What will this blog do, and what will it not do?
What this blog will not do is give a full history of the controversy. I disqualified myself from writing that history. I did that by behaving myself wickedly when the controversy first arose. Instead of reading the documents and trying to understand the issues, I made foolish, spiritually immature, and just plain wretched judgments.
I swallowed the narrative, hook, line, sinker.
A debate at Hope Church about doctrine? Easy: Neil & Connie Meyer are wrong, and Hope is right. I also threw in some slander about the Meyers for good measure.
I still shudder to think of it.
Neil & Connie have forgiven me for what I did. They were as gracious as I was ungracious. God has forgiven me those sins. He has blotted out my sins for his own sake (Isa. 43:25).
But I cannot forget how quickly I was willing to slander and heap scorn on a fellow saint. I tell you, I hate the thought of what I did. I could weep to think about it. I murdered fellow saints and strengthened the hands of the evildoers, and I did it without a second thought. I was the simple man according to Proverbs 14:15. It does not make me doubt my salvation because I look to someone else for that, but I know what “scarcely” means in 1 Peter 4:17.
What this blog will do is talk about current events.
Events in which I was engaged.
It will speak in favor of an action that has to this point only been publicly condemned. It will defend that action.
This blog will reveal documents that have heretofore not been revealed.
(It will use words like heretofore because words are like tasty morsels, and some are tastier than others. And what bold wordsmith had the audacity to take three words and cram them together into one word?)
This blog will not convince some, maybe even most.
For many, the PRC and the words “true church” are synonymous and will be until the day Christ returns, and no evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. No other church has lasted 100 years without apostatizing, but the PRC is different. It just is.
This blog will not reach, or try to reach, those who are not reading about the controversy.
They may read this blog post, but it will not mean anything to them. They unsubscribed from Sword & Shield, have only read the Standard Bearer sparingly, and have not come anywhere near the agendas or minutes from ecclesiastical assemblies.
Those people will die from lack of knowledge. Simply being in the orb of a church won’t save them. They will die. And the ironic thing is that although they give their kids every earthly delight, their children will die too. God promises in Hosea 4:6 that that will happen to them: “because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…I will also forget thy children.”
The formula is simple: If you don’t read, you can’t have knowledge. You may have a very good golf game, your vacations may be the envy of all around, your business will thrive so it is worth millions and millions of dollars, and you will have friends galore, but you will die. And your children will die. You rejected knowledge.
So this blog will not reach very many, and of those it reaches, it will not convince most.
Sounds like a failure waiting to happen.
But our calling is not to be successful. Our calling is to be faithful.
So, by the grace of God, I will blow the trumpet (Jer. 6:1).
The disposing thereof is of the Lord.
6 thoughts on “A Strait Betwixt Two – Introduction (2)”
I have read through the content of your blog. Again, I thank you for taking the time to write.
I have a question for you Mr Engelsma if you permit.
Did you believe the PRCA to be the one true church on earth and the denomination that all believers should have sought to join?
Any comment would be appreciated.
Greetings Mr Engelsma. I have subscribed to your blog and will endeavour to read the content you post. I may desire to ask a question or leave a comment if you permit.
I understand that you may not have time to respond to each.
Thank you for creating such in order to facilitate public discussion around the recent events in the PRCA.
Greetings Earl. I appreciate your comment. What else would you point to as a roots from the 60s that have become manifest in rotten fruit?
I will be reading your blog with great interest. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I too grieve terribly when fellow saints are slandered. I believe this happens when we fail to see the Spirit of Christ in our fellow saint…as those who are born of God, 1 John5:1. We (too easily, and sinfully) become respectors of persons, rather than dig into the truth a matter or of the material before us. We have seen this happen, haven’t we? The seriousness of it all is, not only that we hurt eachother (that’s bad enough), but that we grieve the Holy Spirit who dwells in them and Who unites us together into Christ. It is especially grievous to God when his people are slandered for truth’s sake. If this happens over and over, unrepentantly, the Holy Spirit will remove himself from us, won’t he?
Thank you for your blog, I am looking forward to it. I also hope that someone will lay out the history of our present controversy. I am reminded of Rev. Hoeksema’s statement about our previous present controversy when he said “it did not come as a thunderclap out of a clear blue sky”. I believe our present controversy has its roots going back to the 1960s. One of those roots was a new interpretation of Art. 31 of the church order which change allowed for the deposition of a faithful minister.
Thank you for setting up this blog. Take courage in the Lord. Be assured there will be those thrilled in the fact that the Lord is pleased to reveal things to His people waking them up from their slumber. His Promises are sure!
Comments are closed.