Soliciting Thoughts on PRCA Theologians (H. Hoeksema & D. Engelsma)

[py3ak]

In other words, he's wrong, but he writes well.

No, not at all. Herman Hoeksema does write well. There are specific points where I do think he is wrong (though not always the same specific points that others on the thread mention). Because of his idiosyncrasy, I don't think it's possible to assume that when he explains the Catechism he is giving the original meaning accurately at all times. But his takes are invigorating, worth pondering, and yield something of value even if one quibbles over historical accuracy. In a long series of sermons on a document as complex as Heidelberg, such acknowledgements of areas of disagreement are likely both trivial and inevitable. In terms of theological writing, I think he likely represents the best the PRCA has to offer, and that best is very good indeed.

Seems to me that the former would cancel out the latter.

Only in a two-dimensional world. Sir Thomas Browne gets certain things wrong, of course, but there's a lot of value to be gleaned from what he says and from the way in which he says it.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Just a question. Does supralapsarianism implies fatalism? I believe in it, but I need a good argument against the charge of fatalism.

Raymond (Afterthought) is right in his quote below

The execution of the decree is the same on both schemes, so men freely choose the destiny God assigned them on both schemes.

A rather long sentence by the Apostle Paul from Ephesians might help.

Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. ​

I think we can safely say that "before the foundation of the world" was, before the fall. Paul did not say that He chose us from among the ranks of fallen man. God, in eternity past, set out on a program similar to Abraham's providing a bride for his son Isaac. God is, was, and always will be interested primarily in a display of His glory. Much much more needs to be said.

That's all I have time for right now, but I am sure others could add to and improve my brief answer.

Ed

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

To say that we should completely ignore the PRCA writers is being ridiculously sectarian. Granted, sometimes they can be overly harsh and ridiculously sectarian themselves but two wrongs hardly make a right. That said, the bulk of our reading is better focused on works that have stood the test of time, which is not something that may be said for the writings of Herman Hoeksema et al. My advice is to read PRCA material occasionally and in small doses.

Their stuff is similar to the literature that the Reconstructionists put out back in the day in the sense that it is interesting, but a bit too quirky.[1] And if you spend too much time reading people with funny ideas (with the possible exception of great minds whom you have obvious differences with such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther), you may end up embracing those funny ideas yourself.

I have also noticed that most critics of the PRCA only (or perhaps mostly) tend to fault them on things that are intra-mural debates among confessional Reformed believers, rather than focusing on the more serious, anti-confessional errors that they espouse such as raising the covenant of grace to the ontological level and denying the covenant of works.

[1] I realise that their eschatology is the opposite of that espoused by the Reconstructionists, but that is not my point.

 

[Tom Hart]

Why do all these PRCA guys have Frisian names?

 

[ZackF]

To say that we should completely ignore the PRCA writers is being ridiculously sectarian. Granted, sometimes they can be overly harsh and ridiculously sectarian themselves but two wrongs hardly make a right. That said, the bulk of our reading is better focused on works that have stood the test of time, which is not something that may be said for the writings of Herman Hoeksema et al. .

<snark>Since Hoeksema died in '65 the test of time is almost impossible. Augustine, Aquinas and Luther died centuries ago. </snark>

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

<snark>Since Hoeksema died in '65 the test of time is almost impossible. Augustine, Aquinas and Luther died centuries ago. </snark>

Which is precisely my point.

 

[RJ Spencer]

Both the Supra and Infra claim Calvin... The lists of those that support each side are flawed, we have no idea where many of the reformers and puritans stood. R.C. was certain of the Supra position and he is still one of my favorite theologians, even though I am in the Infra camp.
(Seems like such a mute point.)

 

[yeutter]

Why do all these PRCA guys have Frisian names?

Most of the Protestant Reformed guys, that I know, are Groningeners not Frisians

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Also, from what I have heard from friends of mine in the denomination, the PRCA has no official position on the lapsarian question, though most of their ministers prefer supralapsarianism.

 

[alexandermsmith]

One could also do a lot better.

Can you, without doing a google search, name 3 of their active ministers? And perhaps some of the teachings you have found suspect, and who the proponents are?

For example, two of their more esteemed teachers are Ron Hanko and David Engelsma. What have they said that you have objected to?

Is this a pop quiz?

From what has been said in this thread regarding some of the distinctive beliefs of the PRC it would seem some of them, whilst not the majority views of the Reformed churches, are within orthodoxy. However there are a couple of beliefs which are troubling. I'm thinking particularly of their denial of the free offer and their views on the covenant (which I don't pretend to have a handle on but the few comments I've seen worry me). That is not to say that they are not godly people. But I would have to ask if it's wise to take the position: "why not read these people and just discard what one doesn't like? Iron sharpening iron." The distinctives of the PRC are not minor issues. It would seem doubtful that one could read much in their writers without encountering these ideas. Instead of looking at this issue from the perspective of one who is very informed in theology and able to spot the most minute permutations, we should look at it from the perspective of one who might quite easily be swayed by ideas not recognising that they are, at the very least, idiosyncratic. These issues have been engaged with in the past by very able men. If we wish to get a better understanding of our own tradition in contradistinction to others we should do so by reading men of our own tradition who engage with other ideas and can offer a strong rebuttal. That would be a safer approach than assuming we are best equipped to do so ourselves and to recommend such an approach to others.

That is not to say there is nothing profitable in the writers of PRC men but what is profitable is almost certainly found elsewhere and without the more problematic beliefs. Why not just read those sources? And this is also not to say the PRC are outwith the bounds of Reformed Christianity. But it is to say that how they interpret the creeds and confessions is not, in certain important instances, how the bulk of Reformed churches have interpreted them over the years and because of this we shouldn't be so quick to give blanket endorsements to those within our own traditions.

I think this is where Pergamum is coming from. I would agree.

 

[Taylor]

Regarding the supra- infra- debate (which is most definitely an inter-Confessional debate), I side with Dabney:

"In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have been raised."

—Robert Lewis Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 233.​

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'm thinking particularly of their denial of the free offer and their views on the covenant (which I don't pretend to have a handle on but the few comments I've seen worry me).

Their denial of the well-meant offer was also held by the Revd Hugh Cartwright, who was one of the ablest ministers in your own church (I once had the pleasure of spending an evening in his company). Although it must also be said that Mr Cartwright and others (such as our friend Matthew Winzer) expressed themselves much more judiciously on the subject than the PRCA men.

I would agree with the substance of the rest of your post. I have been to some of their meetings in Northern Ireland and have heard and met David Engelsma, however, their errors on federal theology are not minor and their denial of the covenant of works is one of the pillars on which the Federal Vision was built.

Conversely, had I not encountered the PRCA authors, I would probably not have embraced the Bostonian notion of the unconditional covenant of grace with the elect alone. Then again, it is better to read Thomas Boston on the subject, as you get the good bits of the PRCA view without the accompanying errors.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Following on from what Alexander has noted, we should be aware that, from a Reformed point of view, the PRCA's error on divorce and remarriage is a serious one. Our forebears would not have viewed it as a light matter - especially as the Hoeksemites accuse the Reformers and the Westminster Confession of sanctioning adultery. The National Covenant of Scotland (1638), moreover, condemns the Pope for "his cruelty against the innocent divorced." Hence, the Hoeksemite view is a significant departure from Reformed teaching on the subject.

 

[TylerRay]

Most of the Protestant Reformed guys, that I know, are Groningeners not Frisians

Funny--I thought they were Midwesterners for the most part.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

One other point about divorce: as I understand it, the PRCA judge those who have gotten remarried after a divorce to be unsaved, as adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. They believe that repentance for remarriage requires one to end the second marriage and live as a eunuch for Christ's sake.

According to the PRCA Synod of 1987, "One is free of the sin and guilt of adultery in this matter of an adulterous marriage, when: 1. He ceases to live (co-habitate) with his spouse in the adulterous marriage. 2. He confesses his sin of adultery before God and publically renounces his evil vows of marriage to a divorced person (Acts, p. 35)."

The PRCA does not view the issue as a minor one, and those of us on the other side of the debate may not do so either. It effectively accuses the Reformers and the Reformed confession of sanctioning adultery, which, in turn, raises the question of whether or not PRCA members regard the Reformers and later Reformed divines as true believers.

Given that we regard not only open homosexuals but those religious teachers that facilitate their evil as false prophets, surely, if logically consistent, the PRCA must view not only those who engage in such "adulterous marriages" but those who facilitate them as being unsaved. I do not believe that they are logically consistent on this point, but the question still stands.

 

[py3ak]

The PRCA does not view the issue as a minor one, and those of us on the other side of the debate may not do so either. It effectively accuses the Reformers and the Reformed confession of sanctioning adultery, which, in turn, raises the question of whether or not PRCA members regard the Reformers and later Reformed divines as true believers.

Not only that, but on our view they effectively require the remarried spouse to engage in the sin of abandonment.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Not only that, but on our view they effectively require the remarried spouse to engage in the sin of abandonment.

I had not thought about that point, but, yes, it is entirely correct.

 

[B.L.]

According to the PRCA Synod of 1987, "One is free of the sin and guilt of adultery in this matter of an adulterous marriage, when: 1. He ceases to live (co-habitate) with his spouse in the adulterous marriage. 2. He confesses his sin of adultery before God and publically renounces his evil vows of marriage to a divorced person (Acts, p. 35)."

Not only that, but on our view they effectively require the remarried spouse to engage in the sin of abandonment.

Coincidentally, I heard a tragic story yesterday of a man in his 40s who committed adultery with a young lady in her early 20s, got her pregnant, and then divorced his wife of 20+ years and left her and his children from that marriage to be with the young woman and her baby instead. The man apparently married the young woman and they continue to live in the same city as his first wife and kids.

In what way would the PRCA's views on marriage/divorce be in error in the handling of a situation like this? I ask this question honestly.

 

[alexandermsmith]

If I understand correctly the PRCA position on marriage is not to allow for divorce and remarriage under any circumstance, is that correct? Whereas the Westminster Confession would allow for divorce in the cases of adultery or abandonment and allow for the innocent party to remarry (but not the guilty party, I believe).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If I understand correctly the PRCA position on marriage is not to allow for divorce and remarriage under any circumstance, is that correct? Whereas the Westminster Confession would allow for divorce in the cases of adultery or abandonment and allow for the innocent party to remarry (but not the guilty party, I believe).

Yes, that is exactly correct. They view marriage as an unbreakable bond just like the covenant of grace. Whereas the Reformed view is that it is a covenant of duty.

 

[B.L.]

But I would have to ask if it's wise to take the position: "why not read these people and just discard what one doesn't like? Iron sharpening iron." The distinctives of the PRC are not minor issues. It would seem doubtful that one could read much in their writers without encountering these ideas....These issues have been engaged with in the past by very able men. If we wish to get a better understanding of our own tradition in contradistinction to others we should do so by reading men of our own tradition who engage with other ideas and can offer a strong rebuttal. That would be a safer approach than assuming we are best equipped to do so ourselves and to recommend such an approach to others.

I think this is where Pergamum is coming from. I would agree.

Thank you for your thoughtful post brother. In regards to the excerpts above, I would respectfully disagree a little bit with this advice. I see your point and can agree with the carefulness one must take when reading the views of others that are deemed to be in error, but how better to understand opposing views than by reading/listening directly to the pen/lips of those who hold them? Take infant baptism for example, if I lived in an echo chamber where I only consumed the works of those holding strongly to the credo position I would be missing out on the best arguments out there for the paedobaptist position. Yes, there are credos out there who engage with the best of paedo arguments, but I find those critiques most helpful after having read the opposing view for myself. I've got a shelf full of books on baptism and half are written by Presbyterians and/or Evangelical Anglicans. Perhaps my Baptist brothers would want to strap a rope around my waist and tie it to a large tree since so many have changed views by taking my approach, but I've profited a lot by venturing out of my fold to learn from others.

I never want to venture outside my little bubble without a map and compass, which is why I solicited thoughts on PRCA writers here. Folks here, to include yourself, have given me plenty of direction to help ensure I don't get lost.

Thanks all.

 

[Ed Walsh]

To All,

I added to my post that listed purported adherents to Supralapsarianism. It is part of a private exchange between me and @Alan D. Strange
Here's the link to the post - The EDIT is at the bottom of the page.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ans-h-hoeksema-d-engelsma.99863/#post-1219682

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Ron Hanko. This is a new name for me. Thank you. I read the earlier comment by Daniel that referenced Herman Hanko. Relatives, I presume?

Ronald Hanko is the son of Herman Hanko. The former was the pastor in Ballymena at one point.

 

[yeutter]

I have a number of Baptist friends that have a high regard for the PRCA. Most of these sovereign grace Baptists also think very highly of John Gill, and A. W. Pink.

 

[B.L.]

I have a number of Baptist friends that have a high regard for the PRCA.

Can you elaborate some on this? What do you think is the appeal for your Baptist friends?

 

[B.L.]

I listened to a couple lessons and sermons given by PRCA men noted on this thread and have been reading through some of the articles available on the PRCA website and what I've encountered has been really quite good. I write this in response to the sentiment "avoid them at all costs" that I read by some in this thread.

For those with direct first-hand knowledge of this denomination -- has anyone ever characterized some in the PRCA as "Dutch fundamentalists" or something of the like? I know the word "fundamentalist" comes with a host of baggage and I in no way use it in a pejorative sense, but one thing I noticed in what I've read and listened to is the tone is very passionate and communicated with power and conviction. The style reminds me quite a bit of some Free Presbyterian Church, Bible Presbyterians, and even some Fundamentalist Baptists that I've been exposed to. This may not be a helpful musing for the discussion here, but it's a rather unpolished first impression I had.

Have a joyful Lord's Day today everyone!

 

[yeutter]

Can you elaborate some on this? What do you think is the appeal for your Baptist friends?

One old Baptist pastor told me, words to the effect that, if you ignored their doctrine of the covenant their preaching was really good. They find that message that is at the heart of the text and preach Christ from that text. He especially appreciated Professor Homer Hoeksema on Isaiah, and Rev. Cornelius Hanko on First Peter

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

For those with direct first-hand knowledge of this denomination -- has anyone ever characterized some in the PRCA as "Dutch fundamentalists" or something of the like? I know the word "fundamentalist" comes with a host of baggage and I in no way use it in a pejorative sense, but one thing I noticed in what I've read and listened to is the tone is very passionate and communicated with power and conviction. The style reminds me quite a bit of some Free Presbyterian Church, Bible Presbyterians, and even some Fundamentalist Baptists that I've been exposed to. This may not be a helpful musing for the discussion here, but it's a rather unpolished first impression I had.

These observations are most interesting. On the one hand, the passion with which PRCA authors write means that they are more likely to attract people from fundamentalist denominations such as the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and the Plymouth Brethren than are the Bourgeois Reformed types, who tend to look on their fundamentalist brethren as unwashed Deplorables.

On the other hand, I doubt that anyone who is well-grounded in confessional Reformed theology is ever likely to join the PRCA owing to both their oddities and to their overly simplistic understanding of the Reformed faith. That point does not mean there is nothing that other Reformed people cannot learn from the PRCA and, despite my criticisms of their views, I do not believe that they should be completely shunned or despised as hyper-Calvinists.

 

[timfost]

Regarding the supra- infra- debate (which is most definitely an inter-Confessional debate), I side with Dabney:

"In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have been raised."

—Robert Lewis Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 233.​

It is worth noting, however, what directly proceeds this statement:

"Both schemes are illogical and contradictory to the true state of facts. But the Sublapsarian is far more Scriptural in its tendencies, and its general spirit far more honorable to God. The Supralapsarian, under a pretense of greater symmetry, is in reality the more illogical of the two, and misrepresents the divine character and the facts of Scripture in a repulsive manner. The view from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with reference to a finite mind. God’s decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God’s thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind."

 

[psycheives]

Over the weekend I stumbled upon the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) and in turn the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA) and I was curious to learn what folks think about the writings of Herman Hoeksema and David Engelsma. I read a little bit about the history of the denomination and was curious if there are any books that stand out as being worthy of shelf space in one's library. Thoughts?

I am a High Calvinist and I love both Hoeksema and Engelsma's work. It isn't always the easiest to understand for me (looking into the Dutch historical debates from the outside) but once I muddle through, their work really opens my eyes to some possible "solutions" to some of the major historical debates in Reformed history. Definitely something I would HIGHLY recommend.

I find the books on Federal Vision heresy SUPER interesting - PRCA claims to have had the solution (a unique Covenant Theology) for ages and even predicted Shepherd/FV would happen. Did you know that it's happened before many times over in the Dutch and Scottish Churches (MacLeod's Scottish Theology)? My understanding is that Scotland lost most of their churches to Arminianism creeping in through Covenant Theology and though they knew the solution was to tweeked their Covenant Theology again and again, they never were able to come up with the right formula of Covenant Theology. Based on history, it isn't clear any modern denom has ever come to any permanent "solution," so it is doubly interesting that the PRCA supposedly has already solved this problem via a unique Covenant Theology.

Also I find their work against the Free Offer of the Gospel (as defined by John Murray in the OPC report) very enlightening. This is also supposedly tied in to Arminianism. And this debate has also repeated from the Scottish Marrowmen and AndrewFuller/Fullerism/Spurgeon/Duty-Faith affirmers/so-called Arminians vs Gill/Banks/Duty-faith deniers/so-called-Hyper Calvinists. What is the solution to this debate? Read the PRCA view, since they are neither Fullerites nor Duty-Faith deniers but lie between.

I recommend:

Engelsma, "Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root."
Hoeksema, "Believer's And Their Seed"
Hoeksema, "The Triple Knowledge"
Hoeksema, "Reformed Dogmatics"
Engelsma, "Be Ye Holy: The Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification"