Primer on PRC Split - The Essentials

I went on Dewey’s blog ( astraitbetwixttwo.com/) to find out what the recent split in the PRC was all about. I read Pastor Koole’s article in the SB then Langerak response back in 2018 and then Lanning’s response back in 2019 to get some background.


I have a very low view of PR theology when it comes to practical application, but they even surprised me. Two days ago I wrote, “In books and sermons the PRC will uphold to this ordo salutis…, but in real life it omits everything to do with sanctification.” I was wrong! In books and sermons (SB articles) Andy Lanning actually omit sanctification.


Evidence:

Lanning in March ’19 SB takes Koole to task for an article expressing standard-fare reformed theology on sanctification. Andy writes, “I would like to point out three places where the editorial develops the idea that obedience is not merely necessary, but that it is necessary unto salvation.” Forget everything you know about theology and read that sentence again. It makes no sense at all. It is as incoherent as a tax accountant criticizing another accounting for merely saying it is necessary to pay taxes. The point of the controversy is not in the claim that it is necessary for companies to pay taxes, but the insinuation they are to be paid unto the government. Immediately, everyone is going to ask the same question. “If we are not going to be paying taxes unto the government, then what do you mean when you say taxes are necessary to be paid.” Andy gets to talk out of both sides of his mouth with this statement. If someone calls him an antinomian, Andy gets to claim he acknowledged obedience is necessary, but at the same time he gets to take Koole to task and argue obedience is not necessary unto salvation. The difference Andy is making is totally incoherent and not biblical.


Andy concludes by writing, “Instead, I believe the editorial went beyond these necessities of obedience to teach that obedience is necessary unto salvation. In so doing, has it not taught a doctrine of salvation by man’s obedient working, rather than salvation by faith alone in Christ alone?”


Main Issue:


Salvation is NOT by faith alone in Christ alone! Reformers have always maintained faith is the alone instrument God uses to declare a person righteous (justification), but that faith is never alone and must produce good works. Because Andy confuses salvation and thinks justification and salvation are synonymous he strikes out big time.


    “Essentials of Reformed Doctrine” by Rev. H. Hoeksema Chapter 19 Regeneration

        1. What are the steps in the order of salvation?

        Regeneration, calling, faith, justification, sanctification, preservation, and glorification.


Salvation is everything we need to get to heaven, and it is more than just justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Salvation includes our good works and everything else we need to get to heaven. Look at the question from the Essentials - absolutely necessary; extremely important – again. Good works (sanctification) are necessary for salvation!  This concept is taught to high schoolers and this concept was totally missed by a PR pastor. 

Confusion:


First, Andy believe good works are necessary, but at the same time rejects that they are required for entrance into heaven. If they are not required unto salvation, then what on earth do you mean when you say they are necessary?  Because Andy confuses salvation with justification, then all his PR training leads him to conclude that even an active faith must be divorced from sanctification.


Second, Andy so completely confuses reformed theology he actually warns against being a Pelagian in our sanctification. Jesus says “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” John 8:36; Rom 6:20;  Andy appears to believe you are not free indeed, but merely the Holy Spirit inside you is free.  Adoption as sons (our new identity in Christ) is not really something we actually possess.  He believes the Holy Spirit does not indwell us, but that the Holy Spirit is alien to us.  If someone believes the clear meaning of these texts and claims they are free indeed then it makes them a free will heretic (Pelagian) with regard to sanctification.  Nobody except an antinomian would make this mistake. Andy invents a new controversy and then makes heretics of everyone else. Sound familiar?


How is it possible for the PRC to graduate a person who is this confused with the basics? If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. There must be very questions on seminary tests where you do not get to use your hammer to get the correct answer, and precious few designed to weed out antinomians, and/or those who do not know the essentials – salvation is not merely justification by faith alone.


Boomerang:


The PRC gets points for booting Andy, but this antinomianism survived for some time without being detected. Koole merely wrote an article every PRC should be in total agreement with, but Andy’s antinomian antenna was raised.


I am quite sure PR pastors were unimpressed with Andy’s confusion and had a hard time identifying themselves as being source of the problem. Add another two and a half years and if Andy never backtracked anything from this article, but merely doubled down , these pastors are not rethinking their theology, but more and more convinced Andy is off his rocker.


For those still in the PRC the way you view Andy is the same way other denominations view you. The more you elevate your rhetoric and double down on your distinctives the less and less effective you have become. Andy does not get to create a new distinction into reformed theology and then define what you believe any more than you get to define what another pastor in a different denomination thinks. You marginalize yourself with each evangelism lectures and the more off your rocker you look.