant covenant duties.  As Turretin observed, this was an “improper” use of the term “condition” (Institutes, vol. 2, p. 189).  

      But the doctrine of a conditional covenant that is at the root of the current attack on the doctrines of grace teaches that a universal covenant grace of God—grace extended more widely than only to the elect in Christ—is conditioned—really conditioned as regards its saving efficacy—by the works of sinful men. 

      This is not a matter of terminology, not even a matter of improper, dangerous terminology.  This is heresy.  This is denial of the gospel of salvation by sovereign grace, in the sphere of the covenant.  The saving grace of God, which God bestows upon all, saves no one by virtue of its own inherent power.  Grace in the covenant depends for its saving of any upon the faith and obedience of the sinner. 

      This covenant doctrine does not differ essentially from the teaching that faith and obedience merit salvation.  A condition of the covenant upon which universal grace depends for its saving efficacy is, in fact, what Turretin called an “impulsive cause to obtain the benefits of the covenant.”  Turretin lumped condition in the sense of “impulsive cause” with condition in the sense of “meritorious cause” and condemned them both.

If the condition [of the covenant] is taken … for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned.  It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will (eudokia) of God and upon no merit of man.  Nor can the right to life be founded upon any action of ours, but on the righteousness of Christ alone (Institutes, vol. 2, p. 185).

      From this conditional doctrine of the covenant proceeds the denial of all the doctrines of grace.  Those who love, and are determined to defend, the gospel of sovereign grace must repudiate this doctrine of the covenant.

Particular Covenant Grace

      There is one, and only one, doctrine of the covenant that magnifies and safeguards the sovereign grace of God in His work of salvation in the sphere of the covenant.  This is the teaching that the grace of God in the sphere of the covenant, as everywhere else, is particular.  God’s gracious covenant and covenant grace are for the elect alone. 

      Covenantal particularism!

      But the gospel of particular grace is offensive. It is offensive, not only to the ungodly world and to all the churches whose gospel is that of man’s willing and running, but also today to many who profess the Reformed faith.  The ungodly world hates the message that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and the only way of salvation.  The non-Reformed churches insist that God must love all, that Christ must have died for all, and that all must at least have an equal chance at salvation.  And now professing Reformed churches oppose particular grace in the sphere of the covenant.

      Nevertheless, as B. B. Warfield observed in his The Plan of Salvation, particularism has always been the hallmark of Calvinism.

      Why should this particularism be lost in the sphere of the covenant?

      Established with the elect alone, the gracious covenant, with its grace and blessings, is unconditional.  It does not depend for its maintenance, continuance, or fulfillment upon the faith and works of the member of the covenant.  Christ merited the covenant, the blessings of the covenant, and salvation in the covenant, for every member of the covenant.  Christ also merited faith and its works for the members of the covenant.  And Christ in His person and work on behalf of the covenant is a gracious gift of God. 

      The covenant depends only upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ.  The covenant is unconditional.

      To be sure, the bond of faith is the means of union with Christ and personal incorporation into the covenant.  Certainly, faith is the necessary means of the covenant blessing of justification, as well as of the other blessings of the covenant.  Emphatically, faith and obedience on our part are demands of the covenant; God calls us to believe and obey, giving us what He calls for.  Beyond all doubt, covenant life is mutuality.  God loves us and gives Himself to us in Jesus Christ; we love God, who first loved us, and devote ourselves to Him in a holy life.  The covenant does, indeed, contain two parts.  God’s part is that He saves us, including the sanctifying work of the Spirit within us that enables and empowers us to do our part.  Our part is obedience and service.

      But faith and obedience are not conditions of the covenant.  The faith and obedience of the member of the covenant are not the basis of the covenant.  They are not the reason why the covenant is continued with someone.  They are not the ground of the blessings of the covenant, especially justification, or of final salvation in the covenant. 

      Nor are the faith and obedience of the members of the covenant works that make a universal covenant grace effectual unto salvation for some, whereas that covenant grace is not effectual in the case of others, who all share it alike.

“With Whom was the Covenant of Grace Made?”

      Reformed churches and people, struggling with covenantal universalism’s denial of sovereign grace in the sphere of the covenant, must seriously consider the doctrine of an unconditional covenant of particular grace.  This is the doctrine confessed by the Protestant Reformed Churches.

      The covenant of grace is no agreement, or contract, or bargain, dependent on conditions to be fulfilled by the two bargaining parties, God and every sinner who hears the gospel, or who is born to believing parents.  Nor is the covenant a conditional promise of God to all who are baptized.

      The covenant is the living, spiritual relationship of love and fellowship between the triune God and His chosen people in Christ.  In this relationship, God is our God and saves us, and we are His people and serve Him by His grace.  Genesis 17:7, Revelation 21:3, and many other passages define the covenant as fellowship in a phrase that amounts to the “covenant formula”:  “I will be your God, and you will be my people.”  This is confirmed by the two great earthly symbols of the covenant:  the father/child relation and marriage (Ex. 4:22, 23; Eph. 5:22-33).

      God has established His covenant with Christ as head of the covenant of grace.  This is the teaching of Romans 5:12-21.   The passage compares Adam and Christ as two federal (covenant) heads.  Adam was head of the covenant of creation before the fall, so that his act of disobedience rendered all whom he represented guilty.  Similarly, Christ is head of the covenant of grace, so that His obedience constituted all whom He represents righteous.

      Since God has established His covenant with Christ, He establishes it with all those humans, but only those humans, who are Christ’s by eternal, sovereign, gracious election.  This is the teaching of Galatians 3:16, 29.   God established the covenant by promise with Abraham’s “seed.”  This “seed … is Christ.”  Those people, therefore, who are “heirs according to the promise,” that is, objects and heirs of the covenant promise, are those, and those only, who are “Christ’s.” 

      That God has established His covenant with Christ, as head of the covenant, and with the elect in Him is explicit, official doctrine for all Presbyterians subscribing the Westminster Standards.  Question 31 of the Larger Catechism asks:  “With whom was the covenant of grace made?”  The answer is:  “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.” 

      This binds all Presbyterians to a rejection of covenantal universalism and to a defense of covenantal particularism. 

      The Canons of Dordt likewise teach that Christ is head of the covenant of grace, so that the gracious covenant is made with the elect only and the grace of the covenant is bestowed upon the elect only.  The Canons teach Christ’s headship of the covenant in II/8, where Christ’s death for the elect alone is presented as His confirmation of the new covenant with the elect:  “Christ by the blood of the cross … confirmed the new covenant.”  In articles 2-5 of the rejection of errors section of the second head, the Canons condemn as Arminian heresy the notion that Christ’s death merely enabled God to establish a conditional covenant with all.  The conditions of the universal covenant of Arminianism, we note, are “faith … and the obedience of faith,” just as is the teaching of the advocates of covenantal universalism today (Canons, II, Rejection of Errors/4).

Children of the Promise

      As regards the children of believers, the promise of God to be the God of our children refers to the elect children, not all the physical children without exception.  This is the teaching of the Holy Spirit in Romans 9:6ff.   The fact that many of Abraham’s offspring perished in unbelief does not prove that the word of God’s promise took “none effect.”  For the word of promise referred only to some of Abraham’s physical offspring, those who are “the children of the promise.”  And that which distinguished them, and set them apart, is God’s eternal election.  “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

      With the elect children of godly parents, God establishes the covenant personally in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, usually early in childhood.  Them, He unites to Christ.  To them, He gives the blessings that are theirs in Christ their head.  In them, He works faith and obedience.  So far is it from being true that faith and obedience are covenant conditions that, in fact, they are covenant gifts.  “This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel … I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts” (Jer. 31:33).

      The other children receive the sign of the covenant, hear the promise of the covenant; receive covenant instruction; and are commanded by God Himself to believe and obey.  When they, like Esau, despise the covenant and leave the covenant community, they very really transgress the covenant and apostatize from Christ.  This is the charge against them of Hebrews 10:29:   “[They tread] under foot the Son of God, and [count] the blood of the covenant, wherewith [they were] sanctified, an unholy thing.”  But they never were Christ’s.  They never were united to Christ by a true faith.  They never were “children of the promise.”  They always were “children of the flesh”—wholly and exclusively “children of the flesh.” 

      Romans 9:6ff. clearly teaches that “they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:  but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”  Only some of Abraham’s physical children were counted for the covenant seed.  Only some of our children are counted for the seed.

Covenantal Apostasy

      When some children of believers, or some who joined the church as adults, reject Christ and forsake the church, the word of God in I John 2:19 applies:  “They went out from us, but they were not of us.”  They were certainly “of us” in their former profession, in their outward behavior, in their membership in the visible, instituted church, and even in their blood.  But they were not “of us” as regards union with Christ, spiritual life, true faith, and membership in the “general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” (Heb. 12:23).

      The preachers of covenantal universalism love to appeal to Hebrews 10:19ff. in support of their terrifying, God-dishonoring doctrine that baptized children and others who were truly united to Christ and once possessed the saving benefits of the covenant can fall away into perdition.  But also this passage distinguishes two kinds of church members.  Some apostatize, to be sure.  This is the warning of verse 29, quoted above. 

      But there are other members who abide in Christ, continue in the faith, persevere in holiness, and remain in the church.  These members “are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (v. 39).  The faithful are not “of them,” that is, of those who fall away.  Rather, the faithful are “of them that believe.”  The implication is that those who fall away, regardless that they were baptized and outwardly resembled the believers, never were among those who believed. 

      Hebrews 10:29 and the similar passage in Hebrews 6 describe the apostates according to their outward position as members of the visible church and covenant community, according to their earlier profession, and according to their real guilt.  It does not describe those who fall away according to a work of grace in their hearts uniting them to Christ.

      One can contemptuously trample underfoot the Son of God, even though he was never united to Him.  One can profane the blood of Christ, even though the blood of Christ was never shed for him, or sprinkled upon his soul.  One can despise the Spirit of grace, even though he never personally was the object of grace, or received it.  One can break the covenant of God, even though that covenant was never established with him individually by promise and by the Spirit’s uniting him to Jesus Christ.

      One can commit all this horrendous iniquity by coming into close contact with  Christ and the covenant in the gospel and the sacraments, and refusing to believe.  This is the extreme wickedness of the carnal seed—the “children of the flesh”—in the sphere of the covenant. 

“Israel” / “of Israel”

      According to the doctrine of the unconditional covenant, the membership of the visible church, the members of the covenant community, and the physical children of godly parents are distinguished and differentiated by eternal, sovereign predestination, election and reprobation.  This is the teaching of Romans 9.   This chapter is not mainly about predestination, even though it is the classic passage on predestination in the Bible.  Rather, it is the explanation of the covenant problem, specifically the Old Testament covenant problem.  The problem was this:  How could so many children of Abraham perish in unbelief and disobedience in view of Jehovah’s covenant promise to Abraham, “I will be the God of your seed”?  Indeed, in view of this promise how could even one child of Abraham perish?

      The explanation is that there was a twofold seed of Abraham:  “children of the flesh” and “children of the promise.”  God counted only the children of the promise for the seed of Abraham in His covenant promise.  And that which accounts for the children of the promise is God’s eternal, sovereign, gracious election:  “the purpose of God according to election.”

      Not all the physical children alike of godly parents are in covenant relation with God, whether by gracious promise or by a work of grace in their hearts that unites them to Christ.  Some are merely in the sphere of the covenant.

      Against this distinction between being in the covenant and being in the sphere of the covenant, the theologians of covenantal universalism object, just as the “liberated” Reformed objected before them.  In reality, their objection is against Paul and the Holy Spirit, for the apostle makes exactly this distinction in Romans 9:6:   “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”  Some physical children of Abraham were “Israel.”  They were elect in Christ, redeemed, objects of the promise, united to Christ by the Holy Spirit, and covenant friends of God.

      The others were merely “of Israel.”  They were part of the manifestation of Israel in history.  In every possible physical, earthly way they were related to Israel.  They were flesh-and-blood offspring of Israel.  Formally, they lived the life of Israel, at least for a while.  But they were not Israel.  They never were Israel.  They were not elect, redeemed, objects of the promise, united to Christ, and covenant friends of God.  And the reason they were not Israel was not that they failed to fulfill the conditions, whereas Israel did fulfill the conditions.  If that were the case, covenant salvation would have been by works.  But the reason was God’s reprobation of them, whereas He elected Israel.

      Israel/of Israel!

      The sovereign God makes the same distinction between two kinds of physical children of godly parents today.

      Covenant/sphere of the covenant!

      There is only one alternative to this explanation of the covenant problem.  That is the teaching that the gracious promise comes to all alike conditionally, but some fail to fulfill the conditions.  In this case, the word of promise is of none effect in many.  Or, to put it in the language preferred by covenantal universalism, all alike are conditionally united to Christ, but some fail to perform the conditions, and fall away.  In this case, covenant grace is resistible in many. 

      This is the denial of sovereign grace—in the sphere of the covenant. 

      Then, as regards His saving work in the sphere of the covenant, it cannot be said of God, “Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things:  to whom be glory forever” (Rom. 11:36).   Rather, we must say, “Of him and of those who fulfill the conditions; through him and through those who fulfill the conditions; and to him and to those who fulfill the conditions, are all things, in the sphere of the covenant:  to him and to those who fulfill the conditions be the glory of covenant salvation forever.”

      As covenantal universalism robs God of His glory in the covenant, so it strips every member of the covenant of assurance.  All alike are united to Christ, and all alike can fall away into perdition.  So I must live, according to this God-dishonoring, soul-destroying covenant theology:  “I am united to Christ by faith today; I may fall away to hell tomorrow.” 

      In the conditional covenant, the prevailing mood is terror.

      The unconditional covenant of particular grace has a different message.  To every one united to Christ by faith—every one who believes the gospel from the heart—it promises, unconditionally, that He who has begun the good work in him will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).

      In the unconditional covenant of grace—particular grace—we have assurance. 

2004 Synod of the PRC

The annual synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) meets outside the Grand Rapids, MI area only infrequently.  This year, it does.  Synod convenes at the Hull PRC, Hull, IA on June 8, God willing.  The last time synod met away from the Grand Rapids area was 1995.  Then also, synod met in Hull.

      The agenda is comparatively light.  There is no examination of a graduating senior of the Protestant Reformed Seminary.  There is no weighty appeal or overture regarding doctrine.  The twenty delegates—ten ministers and ten elders—from the two classes will take care of what is for the most part the routine business of the churches in common.  Synod will hear and act on reports from its committees, as well as the reports of church councils involved in synodical work, reports of missionaries, and the report of the stated clerk.  Synod will also treat materials brought by the two classes.

      A member of the PRC overtures synod to rescind a previous synodical decision regarding the administration of the sacraments and pronouncement of the benediction on the mission field (Art. 27, Synod 2001).

      A committee on Bible translations of the Free Reformed Churches of North America addresses synod concerning the interest of the PRC in cooperating with other confessional Reformed churches in a “low-grade revision” of the King James Version of Holy Scripture.

      Synod is informed of the acceptance of a new congregation into the PRC, the Wingham PRC, Wingham, Ontario, Canada.  The congregation was formerly part of the Orthodox Christian Reformed denomination. 

      Two individuals appeal their discipline.

      The Yearbook Committee reports that the PRC continued its steady growth over the past year.  The denomination now numbers more than seven thousand members.

      The pre-synodical worship service will be conducted by the Hull Council the evening before synod convenes, Monday, June 7.  Rev. Ron VanOverloop, president of the previous synod, will lead the service and preach.

      May Christ, the king of the church, guide the churches in the way of righteousness and peace at their synodical assembly.

Letters

Bible Versions

    The contribution, “In Favor of the ‘Vernacular’” (Standard Bearer, April 1, 2004), has raised an issue which is in need of further investigation.  The Greek text of the New Testament was written in the common language of the day.  A good translation ought to exhibit the same simplicity which it had for the original readers.  The KJV is a wonderful piece of English literature, but it is not written in the common tongue.  We should not place unnecessary stumbling blocks for those who wish to learn the doctrines of Scripture.  One of the PR distinctives has been the ability of our ministers to explain profound doctrinal truths in simple language.  There is no reason why our Bible translation should not do the same.  It is God’s Word which must bring us to our knees.  If we are brought to our knees by Elizabethan English, we are not showing reverence to God’s Word, but to Elizabethan English.  Some of the language in the KJV means the opposite today of what it meant when it was written.  The NKJV uses the same Greek text as the KJV, and is both clearer and sometimes more accurate.  In many passages the NASV is both more literal and easier to understand than the KJV is.  The Greek manuscripts used must be considered; however, no doctrine is missing from these manuscripts.  Much of our literature equates the Textus Receptus with the Byzantine/Majority text.  However, these are two different, though related things.  In many cases there is a minority reading found in the KJV, in a small number of cases there is no manuscript support at all.  We must be willing to evaluate the various translations honestly and choose the one which is the clearest and most accurate and not merely seek to defend a particular translation against all others.  There is nothing scriptural or confessional which tells us to use a particular translation.  It is not a battle of good versus evil, but of good versus better.  We should be honest and willing to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the various translations in brotherly love.

Chuck Wiese
Grand Rapids, MI  

KJV, Still the Best

        I read with interest the contribution “In Favor of the Vernacular” (Standard Bearer, April 1, 2004).  I believe that the King James Version (KJV) has served our churches well, and to suggest that we ought to replace it is dangerous and potentially divisive.

      The brother’s comparison between the usage of the Romish Church at the time of the Reformation and our usage today in our churches falls to mush under closer examination.

      What is it to have a Bible translation using “vernacular language”?  According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, “vernacular” means “using the native language of a country or place; commonly spoken by the people of a particular country or place.”  The KJV uses English, the language of the United States, and hence is most certainly a “vernacular” (though not dum­mified) translation.  To compare our usage of the KJV with the Latin usage of Rome at the time of the Reformation is absurd!  Latin was not the native language of most of the areas and hence the Latin Bible was not in the “vernacular.”  Most of the clergy, let alone the laity, could not read, much less understand, Latin.

      The constant drumbeat about the “archaic” language of the KJV is exaggerated and overblown.  It is true that in a small number of cases it is useful to refer to a modern conservative translation such as the NASV or NKJV to clarify obscure readings.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is whether clarity and readability in all cases is more important than a proven and theologically sound version, which the KJV is.

      Modern, so-called vernacular translations often gut the Word of God of important theological terms such as “propitiation,” “justification,” and the like.  What is the advantage of the modern vernacular translation over the KJV when the modern translations cloak in obscurity whole doctrines?  For instance, many modern translations, including the NKJV and NASV, consistently replace “seed” with “descendants,” thereby obscuring an entire doctrine!  The modern vernacular translations, almost without exception, exchange the reverent use of “thee” and “thou” when referring to God with the irreverent “you” and “yours.”

      Also, one need only consult “A textual key to the New Testament” to see how much of the New Testament has been altered or altogether omitted by the modern vernacular translations.  While in some instances these changes are probably better, the overall pattern is disturbing, to say the least.

      A lesson from our past history would be useful here.  Rev. Hoeksema was open to adopting different renderings than the KJV at points.  He openly would admit those few times when the KJV does not convey the right meaning of the text.  And Rev. Hoeksema ministered when the old, and now discarded, ASV was all the rage in our mother church.  And yet, for all of that, he retained the KJV and never, to the best of my knowledge, suggested that our churches should replace the KJV.  He was wise enough to know that the “cure” was worse than the “disease.”  We should be instructed by his example at the present hour.  The KJV is still the best.

Mark Brooks
Sauk Village, Illinois

A Faithful Translation

        In response to the contribution “In Favor of the ‘Vernacular,’” in the April 1, 2004 Standard Bearer, one wonders about the validity of the arguments for the use of the vernacular language in the Bible.  The contribution maintains that this should not only be used in the mission fields but in our churches as well.

      Mr. VanderWoude offers the comparison between the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation and the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) today.  He states, “The sad irony is that our dogmatic use of old-fashioned English is more Romish than Reformed.”  He asks the PRC rather to “fully embrace the implication of its Reformed heritage.”

      However, a closer look at the motives of languages used by the different churches would show no similarities at all.  The Latin used in the Roman masses was a secret language meant to keep the laymen of the church in the dark.  It offered no spiritual nourishment for the people who sat under its preaching because the common people did not understand a word of Latin.  The papal seat used this language so that they could conveniently twist the Word of God to support their own doctrines.  They maintained the belief that the people were intellectually inferior and that the Holy Spirit was incapable of penetrating the hearts of believers through the preached word of the gospel.  I find it difficult to believe that this definition of “Romish” could really be applied to any of our ministers or churches today.

      Can the implications of our Reformed heritage really be found in such matters as vernacular language?  Or is this matter simply a by-product that ignores the true issue at hand?  Vernacular language is hardly an implication or issue that Luther, Calvin, and others were compelled to confront.  The issue was Rome’s denial that Christ had chosen the foolishness of the preaching to gather His people as it is stated in I Corinthians 1:21 and Romans 10:14.   They could not abide Rome’s insistence to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people.  They wanted the Bible in a language that the people could understand.  This remains true today as we use a translation that is in a language that people can understand.

      The catalyst of the Reformation was an unwavering desire for the truth of God’s Word, uncorrupted by the poison of Rome.  Certainly the KJV is not in the vernacular of the people today but it is a faithful translation not tainted by man’s philosophies or opinions.  Luther and the Reformers would have praised the KJV for its faithfulness to the original manuscripts.  They would have been willing to sacrifice the vernacular for the sake of the best translation.

      These are the true implications of our Reformed heritage:  salvation is of God alone and nothing can bring it about by the “power” of man.  This is a comforting truth that the salvation of others is not dependent on our strengths.  We may try to make our services more community friendly as we “seek souls.”  We may think to use simple translations that are written in the plainest of terms.  But in the end all our efforts are in vain unless God gives the increase.  We are only called to worship Christ as He requires of us in John 4:24:   “God is a Spirit:  and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”  He made no demands on His disciples to make this truth more beautiful.  He did not ask them to bring the word in a cunning manner.  He did not tell the disciples to add to or detract from His words.  He told them rather “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations … teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19, 20).

      Without the Spirit we cannot understand any text of Scripture, whatever the language or vernacular it may be.  It is only the Spirit that will cause a person to understand the Bible.  You may use the plainest of terms, draw detailed pictures, and explain the gospel five times over to the most brilliant man.  But unless God has chosen this man as His own, there are no words in this earth or out of it that will make him believe.  It is the Spirit only that will do this.  As Paul says in I Corinthians 2:9, 10, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.”  Also, in Romans 8:15, “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father.”

      And when God causes a person to believe, He will open His eyes to the truth of His Word.  For that believer there will be no barrier in earth or below that will separate him from the revelation of the gospel.  For we are promised that “The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind” (Ps. 146:8).   God will cause us to see the salvation of Christ.  This is God’s promise to those who worship Him in spirit and in truth.

      The accusation of not fully embracing the implications of our Reformed heritage is a harsh accusation.  Years of faithful pursuit of the truth as well as the struggles of 1924 and 1953 might prove otherwise.  Yet it is a question we must ask ourselves.  Have we not truly embraced our Reformed heritage?  Search the Scriptures whether these things be so and you will find this heritage in the words of Paul in I Corinthians 2:9, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”  Look for the church that preaches the gospel of Christ crucified in all its purity and wonder, and you will have found a church that has embraced all the implications of its Reformed heritage.

Trisha Haak
Allendale, MI  

Best Criticism of the Error

    I have just read your editorial, “Covenantal Universalism:  New Form of an Old Attack on Sovereign Grace” (Standard  Bearer, April 15, 2004).  It is, to the best of my recollection, the best brief statement and criticism of this error I have ever seen anywhere.  You have done a great service.  I hope this editorial receives wide circulation.  I plan to commend it to many.  Thanks for your continued contributions in defense of the Reformed faith.

(Dr.) Carl W. Bogue
Akron, Ohio

The Reader Asks:

     A few comments before my question.  As I was growing up, my parents always emphasized to us children the importance of church membership.  This included membership in the church with the three marks of a faithful church as described by Article 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession.  My father, who served many years as elder in the church, reminded us not a few times that when the elders had their meetings with those who desired to leave the denomination, these individuals were warned that leaving was sin.  If they persisted in their request, they were sent a certificate of dismissal from the Protestant Reformed Churches.

      Now my questions.  What is the significance of the certificate of dismissal?  Does not the seriousness of this action warrant such a certificate? 

Bill Oomkes

RESPONSE:

      A certificate of dismissal is an official document signed by a consistory that testifies that an individual (or family) has been a member of a congregation until the date given — the point being, that the said individual is a member no longer.  (For the form, cf. The Church Order Book of the Protestant Reformed Churches, p. 125.)  The consistory sends this to an individual who insists on leaving the congregation and the denomination.  (It is not sent to a member who wishes to join another congregation within the denomination, or a sister church; his membership is transferred.)  If the individual is under discipline at the time of his departure, that fact is noted on the certificate.

      At first reading, the certificate might not indicate its grave implications.  The significance of the certificate of dismissal is that the individual is not a member of the church of Christ as instituted on this earth.  Few circumstances in a man’s life could be more serious.  The Belgic Confession correctly expresses the Reformed believer’s confession (Art. 28) — “We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person, of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it….”  And it concludes “Therefore all those who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.”

      Sometimes a certificate of dismissal is sent to those who desire to join another (non-sister) denomination.  It is obvious that the circumstances of the individuals and the reasons for leaving vary widely.  Some leave in obvious rebellion against the rule of Christ as exercised through the elders.  Some seek a more entertaining worship service or non-offensive preaching.  Still others leave reluctantly because of some family situation, including marriage.  In all these situations, the consistory gives the warning and instruction appropriate to the individual and the situation.  Nonetheless, it bears emphasizing that a serious warning must be given.

      Let there be no misunderstanding on this.  The Protestant Reformed Churches have never taken it upon themselves to judge whether one church or another is a “true church of Jesus Christ.”  Nor do we embrace the Belgic Confession’s strong statements because we think the Protestant Reformed Churches are the only true church.  Yet the Belgic Confession makes it clear that a member may not leave his congregation without solid (which is to say, biblical) grounds.  Schooling, jobs, family, marriage, convenience, or “just don’t like the minister” are not justification for changing churches.  Only if the member is convinced that his church is no longer faithful in its calling, and that another church is faithful, may he rightfully change membership.  In fact, if he cannot convince his own church of its errors, obedience to Christ demands that he change his membership to the faithful church.

      The standard for judging a church’s faithfulness is the Bible.  The Belgic Confession sets forth the three biblically prescribed marks of the faithful church in Article 29.  “The marks by which the true church is known are these:  if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin….”  These are the marks of the true church because Jesus specifically commanded His church as institute to preach, administer the sacraments, and exercise Christian discipline (cf. Matt. 28:19, 20; I Cor. 11:23-26; Matt. 18:17, 18).   And the reason why Christ so charged His church is that preaching, sacraments, and Christian discipline are the means of grace that He gave the church on earth.  By these means, Christ gathers, defends, and preserves His church.  One who wrongfully separates himself from a faithful church rejects the care and instruction of Christ Himself.

      Does the seriousness of such an action warrant sending a certificate of dismissal?  Truly, it does.  And there is another consideration, equally significant.

      The preaching is clearly the chief mark, even as it is the chief means of grace.  Whether or not the preaching is “the pure doctrine of the gospel” (as the Belgic Confession puts it) must be judged by every believer on the basis of the Bible.  The Reformed believer is aided immeasurably in this evaluation by the confessions.  The preaching must set forth the truth, the whole counsel of God, in all its glory.  Preaching that is faithful to the Bible reveals God in the face of the crucified and risen Lord.  Thus, one sins grievously who leaves the preaching of the pure gospel and is willing to sit under preaching defiled with error, for he despises the truth of God.  This has dreadful consequences for his own soul, as well as for his succeeding generations.

      No wonder then that when a member of a faithful church “requests his papers” for illegitimate reasons, the consistory works long and hard to show him that it is a sin to leave.  If he persists in his demand, the consistory has no option but to acquiesce and send the certificate of dismissal.  However, when this fact is announced, the congregation ought to know that the elders have diligently labored to draw the individual back from this sin, and that it is with grief that they sent him this official dismissal from the congregation.

— Editorial Committee  

A Word Fitly Spoken:

Rev. Dale Kuiper

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

(A)Shame(d)

        The various Hebrew and Greek nouns t