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

[B.L.]

Mr. Rafalsky,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my OP! I appreciate what you've written and will look into the books you referenced.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

@BLM

Some remarks on PRC doctrines. It is fairly well known that John Gerstner openly defended the PRC on the “well-meant offer”. Here is the data:

John Gerstner Against the Well-Meant Offer [and defending the PRC’s view]

-----

It is also known by those who have looked into the PRC’s theology – and particularly Herman Hoeksema and David J. Engelsma in their writings – they deny the “Covenant of Works” of standard Reformed theology. Cornelis Venema has remarked on John Murray (toward the end of his article) :

Venema on John Murray also denying the Covenant of Works:

http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_Criticisms_of_Cov_of_Works.htm

“What you find in Murray's treatment of the WCF's doctrine of the covenant of works, then, is not so much a repudiation of any of its essential teaching as a revision and refinement of some aspects of the WCF's formulation that he finds objectionable or misleading. Without denying the important sense in which Christ's mediatorial work involved an act of obedience as the second Adam, fulfilling Adam's original obligation of obedience, intensified and concentrated in the probationary command, Murray wants to accent the elements of grace in the "Adamic administration." 1 In Murray's judgment, the WCF's use of the common language of a "covenant of works" inadequately accounts for these aspects of the first covenant. Furthermore, the WCF does not clearly indicate to the extent that it might have that this first covenant or "Adamic administration" was a divinely initiated and sovereignly administered disposition of God toward his image-bearers.”

1 See Murray, Collected Works Vol 2, chapter “Adamic administration” pp 47ff​

-----

Some info, relatively brief, on the unique PRCA view of the Covenant:

The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers, Prof. David J. Engelsma
https://cprc.co.uk/pamphlets/covenantofgodandchildrenofbelievers/

-----

If anyone wants me to reference some of Hoeksema’s thoughts on his view of the covenant beginning in Eden as friendship and not works, let me know.

-----

Although I have learned much from David Engelsma’s writings with respect to Amillennialism, there is an aspect I do not see as correct, at least in Hoeksema’s and other PRCA men’s view. In a nutshell: at the very end of the age Rev. Barry Gritters pamphlet, The Antichrist, says that Armageddon will consist of this (note the highlighted sentence) :

“The religious Antichristian empire will be destroyed by the political Antichristian empire. For a time he uses the whore; in the end he turns on her (Rev 17:16). The political empire breaks up into the battle of Armageddon: the kingdom of the beast (the Western, ‘Christianized’ nations) against the kingdom of the east (the pagan, non-Christian nations). In the middle of that battle, Jesus Christ will return to destroy the Antichristian kingdom…” (p 23).​

I saw this also in Hoeksema’s book on Revelation, Behold He cometh (Gritters acknowledges his dependence on Hoeksema). I haven’t seen such in Engelsma (though I haven’t read all of him on the topic).

In contemporary amil understanding Armageddon consists of the unregenerate the world ‘round attacking, plundering, and killing the saints in all the churches – globally – in the midst of which the Lord returns to wreak His vengeance :

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” (Rev 20:7,8,9)​

I think Hoeksema (and Gritters) muddle this up.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The discussion on Hoeksema and Engelsma is continuing elsewhere on PB. @BLM, @psycheives, @Nate

 

[RamistThomist]

-----

Although I have learned much from David Engelsma’s writings with respect to Amillennialism, there is an aspect I do not see as correct, at least in Hoeksema’s and other PRCA men’s view. In a nutshell: at the very end of the age Rev. Barry Gritters pamphlet, The Antichrist, says that Armageddon will consist of this (note the highlighted sentence) :

“The religious Antichristian empire will be destroyed by the political Antichristian empire. For a time he uses the whore; in the end he turns on her (Rev 17:16). The political empire breaks up into the battle of Armageddon: the kingdom of the beast (the Western, ‘Christianized’ nations) against the kingdom of the east (the pagan, non-Christian nations). In the middle of that battle, Jesus Christ will return to destroy the Antichristian kingdom…” (p 23).​

I saw this also in Hoeksema’s book on Revelation, Behold He cometh (Gritters acknowledges his dependence on Hoeksema). I haven’t seen such in Engelsma (though I haven’t read all of him on the topic).

In contemporary amil understanding Armageddon consists of the unregenerate the world ‘round attacking, plundering, and killing the saints in all the churches – globally – in the midst of which the Lord returns to wreak His vengeance :

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” (Rev 20:7,8,9)​

I think Hoeksema (and Gritters) muddle this up.

That was very informative.

 

[Aco]

What is so bad about supralapsarianism? Is it heretical? Has it been denied by all Reformed Theologians or Confessions? You may not like the view or think it is Scriptual, but you stand pretty much alone in a blanket denunciation the works by supra. adherents.

List of Supralapsarians
Alphabetical by last name –

William Ames (1576-1633)
Louis Berkof desired to hold to both views (cf. Systematic Theology, pp.124-25).
Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) , Synod of Dort president
Thomas Bradwardine (1290 – 1349)
Johannes Braun (1628-1708)
Martin Bucer (1491 – 1551)
John Calvin (1509-1564)
Gordon Clark (1902-1985)
Isaac Chauncy (1632-1712)
Vincent Cheung
Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669)
Alexander Comrie (1706–1774)
Tobias Crisp (1600-1643)
Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649)
Andreas Essenius (1618-1677)
David Engelsma
Francis Gomarus (1563-1641)
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680)
Gottschalk of Orbais (808 – 867)
Gregory of Rimini (c. 1330-58)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
G.H. Kersten
John Knox (1505-1572)
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644)
Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563)
Mathias Nethenus (1618-1686)
William Perkins (1558-1602)
Arthur Walkington Pink ( 1886 – 1952)
Amandus Polanus (1561-1610)
Peter Ramus (1515-1572)
Robert Reymond (1932 – 2013) considered having a modified form
John W. Robbins (1949-2008)
Robert Rollock (1555-1598)
Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)
John Collett Ryland (1723 – 1792)
Daniel Tilenus (1563 – 1633)
Robert Traill (1642-1716)
Augustus M. Toplady (1740–1778)
Robert Traill (1642-1716)
Theodore Tronchin (1582-1687) Beza’s son-in-law
Benedict Turretin (1588-1631) Francis Turretin’s Dad
William Twisse, (1578-1646)
Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562)
Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)
Gerhardus Vos (1862-1949)
Antonius Walaeus (1573-1639)
William Whitaker (1548-1595)
Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)
Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

EDIT: I thought this exchange should be added to this post

My friend @Alan D. Strange wrote the following to me privately:


This was my answer:


Alan wrote back and gave me permission to post the above.

Ed

Could you give me the reference where Zwingli in his works taught supralapsarianism or something in accordance with it?
Thanks!

 

[Ed Walsh]

Could you give me the reference where Zwingli in his works taught supralapsarianism or something in accordance with it?

I just copied the link from monergism.
https://www.monergism.com/infralapsarianism-and-supralapsarianism

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello @BLM , here's another offering by David J. Engelsma I think is excellent, a pamphlet (though he writes on it elsewhere as well), The Gift of Assurance <http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Pamphlet_109.pdf>, rebutting what a number of the Puritans taught (including Dr M Lloyd-Jones), that assurance of salvation was generally exceeding difficult to attain, and was a "second blessing" of sorts for the more spiritually adept and fervent. DJE, to the contrary, says it is for all, a very part of justification by faith – and shows where Calvin maintained this also.

 

[Rom]

a very part of justification by faith

The link doesn't work, so apologies for requesting more information! I know language can be imprecise on a forum like this, so I'd like to understand what he means when you say he teaches assurance is "a very part of justification by faith". For instance, WCF 18.3 states:

III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain there unto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure;m that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.​

If "by very part of", he simply means that our justification gives us the grounds for what the Confession calls an "infallible assurance" (WCF 18.2), then that is good. But if it means that all who are justified receive this assurance and have it at all points, then that would be contrary to the Confession.

Just in case anyone is interested, the Confession's Scripture proofs for the clause up to the colon are:

1 John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. Isa. 1:10. Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. Mark 9:24. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. [See Psal. 88 throughout. Psal. 77 to the 12th Verse.]​

 

[B.L.]

Hello @BLM , here's another offering by David J. Engelsma I think is excellent, a pamphlet (though he writes on it elsewhere as well), The Gift of Assurance <http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Pamphlet_109.pdf>, rebutting what a number of the Puritans taught (including Dr M Lloyd-Jones), that assurance of salvation was generally exceeding difficult to attain, and was a "second blessing" of sorts for the more spiritually adept and fervent. DJE, to the contrary, says it is for all, a very part of justification by faith – and shows where Calvin maintained this also.

Hmm. Interesting. I appreciate you sharing this and will give it a read!

For what its worth the link worked for me.

 

[Nate]

The link doesn't work, so apologies for requesting more information! I know language can be imprecise on a forum like this, so I'd like to understand what he means when you say he teaches assurance is "a very part of justification by faith". For instance, WCF 18.3 states:

III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain there unto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure;m that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.​

If "by very part of", he simply means that our justification gives us the grounds for what the Confession calls an "infallible assurance" (WCF 18.2), then that is good. But if it means that all who are justified receive this assurance and have it at all points, then that would be contrary to the Confession.

Just in case anyone is interested, the Confession's Scripture proofs for the clause up to the colon are:

1 John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. Isa. 1:10. Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. Mark 9:24. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. [See Psal. 88 throughout. Psal. 77 to the 12th Verse.]​

Louis Berkhof addresses this in his book, "Assurance of Faith". Berkhof described the distinction between Dort's teaching that faith certainly does bring assurance and Westminster's apparent teaching that personal assurance does not necessarily accompany faith. Here he is on the topic:

On the other hand the Canons of Dort maintain that believers can, in their present life, obtain the assurance of their future salvation, and that they actually enjoy this assurance according to the measure of their faith. This would seem to imply that Christian certitude is of the essence of saving faith. They further assert that this assurance does not result from any special revelation, but is based on the promises of God in his Word, on the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and on the exercise of a good conscience and the production of good works as the fruits of faith. It is admitted that believers are not always conscious of this full assurance of faith and this certainty of persevering to the end, since this may be obscured by doubts and uncertainties; but it is also maintained that out of these spiritual struggles faith will again rise triumphantly to the height of assurance. Moreover, this assurance is regarded as highly desirable, since it does not minister to pride and carnal security, but is rather a source of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in tribulation, constancy in suffering and confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God. The Westminster Confession apparently sounds a different note, when it says: “This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be a partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things that are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.” Presbyterian divines generally interpret this to mean that, though faith carries with it a certainty respecting the truth of the promises of salvation in Christ, it does not include what is usually called “the assurance of salvation,” or “the assurance of hope,” i.e. the personal assurance of being in a state of grace, of having a saving interest in Jesus Christ, and of being an heir of everlasting life. But it is possible to put a different interpretation on the words of the Confession, as was done by the Marrow-men, who were accused in 1720 of teaching contrary to the doctrine of the Confession that assurance is of the essence of faith. It should be noted that the Confession speaks of a complex assurance, resting in part on the promises of God, and in part on the evidence of the inward graces wrought in the life of believers and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It calls this the “infallible (full) assurance of faith,” and asserts that this is not necessarily enjoyed by believers from the very moment that they accept Christ by faith. So understood the teaching of the Confession does not materially differ from that of the Reformers and of the other great Protestant Confessions, though there is undoubtedly a difference of emphasis. It may also be regarded as significant that the Confession, speaking of faith, says: “This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.” How can faith grow into this full assurance, if assurance is not, in any sense, of the essence of faith? Moreover, the Confession also takes the position that, though believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted, “yet they are never utterly destitute of that seed of Cod … out of which, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.” We fully agree with Shaw, when he says in his Commentary on the Confession: “But although the assurance described in this chapter (the full assurance referred to above) is not essential to faith, yet there is an assurance which belongs to the essence of faith, and this our Confession recognizes in the Chapter which treats of saving faith.”

 

[B.L.]

RFPA just sent me an email highlighting David Engelsma's upcoming volume "Unfolding Covenant History: From Samuel to Solomon - Volume 6".

Has anyone read any of the volumes from this series? Are they worthwhile reads? Any minefields to avoid?

Thanks.

(I skimmed through the posts in this thread to see if the series was referenced already and didn't see it discussed; forgive me if I've missed it.)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

RFPA just sent me an email highlighting David Engelsma's upcoming volume "Unfolding Covenant History: From Samuel to Solomon - Volume 6".

Has anyone read any of the volumes from this series? Are they worthwhile reads? Any minefields to avoid?

Thanks.

(I skimmed through the posts in this thread to see if the series was referenced already and didn't see it discussed; forgive me if I've missed it.)

I have the earlier volumes (thank you, HK, for the gift). The earlier volumes (1-4) are Homer Hoeksema's, and are sermonic in style. They cover the raw biblical material fairly well, and take the reader through the conquest of Canaan. As I recall, they do not fail to draw attention to a good many prophetic expectations of the text oriented to NT fulfillment.

D.Engelsma picked up the thread, using a similar style and approach. The books are not written at more than a high-schoolers comprehension. I think they are probably ideal for a family devotional study.

In preaching through the book of Genesis, I would time to time glance at these volumes to see if there was a point or an insight I missed, which might be a helpful addition. I can't say I was ever dependent on them; but I don't want that to leave the impression I don't believe the volumes could be of benefit even to a pastor, particularly one who lacks a good foundation in OT interpretation with a Christological orientation.