As to the Schools (Epilogue)

(This post was written by Mike Vermeer)

One thing I wrote in the last series, as an attachment to the first blog, may have caught your eye. In my letter to the school board—as well as in several other private letters that I sent around the early spring of 2021—I wrote the statement, “I judge no person for their decision to stay within the PRC or to leave it.”

Depending on who (and where) you are, you may have taken this statement differently.

If you remain in the PRC, you may read that statement and allow it to work as a balm on your conscience. You see “many problems” in the PRC. You may even agree that there is false doctrine being taught in the PRC. You may claim to be fighting against these errors in the PRC and experiencing trouble for all your efforts. For you, you read that statement as an affirmation that because I don’t judge you, that you do not need to fear judgment.

If you are in a position where you are leaving or have recently left the PRC, you may have found yourself using a similar expression. You know there is error in the PRC, and Christ has pulled you out of the fire, delivering you from that false doctrine that displaces Christ. For you, this expression is a bit of an olive branch. We think, “well, what if they just don’t see it? We need to give them more time and let them think about it a little more. We cannot judge them because they will stop seeking the truth.”

Let me explain my statement so that there can be no confusion. This is its meaning: I am not only carnal but also an unjust judge.

You ought not to seek my judgment or give any weight to it. You ought not even seek the judgment of a man who is accounted to be wise. You ought to only seek and give any weight to the judgment of God. When I judged, I did so according to my own wisdom and what would make my life here on this earth easier. As was explained in the series, I did everything possible to remain in the PR schools. A part of this was refusing to judge rightly and deliberately adding this statement as a balm on those who remained in a church that Christ had left. A part of this was also a desire to salvage relationships by glossing over the truth.

If you pressed me at that time, I might have defended the statement by saying that I cannot judge the eternal destiny of any person. That is true. That is a matter that remains with each individual and God. I do not judge the eternal destiny of any person. Only God knows.

However, not only is God the judge of all the earth, but he also calls us to judge—not the heart, but the actions and confession of men. When Christ was accosted by the rulers for healing on the Sabbath, he gave them and the people the calling to “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Likewise, the Spirit calls us to judge one another even as we will judge the ungodly and angels (I Corinthians 6:1-6).

When I claimed to judge no person for their decision to stay or to leave, I was judging according to the flesh, and according to appearance. It was in no way aligned with the judgment of God. God has shown that the truth of the Gospel is not and cannot be in the PRC.

Regardless of whether I judge you for staying within or leaving the PRC, you ought to seek true and righteous judgment. The truth is that God is judging the PRC and will judge those that remain in it. The truth is that all the emphasis on “a balanced gospel” and “but you really must do good works” is crowding out the gospel of Christ so that the gospel cannot remain in the PRC. The gospel is a gift. It is not a matter of your intelligence or ability to understand. And when Christ is kicked out of the PRC, his gospel cannot remain in it. The truth is that if the gospel has left a church, the kingdom of Man has replaced it. And the destruction will be terrible.

Do not let my unjust judgment be a balm on your refusal to seek the Kingdom of God.

Flee.

13 thoughts on “As to the Schools (Epilogue)

    1. Hi Tom,
      I can point to several things in my life that showed me beyond a doubt that the truth in the PRC was dying.

      My first realization of it was when I noticed that we were never called to repentance in the preaching – that was something I had struggled with for years, my documentation of having seen this goes back to 2018, but I came to realize it only gradually. Our minister would call those with egregious, external sins to repentance, but he would never make the whole congregation to see their ungodliness, and therefore would never call the entire congregation to repentance. If we are not being shown our exceeding sinfulness, does it even matter if Christ is brought? Why do we need Christ if we are not sinners?

      This was made even clearer when the miserable false doctrine that we are no longer totally depraved began to be taught in the open – that was when the blister burst and the teaching I described above began festering like an open wound. We tried to discuss with our pastor and elders, but there was no interest in discussing the truth – there were only terse, political responses but no serious interest in discussing the truth.

      Rev. Koole’s Witsius articles were the final, clearest point for me – not merely that he wrote them, but that they were defended by my church among others, when concerns were brought against them. Especially the 3rd installment to me was terrible, because that is where he emphasized more clearly than elsewhere that our motivation to do good works is what we get in this life. Koole’s response to me was antithetical to the truth I have always been taught – he mocked at the idea that our good works are filthy rags.

      In response to that series, I asked our elders to send out a warning to the congregation about that false doctrine. They had prior sent out a pathetic warning about the Sword and Shield which did not call out any false teachings in that magazine. Here was real, living, false doctrine in the PRC. But even after my request, Peace PRC expressly refused to take up the pen and warn their congregation against that false teaching as was their duty.

      This also gives the lie to Rev. Koole’s apology. If he truly was sorry for teaching the wickedness that he taught, he would have scoured the PRC for those that defended him, and work to undo their errors in defending him. I will note two examples I know personally: the Peace PRC consistory and Rev. Engelsma, then in Doon.

      Although I saw these errors while in the PRC, I still did not know the gospel. It was not until sitting under the gospel for many months that I was able to really understand the gospel and internalize it. We grieve for you who remain in the PRC. It does not matter how knowledgeable you are – the devils also know the truth, and tremble. You do not – and cannot – have the gospel in the PRC, because the gospel in the PRC has been displaced by the law. Having been brought back under the law, you are sitting under the preaching of death. And it is in the process of killing you and your children.

      1. Mike,

        Claiming as your foremost realization which showed to you beyond a doubt that “the truth was dying in the PRC,” you write, “we were never called to repentance in the preaching.”

        By your own admission, however, some were indeed called to repentance by your former PR minister. Egregious sinners.

        You write: “Our minister would call those with egregious, external sins to repentance, but he would never make the whole congregation to see their ungodliness, and therefore would never call the entire congregation to repentance.”

        Evidently, you distinguish between the “we” (yourself included), who you say “were never called to repentance,” as opposed to those guilty of egregious sins whom your former PR minister called to repentance.

        So that when your former PR minister called to repentance those guilty of egregious sins, you concluded that “we were never called to repentance.” Apparently you concluded the “we” (yourself included) to be exempt when your former PR minister called egregious sinners to repentance.

        Please explain how exactly it was possible that your former PR minister, when calling egregious sinners to repentance, did so to the exclusion of the “we” (yourself included), the “whole” or “entire” congregation, to the effect that you concluded “we were never called to repentance.”

        You also write: “Although I saw these errors while in the PRC, I still did not know the gospel. It was not until sitting under the gospel for many months that I was able to really understand the gospel and internalize it.”

        Please explain how it is possible that, concerning the truth of the gospel, you were able to discern errors of your former PR minister, and render judgement upon the PR denomination that “the truth was dying in the PRC,” prior to your knowledge and understanding of the truth of gospel.

        Then too, since the crucial and foremost realization for you that “the truth was dying in the PRC,” was that, “we were never called to repentance,” would you explain why you left the PR denomination, wherein your former PR minister called egregious sinners to repentance, and joined yourself to a denomination whose doctrine of repentance renders the call to repentance meaningless and unnecessary?

        Would you explain how that, while embracing such doctrine, you now accuse and condemn your former PR minister of never calling his “entire” congregation to repentance even in spite of your own admission that he called egregious sinners to repentance, yet concerning which call you concluded the “we” to be exempt?

  1. mike thanks for replying now looking at that the reply are you studying to be a minister or you should think about it from you reply. that you have knowledge of your truth and in your eyes the only truth. then when you become a minister you can call your pew people to repent all you want .then if they dont like it they can leave and say things about your preaching and what the elders said to them like what you said about ministers and elders you should repent of this they are GOD ordained men you may reply put this all i have say yours in Christ tom

    1. Thank you for replying, Tom.

      What I wrote above is the truth. I am open if you cared to show me which part of the truth you believe I ought to repent of; there are many ways to contact me – no reply here is needed.

      In our churches, we follow the truth and not men, be they God-ordained or not. Notably, I have the right to speak the truth without being ordained, which I also saw was foreign to the PRC (as a side note, this makes bible studies in the RPC an polar opposite of those I experienced in the PRC). When these God-ordained men will not speak the truth, we conclude that God has ordained them as a curse on the churches. This is why I encourage all in the PRC to hasty and unprepared flight, for your lives and those of your children.

      “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.” Matthew 24:15-18

  2. Dear Randy,
    I appreciate the opportunity to go into more depth on this topic. Your questions are cleverly devised; they show that you are well adapted to the use of language to make your point.

    Your first question is that I “explain how exactly it was possible that your former PR minister, when calling egregious sinners to repentance, did so to the exclusion of the ‘we’ (yourself included), the ‘whole’ or ‘entire’ congregation, to the effect that you concluded ‘we were never called to repentance’.”
    The word “egregious” means “outstandingly bad, shocking”. With this definition, the answer is in the same sense as Romans 2: “Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” (v22) and “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh” (v28). The purpose of the law is to show us the righteousness of God and compare ourselves against that standard. When external sinful behavior is exposed and condemned but all hearers are not shown that they also stand condemned, the preacher creates a division between those who externally break a law and those who do not externally break that law. God himself does not make that difference: under the law, all stand condemned.
    As I explained, this became explicit with the new teaching that made us “no longer totally depraved”. With this teaching, instead of making us nothing by showing us the depth of our sin, we were exhorted that as regenerated, now we can do better.

    Your second question is that I “explain how it is possible that, concerning the truth of the gospel, you were able to discern errors of your former PR minister, and render judgement upon the PR denomination that ‘the truth was dying in the PRC,’ prior to your knowledge and understanding of the truth of gospel.”
    I affirm that I did not understand the gospel, and that I now hear it. That did not mean that I was ignorant of the truth. Even if I were ignorant, I knew that our preaching was empty, leaving me without comfort or hope as I walked out each Sunday; I struggled silently for years trying to understand why. I also knew, as I wrote to the SB editors in the Spring of 2021, that our good works are as filthy rags. Finally, I knew that it was not right to bring our good works to judgment day, as I was told that I must do, when I questioned a sermon at Peace PRC which taught us that we are not totally depraved.
    I knew these things, but many others also knew that there were errors which have not been corrected in the PRC. Why do others who acknowledge error and false teaching in the PRC not leave, and why did I leave? I cannot explain that. I only attribute it to the grace of God, pulling me out of the fire.

    Your third question is that I “explain why you left the PR denomination, wherein your former PR minister called egregious sinners to repentance, and joined yourself to a denomination whose doctrine of repentance renders the call to repentance meaningless and unnecessary?”
    By your question, I think you are referring to the oft-repeated claim that it is meaningless to call a child of God to repentance, if it is not our repentance that brings our forgiveness. If this sounds like a contradiction, then you may have left the Holy Spirit out of your theology.
    I ask you – what is the repentance that you are after? External behavior, or from the heart?
    If repentance of the heart is what you seek, then which happens first? External behavior or the repentant heart?
    If the repentant heart happens first, what creates that repentant heart? The Spirit of God or the will of man?
    To ask these questions should be to answer them. When the gospel of repentance comes to those who are made nothing in themselves, that gospel meets the Spirit of Christ that dwells in those hearts, making them abhor themselves and cling to Christ. And by the mysterious work of this Spirit “man is himself rightly said to believe and repent”.
    In contrast, the theology that you must repent in order to experience forgiveness neglects the work of the Spirit who dwells in the believer, and points the hearer away from God, and towards themselves.
    Or instead, if it is easier for you, you may pretend that the solution to your proposed contradiction is that I am irrational.

    You are indeed clever in your use of language, and seem to be quite capable in molding it to achieve your ends. If this were instead in the pursuit of the truth, I might call it logic. In this case, sophistry appears to be a better description. I recommend you follow Rev. Heys’ direction, and spend more time studying math.
    “We must think logically and apply the divinely established rule to these numbers. It requires careful thinking. It is a step by step application of the truth. Each step must be accurate or the product is wrong. Not along the way of intuition, nor of imagination but along the way of truth—directed thinking—will we arrive at the correct conclusion. And the teacher can emphasize that we must likewise follow God’s thoughts as they are revealed to us in the Bible, and only when we proceed according to the truth (His Truth) will we arrive at the right conclusions about this life and its problems. Our arithmetic book has ‘problems’. Life also has its problems. They must be solved as far as they can by Faith and in the way of Truth.” J.A. Heys, ‘ TRAINING FOR LIFE’S CALLING: Training In The Arithmetic Class’ SB Vol 25 Issue 13, 1949

    Earnestly,
    Mike

    1. Mike,

      Thanks for your reply.

      I was quite surprised, given my straightforward and transparent questions, that at the outset of your response, and then again at the conclusion, you go about to discredit my questions, as well my intentions and pursuits.

      To your credit though, it’s certainly much easier to offer a critique rather than to provide direct answers to pointed questions.

      Be that as it may, after reading your response, wherein direct answers are fleeting due to your response being primarily focused on offering me instruction and recommendations, I did manage to find some answers.

      As regards your answer to my first question, you maintain your position.

      This is your position:
      Despite your former PR minister having called to repentance those guilty of egregious, external sins, you were never called to repentance due to the fact that you were not among those guilty of egregious external sin. The result was that you were left comfortless and struggling.

      Because:

      “Our minister…would never make the whole congregation to see their ungodliness, and therefore he would never call the entire congregation to repentance.”

      The word “never” means “at no time in the past, on no occasion, not ever.”

      Your readers have two options: take you at your word; or discover for themselves by listening to a variety of sermons preached by your former PR minister throughout the time period of which you claim to have documentation.

      I recommend the latter.

      Unmistakably characteristic of one who does not know the gospel, and therefore is ignorant of the truth, is to lay blame on others.

      Which brings us to your answer to my second question, in which answer you now change your story.

      Previously you wrote: “Although I saw these errors in the PRC, I still did not know the gospel.”

      Now you write: “I affirm that I did not understand the gospel, and that now I hear it. That did not mean I was ignorant of the truth.”

      Please explain how you reconcile your two statements: “I still did not know the gospel,” and, “That did not mean I was ignorant of the truth.”

      Certainly, if one does not know the gospel, that one is ignorant of the truth.

      Can one who does not know the gospel, and thus is ignorant of the truth, discern errors of a minister of the gospel or judge the truth to be dying in a denomination?

      Ludicrous!

      Repentance.
      A sincere sorrow of heart over sin.

      You write: “I can point to several things in my life that showed me beyond a doubt that the truth in the PRC was dying.”
      “My first realization of it was when I noticed that we were never called to repentance in the preaching – that was something I had struggled with for years.”

      “Why do we need Christ if we are not sinners?”

      “I knew that our preaching was empty, leaving me without comfort or hope as I walked out each Sunday; I struggled silently for years trying to understand why.”

      So you left the PRC and joined the RPC.

      Now you write: “…the theology that you must repent in order to experience forgiveness neglects the work of the Spirit who dwells in the believer, and points the hearer away from God, and towards themselves.”

      Interesting.

      Condemning your former PR minister for not calling you to abhor yourself, which left you comfortless and struggling, while simultaneously condemning as false doctrine the theology that one must abhor himself in order to experience forgiveness, because such theology neglects the work of the Spirit, pointing one away from God, and towards himself.

      1. Thanks for responding Randy,

        By calling your questions clever and you well adapted in the use of language, I was expressing at the outset that you were a worthy opponent. I was taking your questions seriously, and wanted to express that before I pursued directly answering them. In your response, you continue to cleverly weave your web around me.

        You touch on something that was most difficult for me as I struggled in the PRC. I listened carefully in the preaching and heard many true things being taught; they lined up well with the various points of doctrine, and creeds were often quoted. if true things were being taught, then why do I leave the service empty? At essence, my question turned into: what does it mean to be fed in the preaching? Is the gospel merely to teach true things? Or is the gospel different?

        I had no answer to these questions while I remained in the PRC. My advice to all is that if you are questioning what it means to be fed in the preaching, you are likely being robbed of the gospel. What I learned only after leaving is that presenting true things – for example, that we are totally depraved – does not necessarily mean that the gospel is presented in the preaching. Many a vague but true statement is spoken from PR pulpits. However, when that true thing – for example, total depravity – is denied, the gospel cannot possibly be present.

        I trembled at your suggestion that we cannot condemn the statement, “one must abhor himself in order to experience forgiveness”. At what point do you abhor yourself enough? Do we have to abhor ourselves perfectly in order to have perfect assurance of forgiveness? And if we are in a season where we do not have the experience of forgiveness, what must we do to abhor ourselves more? Perhaps we take the scourge to ourselves as the Romish monks of old? Jezebel’s prophets of the cruel god Baal come to mind, but not my God. I curse that terrible doctrine, and cry to all who sit under preaching that tolerates those who teach of this doctrine that it enslaves them, and will give to them no peace until it kills them.

        You may know many true things. But especially these your last comments show you are also ignorant of the Gospel, as I once was. It is my earnest prayer to God that He deliver His elect who remain in the captivity of that doctrine. He is, and He will.

        Mike

  3. “BUT THEY FORGOT THE LORD their God. And He sold them into the hand of Sisera, commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the the king of Moab. And they fought against them. And THEY CRIED OUT TO THE LORD and said, ‘WE HAVE SINNED, because we have FORSAKEN the LORD and have served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. BUT NOW DELIVER US out of the hand of our enemies, THAT WE MAY SERVE YOU. And the LORD sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety. And when you saw that Nahash the king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ when the LORD your God was your king …. And Samuel said to the people, “DO NOT BE AFRAID; YOU HAVE DONE ALL THIS EVIL. Yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart. And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. FOR THE LORD WILL NOT FORSAKE HIS PEOPLE, FOR HIS GREAT NAME’S SAKE, BECAUSE IT PLEASED THE LORD TO MAKE YOU A PEOPLE FOR HIMSELF. Moreover, as for me, FAR BE IT FROM ME THAT I SHOULD SIN AGAINST THE LORD BY CEASING TO PRAY FOR YOU, and I will instruct you in the good and the right way. Only fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart. FOR CONSIDER WHAT GREAT THINGS HE HAS DONE FOR YOU.” 1 Samuel 12: 9-12, 20-24

    For those who are IN CHRIST … blessings for obedience, judgment for disobedience.

    Sin against a holy God and needs someone to go between and mediate. That is JESUS.

    We break FELLOWSHIP with God when we sin and turn away from God, but not RELATIONSHIP. IN CHRIST we have a secure position.

    “Come and hear, all you who fear God, and I will tell what he has done for my soul. I cried to him with my mouth, and high praise was on my tongue. If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the LORD would not have listened. But truly God has listened; he has attended to the voice of my prayer. Blessed be God, because he has not rejected my prayer or removed His STEADFAST love from me!” Psalm 66:16-20

    But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may PROCLAIM THE EXCELLENCIES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS AND INTO HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” 1 Peter 2: 9-10

    Praise be to God! “Come and hear, all you who fear God, and I will tell you what He has done for my soul … I cried to Him … and high praise was on my tongue … truly God has listened and attended the voice of my prayer … he has not rejected my prayer or removed His steadfast love from me!”

    1. Mike,

      Thanks for your reply.

      Regarding your doctrine, which has become increasingly exposed through your communication with me, your recent reply gives still more clarity.

      Previously you wrote: “When the gospel of repentance comes to those who are made nothing in themselves that gospel meets the Spirit of Christ that dwells in those hearts, making them abhor themselves and cling to Christ.”

      You now write: “I trembled at your suggestion that we cannot condemn the statement, one must abhor himself in order to experience forgiveness.”
      “I curse that terrible doctrine…”

      You curse that doctrine because, you say:
      “the theology that you must repent in order to experience forgiveness neglects the work of the Spirit who dwells in the believer, and points the hearer away from God, and towards themselves.”

      What then?

      Does the (effectual) testimony of the Spirit of Christ in the hearts and minds of God’s elect, to abhor themselves and cling to Christ, point the hearer away from God, and towards themselves?

      When you write: I curse that terrible doctrine; you curse the testimony of the Spirit of Christ in the heart and conscience of God’s elect, Who testifies: abhor yourself, and cling to Christ.

      “I abhor myself!
      That is the language of self condemnation…Such language is foreign to natural man…
      Have you noticed one thing in Job’s condemnatory speech of self? It is this: it is the speech of truth in the inward parts. God agrees with Job. The light of God’s attractive, lovely, beautiful glory shows us our rottenness. And the love of God in our heart is true in its evaluation of self. He that condemneth himself shall not be judged. He was found of God’s mercy.” –Gerrit Vos, Standard Bearer, Vol 38, Issue 2, 10/15/1959

      “Ahh!” you tauntingly inquire: “But how much? perfectly? more? scourgings?”

      “And the measure of his repentance is expressed in the addition of a twofold picture: dust and ashes. That was an Eastern term, and expressed the imagery of death. You cannot grow anything in dust and ashes. Yes, the picture is complete: we belong in the dust of death. What beautiful humility!”
      (GV-Source same as above)

      You see, one who abhors himself never asks these questions about which you inquire. Rather, these are questions indicative of one who must abhor himself: “You cannot grow anything in dust and ashes.”

      “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
      (Job 42:6)

      “Faith is wrought in our hearts by the Spirit of Christ. It is a gift of grace. And by that spiritual power of faith we first of all know our sins, are sorry for them before God, confess them in dust and ashes, and so do day by day. Without this spiritual experience of sorrow over sin, one cannot possibly lay hold upon the mercy of forgiveness. And secondly, by that same faith we look upon the cross and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and the ground of our righteousness.”
      Herman Hoeksema, The Forgiveness of Sins, Reformed Witness Hour, November 13, 1955

      You publicly curse that doctrine. You curse that doctrine as the doctrine of Rome, Jezebel and the idol god Baal.

      I have a request.

      The next time you feel compelled to publicly curse that doctrine: that one must abhor themselves in order to experience forgiveness; first tell it to Nineveh, to David and Solomon, to Peter, to the malefactor hanging next to Jesus on the cross.

      And if that is not sufficient to deter you from cursing that doctrine; tell it to the Spirit. Tell the Spirit you do not have to abhor yourself, repenting in dust and ashes, in order to experience forgiveness.

      Oh no! It’s no doctrine that enslaves and kills.

      On the contrary! It makes alive! It gives life and freedom!

      “You see, when we pour out our heart to Him and tell Him how sorry we are for our sins, He comes to us and shows us the Redeemer, who died for all our sins. And he dries the tears of the heart.” –Gerrit Vos, Standard Bearer, Vol 40, Issue 1, 10/1/1963

      “Hence, if we would enjoy the blessing of the forgiveness of sins, we must surely repent daily in dust and ashes, and must surely lay hold by faith upon the atoning blood and upon the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.” –Herman Hoeksema, The Forgiveness of Sins, Reformed Witness Hour, November 13, 1955

      One last thing.

      Judging me (as you have publicly done), to be ignorant of the gospel; you must also, necessarily, judge the ministers quoted above to have been ignorant of the gospel.

      Randy

  4. Randy makes some excellent points. To expand on his last one, it is noteworthy that the leaders of the RPC claim that the PRC has been apostatizing for decades by putting an activity of man before an activity of God. Their latest accounts say this was happening as early as 1967. However, there is a significant problem with this claim. Many of the ministers who faithfully fought for the truth in 1953 were still alive and active in these years. Men like G. Vos, H. Veldman, C. Hanko, J. Heys, M. Schipper, H.C. Hoeksema, and G. Lubbers lived several years or even decades after 1953 and would have witnessed the new apostasy that was supposedly taking place during this time. If anyone would have detected a new false doctrine and spoken out against it, it would have been these men. Yet, none of them said a word about it. Apparently we are to conclude from this, as Randy points out, that these old stalwarts were in fact ignorant of the gospel, or worse, that they were actually wicked, faithless men who tolerated the new lie if they did not actually speak it themselves. And if that be true, then the PRC has not had a faithful generation of ministers since the days of Hoeksema and Ophoff.

Leave a Reply