Welcome, everyone. We do have some open seats in the center here. If there's no chairs or no Bibles on them, you can welcome to use some of those as well. On behalf of Reformed Protestant Church Evangelism Committee, I'd like to welcome everyone here tonight, as well as everyone who's joining us on sermon audio or YouTube. Welcome and thanks for joining us. The plan tonight is to have a speech from Reverend Lanning. First, then we'll have a brief intermission, and we'll do some singing. I'd like to ask you to write down your questions during the speech, and we'd like to collect those during singing and intermission. And after the singing and intermission, then we'll have a question and answer period. I've been asked to read out of Jeremiah. I'd like to start with that, Jeremiah 5, verse 30. through Jeremiah 6 verse 17. A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means. And my people love to have it so. And what will ye do in the end thereof? O ye children of Benjamin, gather yourselves to flee out of the midst of Jerusalem, and blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and set up a sign of fire in Beth-hesarim, for evil appeareth out of the north in great destruction. I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman. The shepherds with their flocks shall come unto her. They shall pitch their tents against her round about. They shall feed everyone in his place. Prepare ye war against her. Arise, let us go up at noon. Woe unto us, for the day goeth away. For the shadows of the evening are stretched out. Arise, and let us go by night. Let us destroy her palaces. For thus saith the Lord of hosts. Hew ye down trees, and cast a mount against Jerusalem. This is the city to be visited. She is holy oppression in the midst of her. As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness. Violence and spoil is heard in her. Before me continually is grief and wounds. Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee, lest I make thee a desolate and a land not inhabited. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, they shall truly glean the remnant of Israel as a vine. Turn back thine hand as a grape gatherer in the baskets. To whom shall I speak and give warning? that they may hear. Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken. Behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach. They have no delight in it. Therefore, I am full of the fury of the Lord. I am weary with holding in. I will pour it out upon the children abroad and upon the assembly of young men together. For even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days. and their houses shall be turned unto others with their fields and wives together. For I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord. For from the east of them, even unto the greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness, and from the prophet, even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush. Therefore, they shall fall among them that fall. At the time that I visit them, they shall be cast down, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths. Where is the good way? And walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, we will not walk therein. Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, we will not hearken." At this time, I'd like to open with prayer. Father, which art in heaven, we draw nigh to thee this evening hour. We thank thee for this opportunity that we might gather, we might Speak to thy word. We pray that all that is done, said and done in this evening hour might glorify thy name. We pray that thou wilt forgive our sins even in this evening hour. We pray that all that is discussed is fruitful and to thy name's honor be with our speaker in this evening hour. We thank thee for him. Give unto him a rich portion of thy Holy Spirit. Give all our many sins. In Christ Jesus' name do we pray, amen. Just a reminder to write down your questions during the lecture. At this time I'd like to welcome Reverend Lanning to come up and give us a speech. Thank you, Ryan. Before we begin, just make sure that everybody can hear me OK. Is the volume good for those in the back? If those in the back could give a thumbs up, all right. Good. Appreciate that. The title of the speech tonight is The Act of Separation, which is a document that was signed on January 19, 2021, by two elders and three deacons of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church. In that act of separation, they expressed their grievances with the Protestant Reformed Churches, and by that act of separation, led God's people out of the Protestant Reformed Churches in the formation of a new congregation, which is now known as First Reformed Protestant Church. On January 21, 2021, two days later, A public meeting was held, which had been announced with the distribution of the act of separation. And at that public meeting, a time of question and answer was held, the act of separation was read, and opportunity was given to all present who were also convicted that they may not be members anymore of the Protestant Reformed Churches to sign that act of separation. The speech tonight is about the meaning of that act of separation, about the necessity of that act of separation and also the implications of that act of separation. The speech is meant for those who, in the Protestant Reformed churches, have seen problems, are convicted of error, and are wondering themselves what they ought to do. And so as we work through the speech tonight, And as we work through the questions and answers, our intention is to be entirely open and candid about the meaning, the necessity, and the implications of the act of separation. Let's begin then with the meaning of the act of separation. The act of separation was a secession from the Protestant Reformed churches by the office bearers and the members who signed that act. They had been members of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church and Southwest Protestant Reformed Church, especially, and others. And by signing the act of separation, they seceded from their Protestant Reformed churches. The signing of that act of separation was done with astonishment. The members who signed the act of separation never imagined that things would come to such a state that they would leave the Protestant Reformed Churches. The Protestant Reformed Churches have been our mother. The Protestant Reformed Churches have nourished us in the gospel of Jesus Christ. We ourselves have taught the goodness and thanked God for the strength of the Protestant Reformed Churches. We never imagined that the churches we loved would so depart that we would have no place left in her anymore. The signing of the act of separation was done with great astonishment. It was also done with great grief because we have loved the Protestant Reformed Churches We loved the members of the Protestant Reformed Churches. It brought us no glee in our heart to say the things that we did about the Protestant Reformed Churches. It brought us great grief. The signing of the act of separation was also done with great joy, with spiritual joy. In spite of the astonishment, in spite of the grief, We saw in the act of separation the work of Jehovah God of preserving and reforming his church. And when God's people see God preserving his church, even if that is through a secession from that church, a secession from an apostatizing church, that is a cause of great joy for God's people. The act of separation was a secession from the Protestant Reformed Churches. In the second place, with regard to the meaning of the act of separation, the act of separation was also the organization of a new congregation, now known as First Reformed Protestant Church. That congregation was organized under the leadership and oversight of the two elders and the three deacons who first signed the act of separation. And that gives us opportunity to address what may be a misconception among some. The misconception is that the two elders and the three deacons resigned their office in Byron Center PRC when they left the Protestant Reformed Churches. That is a misconception. That is incorrect. The two elders and the three deacons were duly elected into their office by the Lord Jesus Christ through the lawful vote of a congregation. They were installed using the appropriate forms in a worship service of the congregation. They were official office bearers of the Church of Jesus Christ. They did not lay down their office in leaving the Protestant Reformed churches. They exercised their office. They exercised their office in leading God's people out of the Protestant Reformed churches and into First Reformed Protestant Church. So also for the members who signed the Act of Separation two days later, their signing the Act of Separation was the equivalent of their membership transferred. Their membership transfer was not accomplished by the giving and receiving of membership papers. Their membership transfer was accomplished by their signing the Act of Separation. At the moment the members signed the Act of Separation, they were no longer Protestant Reformed, but were that evening constituted as a new congregation. and so also for myself as the pastor of First Reformed Protestant Church. The act of separation declares that my deposition from office was unjust and the signatures of the two elders, the three deacons, and all of the members of that church by that declare that they did not acknowledge the deposition and that they continued to acknowledge me as their pastor. which means then that there was no call letter extended to me. By the signing of the act of separation, that congregation, one could say, called me to be their pastor. The signing of the act of separation, therefore, was not only a secession from the Protestant Reformed Churches, but it was the institution and organization of the first Reformed Protestant Church. Many of the members of First Reformed Protestant Church have also instructed their consistories, of which they were formerly members, to send their membership papers to their homes. That instruction to send membership papers to their homes has nothing to do with joining membership in First Reformed Protestant Church. The one purpose of that instruction is so that there is a record on the consistory books of those Protestant Reformed Churches which consistory books shall be opened one day in the judgment at the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that there is a record on those books that those members are no longer members there, but belong to another congregation now. The act of separation is the application of Article 28 of the Belgic Confession. The act of separation is not some new, unheard of thing in the life of Christ's church. It is not something unfounded upon the confessions of the church, but has solid grounding in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession. The title and subject of Article 28 is that everyone is bound to join himself to the true church. That article reads, we believe since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it, but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it, maintaining the unity of the church, submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof, bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes be against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore, all those who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God. Article 28 of the Belgic Confession calls for separation. Article 28 calls for believers to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church. That call for separation is where the act of separation gets its name from that language in Article 28. And the act of separation is the living out of the confession of Article 28, by those who signed the act of separation. They separated themselves from all those who do not belong to the church. Now that language of article 28, separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church, refers to an ecclesiastical separation. And the act of separation uses that language too. we will exercise no more ecclesiastical fellowship with those who are not part of this congregation. The fellowship that is being spoken of there is not personal fellowship. Neither the Belgic Confession in Article 28 nor the act of separation says anything about family relationships, about business relationships, about neighborly relationships, of an individual man with those who live around him in his life. Belgic Confession Article 28 and the act of separation are about ecclesiastical fellowship and ecclesiastical separation. The idea is that one must leave an apostatizing church with his church membership and may not, by his church membership, have ecclesiastical fellowship as a member of that apostatizing church anymore. That call for separation from all those who do not belong to the church is also not a call for someone who lives in a land where there are very few churches and very few people who belong to a church to separate ecclesiastically from all those who are non-church members to join a church, but rather the reference is to those who have membership in an apostatizing church. That's all those who do not belong to the church. In the days the Belgic Confession was written, there were many, many members of a church institute, the Roman Catholic Church. The Belgic Confession refers to all of those who are in the Roman Catholic Church as those who do not belong to the church. There has been confusion on that point about what the act of separation actually calls for, whether it calls for impersonal relationships, ties to be cut. That is not the case. If there are any limits to personal fellowship or other kinds of fellowship, they are not addressed at all by Article 28 or by the act of separation. Belgic Confession Article 28 calls for separation and Article 28 calls for members who have so separated from an apostatizing church to join themselves to a congregation, to join themselves to a church. They are to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church, and to join themselves to this congregation wheresoever God hath established it. If there is an existing institution that a believer finds that demonstrates the marks of the true church, then he is to join his church membership there. If he cannot find an institute that satisfies the marks of the church, as he believes they are laid out in the word of God, then he must institute the church anew. That is what happened when First Reformed Protestant Church formed. The church was instituted anew, and by that, all those who signed joined themselves to the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Article 28 of the Belgic Confession is founded squarely upon the word of God. The word of God calls for separation And the Word of God calls believers to join themselves to a faithful church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Word of God calls for that in the passage that was read tonight in Jeremiah 5. At the end of that passage, the end of that chapter, We read, a wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so. And what will ye do in the end thereof? Here is what you do in the end thereof. O ye children of Benjamin, gather yourselves to flee out of the midst of Jerusalem. And as you flee out of the midst of Jerusalem, blow a trumpet. And as you flee out of the midst of Jerusalem, light a signal fire, so that everyone who sees you leaving may also be warned of the prophets who prophesy falsely, the priests who bear rule by their means, and the people who love to have it so. Article 28 of the Belgic Confession stands on Jeremiah 5 and 6 in its call to separate. It's also the calling of the word of God in Revelation 18 verse 4. In the context of all of the nations who have drunk of the wine of the wrath of the fornication of Babylon, who represents the apostatizing and the apostate church, The call is, I heard another voice from heaven saying, come out of her, my people, that she be not partakers of her sins and that she receive not of her plagues. Come out of her is the calling of Jehovah God himself with regard to all of those who behold Babylon and the wine of the wrath of her fornication. in false doctrine, in priests bearing rule by their own will and not by the Word of God. Come out of her, and come out of her, my people, in the first place, that ye be not partaker of her sins. The Word of God stands on the truth of corporate responsibility. Those who are members of a church are corporately responsible for the sins that are committed in that church. And when Babylon is pouring out the wine of the wrath of her fornication, then all who are members are partakers of that fornication. The second reason to come out of her is that ye be not partaker of her plagues. God judges Babylon. God judges the false church and the apostatizing church. When the church responds to the trumpet of God's Word by saying, we will not hearken, then God sends a plague upon that church and calls his people, come out of her. Article 28 of the Belgic Confession then stands squarely upon the Word of God in its call for separation. The act of separation, which stands upon Article 28, then stands squarely upon the Word of God. The signing of the act of separation was obedience to the Reformed confessions and obedience to the Word of God, which calls God's people to come out of her. That means also that the act of separation is a work of true church reformation. When A separation stands on the confessions and stands on the word of God. That separation is reformation. There may be reformation within a church as a church identifies error and turns from that error and repents of that error and puts out the false teachers of that error there may be reformation within a congregation and denomination, that turning and that repentance stands on the confessions and on the Word of God. But if there is not turning and there is not repentance, then reformation takes the form of separation, and that separation stands on the confessions and the Word of God. The separation The first reformed Protestant church from the Protestant reformed churches is God's work of preserving his church. It is God's work of reestablishing his church upon the cornerstone, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. The act of separation was God's work of glorifying his son. Jesus Christ and glorifying his own name and glorifying his own truth. The act of separation was God's work of making the stone which the builders refused, which stone is Jesus Christ, the headstone of the corner. This is the Lord's work. It is marvelous in our eyes. The signing of the act of separation is due entirely to the grace, the goodness, and the mercy of Jehovah God, who reestablished his church upon the Lord Jesus Christ through that act of separation. That means that the signing of the act of separation stands in the line of all true church reformation throughout history. It stands in the line of the great 16th century Reformation of the Church. It stands in the line of the Reformation that God wrought through Martin Luther and John Calvin. The act of separation stands in the line of the great Reformation that God worked in 1834 and the off-skiding, the separation and secession of those Reformed fathers from the corrupt state church in the Netherlands. The act of separation stands in the line of the leaving of the Christian Reformed church from the Reformed church in America in 1857. And the act of separation stands in the line of 1924 and the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches when they were cast out of the Christian Reformed Church. Even the name of the present congregation, First Reformed Protestant Church, reflects that it stands in the line of those Reformations. It takes the name Reformed, and it takes the name Protestant, not in the same order as Protestant Reformed, but it takes the same names as a testimony that this church is the continuation of the theology of the Protestant Reformed Churches. And that first Reformed Protestant Church counts as its spiritual forefather, Herman Hoeksema, and as its spiritual forefather, George M. Opoff, in addition to men like Martin Luther, John Kelvin, Hendrick de Kock, Geisbert Hahn, and other Reformed fathers who themselves were used by God to work Reformation. We are the spiritual children of every true Reformation by the act of separation. The implication is that the act of separation is holy. It is a holy work of God. The act of separation is not the sin of schism. The act of separation has been charged with the act of schism, with the sin of schism, which is a popular charge today. A charge being thrown left, right, and center today. A charge has been hurled at the act of separation. The act of separation is not schism, but holy reformation. It is certainly true that the act of separation is division. There is no doubt about that. Those who were members of the Protestant Reformed Churches are no longer members of the Protestant Reformed Churches. They separated from the Protestant Reformed Churches. That division and that separation and that secession is not schism. Remember what the Lord Jesus Christ said about his own coming to the earth in Matthew 10. Think not that I came to the earth to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword and to set a man at variance against his father, against his brother, against the whole world. The Lord Jesus Christ himself works division and sets men at variance against men. That separation that the Lord Jesus Christ works by his word and by his spirit is not the sin of schism. If it is, then every reformation in the history of the church must be charged with schism. and the Lord Jesus Christ himself must be charged with schism, which is blasphemy. When the Lord Jesus Christ preserves his church by standing her upon the truth, then those who are separated from a congregation and denomination by that work of Christ are not guilty of schism. The charge has been and will continue to be schism. It always has been. Martin Luther was charged with being a schismatic by Rome. Hendrik de Kock was charged with being a schismatic by the state church in the Netherlands. Herman Hoeksema was charged with being a schismatic by the Christian Reformed Church. When the charge of schism comes, don't look at this. Was there division? But look at this. Was the division necessary? Did that division stand upon the word of God, upon the reformed confessions? Was that division the casting out of faithful believers who stand upon the truth by those who will not hear any longer that truth? Then you may know the spiritual character of that division. The act of separation stands on the word of God and his holy reformation, a work of God himself and not the sin of schism. A couple of notes regarding the form of the act of separation before we move into the second main point of the speech on the necessity of the act of separation. Regarding the form of the act of separation, the act of separation is modeled very closely after the Act of Secession of 1834. That was the document drawn up by two elders and three deacons, strikingly, in 1834 in the congregation, the Reformed Congregation of Ulrim, by which the off-skirting church, that first off-skirting church, seceded from the state church. that Act of Secession works with Articles 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession. That Act of Secession of 1834 works with the scriptures upon which the Belgic Confession is founded. That Act of Secession is a model for all of those who find themselves in a similar predicament of seeing the apostatizing of their church. And so the act of separation is modeled after the act of secession. In fact, if you compare the two, you will find that in places our act of separation of 2021 even quotes portions of the act of secession of 1834. Nevertheless, the two documents are not identical. The act of separation of 2021 is its own document written for its own time and its own circumstances. A second note regarding the form of the act of separation is that the act of separation is declarative in nature. The act of separation is not a line-by-line proof of everything that it declares. The act of separation is not meant as an answer to the opponents of the act of separation. The act of separation is not meant as an exhaustive or comprehensive, and in some cases, not even a beginning proof of the things that are stated. It is declarative in form. And it is declarative in form because it is the declaration of those who lived through the history, of those who saw the things that are declared in the act of separation. It is the declaration of those who signed it that these things are true, that these things we have witnessed with our own eyes, we have been a part of, and we have lived through. It is a declaration of the conviction of those who signed it that they must take a certain course of action. It is a declarative document. There is certain proof, given in the act of separation, There are instances of what is alleged listed so that the act of separation does, in some cases, carry its own proof in itself. But the act of separation is not an exhaustive proof of itself, but a declaration of these things. The act of separation has that form, and that's the explanation of that form. The act of separation was necessary. It was necessary. The signers of the act of separation were compelled to separate from the Protestant Reformed churches. Secession is not something that those who signed the act of separation sought. It is not something even that they desired. It can be said that almost up until the last minute, the members who ended up signing the Act of Separation were testing whether there were ways to remain in the Protestant Reformed Churches and work for reform in the Protestant Reformed Churches from within. It was considered whether it might be best to remain as members of the PRC, to continue going to church, although even that had become impossible for many, and as members of the Protestant Reformed Churches, to write protests and appeals. More protests and appeals in addition to the many protests and appeals that had already been written over the preceding years. It was considered whether if we could not go to church in the Protestant Reformed churches because of the things that had happened there, that we leave as a protesting Protestant Reformed church and maintain a certain connection to the denomination. be Protestant reformed, but have our own worship in our own separate place and have our own office bearers overseeing the life of the congregation and not sending any delegates to the classist meetings of classist East or to Senate. And as a protesting Protestant reformed church, maintain an appeal or a protest to Senate. Up until almost the last minute, the signers of the Act of Separation were looking for ways to work for reform from within the Protestant Reformed Churches. But it was impossible. Because those who signed the Act of Separation looked at the Protestant Reformed Churches in the light of Article 29 of the Belgic Confession. which lists the marks of the true church and the marks of the false church. Looking at the Protestant Reformed churches in light of those marks, the signers declared, there's no way that we can stay within and keep our membership there. We are compelled to leave. The leaving and separation was not hasty, not by any means was it hasty. That too has been a charge laid against the act of separation. The charge is you should have stayed. You should have used the process of protest and appeal. For example, with regard to my deposition, or with regard to decisions that Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church's consistory have made, you should have appealed or protested to Synod 2021. You were hasty to sign an act of separation and to leave. The act of separation was not done in haste. The members who signed the act of separation have been laboring for years for reform in the Protestant Reformed Churches. They have been laboring by means of their church membership in the Protestant Reformed Churches by their testimonies to the ministers and consistories in the Protestant Reformed Churches with regard to the preaching in the pulpits and the decisions of the assemblies They have been laboring by means of their protests and appeals for years to consistory, to classes, and to synod. If anyone doubts the labor of the members who signed the Act of Separation, then take out a random volume of the Acts of Synod from Synod 2016 to the present. or take out a random agenda of Classists East from 2016 to the present and see in that one volume how many protests and appeals there are from many of those who ended up signing the Act of Separation. The members who signed have labored. They have also labored for reform in the Protestant Reformed Churches by their insistence, not their request, not their suggestion, but their insistence that the preaching of the gospel in the Protestant Reformed churches be pure. They have labored for that by their insistence that the preaching be pure from the fact that many of the protests and appeals were against sermons, sermons as they had been preached and sermons as they had been decided on by the ecclesiastical assemblies. And their insistence that their minister preach the truth of the word of God to them and feed them with Jesus Christ. I say before all of you tonight, and before the face of God tonight, that the members who signed the act of separation insisted on that from their own pastor. They insisted on that from me. They would not have been satisfied, not at all, with false doctrine or with a weakening of true doctrine. And I believe that if not every one of them, then the vast majority of them would have risen up with protests and appeals against my preaching if I had preached false doctrine. The members of the congregation labored for years for reform from within, and in doing so, they never followed a man. They never did. They followed Jesus Christ. They followed his truth. They insisted on Jesus Christ. They insisted on his truth. That was their labor for many years. That culminated in the act of separation. Finally, that labor became fruitless. Finally, it became evident that there would be no hearing of the truth. For finally, preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that rebuked the Protestant Reformed churches for her errors was declared to be sinful, schismatic preaching. The minister who preached those sermons was cast out. And when the minister who preached those sermons was cast out, There was no place left for all of those who had been laboring for years. The act of separation was the culmination of years of labor for reform. And when those years of labor do not bear the fruit of reform within a church, then those years of labor in the goodness of God bear the fruit of secession. from an apostatizing denomination. The act of separation was necessary then because of the apostatizing of the Protestant Reformed churches. The act of separation speaks of the apostatizing of the churches, not that the Protestant Reformed churches are apostate. The act of separation nowhere calls the Protestant Reformed Churches thoroughly false. The act of separation does say the Protestant Reformed Churches are apostatizing. That means that just as the Protestant Reformed Churches, at the beginning of her existence, did not call the Christian Reformed Church a false church, a departing church certainly, a church that was heading in entirely the wrong direction, but did not call her the false church, so also First Reformed Protestant Church does not call the Protestant Reformed Churches thoroughly false. or the apostate church, our contention is that the Protestant Reformed churches are apostatizing. The difference between apostatizing and thoroughly apostate is not so great that we must insist on one word over the other. When a church sets itself on the path of apostasy, that church will continue on that path until she is thoroughly apostate and false, and there is no salvation in her, except she repent. This is the Lord's own warning to his church in Revelation 2 and 3. to those churches in whom the Lord found sin and who were by that departing from him and departing from his truth, the Lord says to them, except thou repent, I shall come and remove thy candlestick. You will not be a church anymore. You will have a building maybe, you will have the form, you will be an institute, but you will not be the church. When a church is apostatizing, she's already in dreadful spiritual condition. She's in danger. She is sinning grievously, and plagues and destruction are coming swiftly. When it becomes plain that a church has set itself on the path of apostatizing, then that church will be destroyed in her generations. And when it becomes clear that she will not turn, then it is time for all those in her who see that apostasy to come out. When the prophets prophesy falsely with false doctrine, when the priests bear rule by their means, by their own will and their own wisdom, and not the word of God. And when my people love to have it so, they throw up their hands in indifference to the grievous sins in the church. And what will ye do in the end thereof? O ye children of Benjamin, flee. When the act of separation calls the Protestant Reformed Churches apostatizing, it is referring to the body. It is referring to the institution. It is not referring to every individual member as an ungodly, unregenerate person. The declaration of apostatizing is a declaration about the Institute. It is not a declaration about individual members. The act of separation does not declare that all of the members of the Protestant Reformed Churches are going to hell. It does not declare that they are all unregenerate unbelievers. The act of separation has something to say to the members of the Protestant Reformed Churches. It has this to say, beware, repent, or perish in your generations. But the declaration of apostasy is a declaration about the institution. The institution of the churches is apostatizing. How do we know? How is one to know? According to the Declaration of the Belgic Confession, it is easy to know. It is not hard to know. The two churches are easily distinguished from each other. It is painful to know, it is astonishing to know, but it is easy to know. And it is easy to know because the Church of Jesus Christ is characterized by marks, the marks of the true Church. The false church is also characterized by marks, the marks of the false church. And when one understands those marks and examines a church in light of the marks, it is easy to know whether a church is apostatizing or not. We make it complicated. We make it hard to know by our own natural folly. and by looking in all kinds of directions, except the direction pointed to in the Word of God and in the Belgic Confession, Article 29, we look at the people. The Protestant Reformed churches are full of good men, full of good people. How can you say they're apostatizing? Because people are not the mark of the church. Good people are not the mark of the true church. And bad people are not the mark of the false church. Don't look at people. Don't look at men. That has nothing to do with the marks of the true or the false church. Or we look at our own emotional tie and connection to the church. And that tie is strong. That tie is very strong. We've been raised in the Protestant reformed churches. We've defended the Protestant Reformed Churches. We've fought for her. We've learned from her. We're tied to her. That's mother. Ties to mother are strong. But that's not the mark of the true church. Your tie to her or my tie to her. The way you feel about her, the way you love her, That's not the mark of the true or the false church. The marks of the true church are what the church is doing with the word of God. That's the mark. That's the one mark. The mark of the false church, too, is what she is doing with the word of God, with the truth of the word of God. with the Christ who's revealed in the word of God and with the God whose word it is. That's the mark. What does she do with sound doctrine? What does she do with false doctrine? What does she do with teachers of false doctrine and teachers of true doctrine? What does the church do with the word of God? Article 29 of the Belgic Confession divides that one mark into three. The marks by which the true church is known are these, if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein, if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ, If church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin. And now the summary. In short, if all things are managed according to the pure word of God. There it is, the pure word of God. All things contrary thereto rejected. Not tolerated, but rejected. And Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only head of the church. Those are the marks. The pure preaching of the gospel. It is the testimony of those who signed the act of separation that the preaching of the gospel in the Protestant Reformed churches is no longer pure. Individual sermons could be pointed to, sermons that teach that union with Christ is unconditional, but communion with Christ is conditional, which sermon was defended against protests for a year and a half strenuously. And finally, when a classist decided there had to be an apology for that sermon, there were shenanigans on the floor of classes to protect the reputation of a man and to leave the reputation of Christ and his truth in the mud Or sermons that teach that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility lie next to each other as two rails, two tracks that run into heaven. Or that God's grace and sovereignty and Christ's merits do not rule out man's obedience as a means by which man enters Canaan, or heaven. And closely connected with preaching is writing, and individual writings could be pointed to. Writings that drag Witsius out of his grave to teach the Protestant Reformed churches that if a man would be saved, there is something he must do after all. That's perverse. That's corrupt. That's not pure. When the Belgic Confession calls for the pure preaching of the word, it does not mean this. Make sure that most of what is preached is true. Make sure that 99% of a sermon is true. It calls for purity, the pure doctrine of the gospel. That's 1 Peter 2, verse 2. Sincere milk, pure milk, unmixed with poison that will destroy those who drink it. The pure preaching of the gospel. So that if a sermon is 99% true and 1% false, it's not the pure preaching of the gospel, and the church that tolerates it is a church that has corrupted the mark of the church, the true church. Or if 99 sermons are sound doctrine, but one sermon is false doctrine, that church that tolerates it is not preaching pure doctrine, the pure doctrine of the word. Pure, pure, that's the emphasis of the Belgic Confession. Individual sermons, individual writings could be pointed to, but preaching in the Protestant Reformed churches is in a sad state today. There is an emphasis in the preaching that our forefather, Herman Hoeksema, warned us about. It is the emphasis on man, and it is the holding back of the gifts of God, and the grace of God, and the fellowship of God, until man has done his part, and man has done his thing, and man has done his doing, and then it's given. Then God's stores in heaven are opened for man to receive. That's not pure preaching. when it's subtle even. When you think, was that right, but can't quite catch it in a sermon, go back and listen again and see there's something wrong. That's not pure preaching. We don't need man. We don't need man preached to us. The church of Jesus Christ may not have man preached to her. Even the obedience of man and the calling of the word of God to man to be obedient is the fruit of man's salvation. What the church needs is Christ preached to her. And the grace of God preached to her. An election preached to her. The sovereignty of God in salvation preached to her. She needs Jesus Christ proclaimed. The Church of Jesus Christ, who hears Jesus Christ, will bear fruit according to the Word of God, obedience and gratitude. The judgment of those who sign the act of separation is that preaching is not pure, and therefore that mark is corrupted. And so we could go through the other marks that are listed in Article 29 of Belgic Confession, the sacraments are taken away from those who cannot have their children baptized because they cannot answer that the doctrine taught here in this Christian church is the pure and complete doctrine of salvation. They cannot take the Lord's Supper because they cannot have communion with those who are tolerating or outright teaching error and heresy. And then there's the mark of Christian discipline, and here it becomes especially easy for the church to identify the true, the apostatizing, or the false church. Discipline. Who suffers discipline? The false teacher, the false teachers, the office bearers, who defend the false doctrine, month after month, year after year? Never once, never once, did any false teacher or any defender of false doctrine suffer discipline over these last years. Six men, six office bearers, have been disciplined by the Protestant Reformed churches over these last years for their defense of the truth and for their rebuke of the lie. And when the church disciplines those who defend the truth and rebuke the lie, that's persecution. And persecution of teachers of the truth and rebukers of the lie is always the mark of the false church. It's an easy one. It's so obvious to see. And for one who says, but the Protestant Reformed churches apologized to five of those men, then my question is, if they were sorry, why did they keep doing it, year in, year out? Why did they keep doing it? The answer is, because she's an apostatizing denomination. And because the honor of men, which she protects at all costs, including the cost of the gospel, has been more important than the honor of Christ and his glorious truth. I say that with no relish. I say that with no glee, but with grief. She's an apostatizing church. The marks of the true church and the false church are how one knows whether a church is apostatizing. That means, then, that the act of separation was necessary. It was necessary. When the marks are applied, year after year, when the marks are applied, We came to a point where we could not stay any longer, but had to leave. A note regarding the necessity yet, before we move on to the final point regarding implications. The necessity we found when we looked at pulpits and preaching. and the sacraments and discipline. There may be those who see problems in the Protestant Reformed churches. They may even see grievous problems. They may see how the honor of men trumps the honor of Christ's truth. But they say to themselves, but there's not three points of common grace adopted yet by the classist or by the synod, or there's not three points of conditional fellowship adopted yet by classist or synod, and I must wait and see whether the synod ever adopts false doctrine explicitly, and then I will know that the Protestant Reformed churches are apostatizing. I ask that man or that woman Where in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession do the marks have anything to do with synod or classes? The marks are preaching, the sacraments and discipline. And if a church is clever enough and shrewd enough to make sure that three points will never come to a synod, you can still tell whether she's apostatizing by the pulpit. Don't look to the Acts of Synod to weigh the condition of the church. Look to the Word of God and what is in the pulpit. And look to the Belgic Confession, which teaches us where to look. Finally, the implications of the act of separation. The implications of the act of separation are, first of all, that the Protestant Reformed churches will be judged by Jehovah. However much we might wish it otherwise, The Word of God teaches that when prophets prophesy falsely, and priests bear rule by their own means and not the Word of God, and the people love to have it so through their indifference, through their not having any idea what's going on in the churches, through their support of this man or that man, because I like him, because he's been good to me, through indifference towards the truth, when that happens, God himself says, evil appeareth out of the north. That's God's own judgment, that's not mine. That's not the members who signed the act of separation. God judges apostatizing churches. That means then that the implication of the act of separation is that a calling and a warning is issued to all of the members of the Protestant Reformed churches who see the problems, who see the errors, who are convicted of these things, The warning is, watch out, beware. That warning goes to all of the members of the Protestant Reformed churches. Repent, repent, just as that warning always comes to the church. But beware, judgment is coming. And that means, in the second place, that the call also goes out to come out. Come out. If you are convicted that the truth is not preached purely, that all things are not managed according to the word of God, but according to the will of man, then come out. That's God's own calling in Revelation 18, verse four. Come ye out from among them. If there are members of the Protestant Reformed Churches who cannot leave in good conscience, though they see problems, then the calling for those members is, whatever work you are waiting to be done, do it. If you are waiting to speak to your consistory, to ask where they stand on certain articles, or on certain actions of the assemblies or certain sermons, then go to the consistory and ask where they stand on those things. If you believe that a protest or an appeal is yet necessary and are waiting for that work, then do that work. But don't linger as you do that work. Do that work and finish that work. Then stand before the face of God with his word in your hand, with Article 29 of the Belgic Confession in your hand, and measure, and weigh, and evaluate, and judge. Keep in mind that there's no end to protest and appeal. There's always one more thing you can do. There's one more synod you can protest to. There's one more year you can wait with an appeal. There's even one more year you can wait yet with an overture. There's no end of documents. One could write documents for 10 more years using the lawful means in the church order. Keep that in mind, too, as you weigh your calling and where you belong in your membership. And for those who are convicted, that they, too, must come out and separate First Reformed Protestant Church stands ready to help, to assist you. If there are office bearers in Protestant Reformed churches, your path could be to write your own act of separation and lead out from your own congregation those whose souls are in peril by their remaining in an apostatizing denomination. If there are no office bearers in your congregation who see these things, but you are convicted, you must come out nevertheless. Then we stand ready to help here, if you get in touch with us, to organize that. But the call comes. Beware. What will you do in the end thereof? Gather yourselves and flee. And this for the glory of God. For the glory of God and the glory of his truth. What can be more glorious than that? What cost can there be to pay that is not worth that? What suffering would one not endure? and grief would one not go through for that. Glory of God and the glory of Jesus Christ. For it is the glory of God who, in his grace, has given his pure gospel to his church, who has given Jesus Christ, unspotted by man, to his church, unspotted by all our guilt, and iniquity, for he bore it upon himself and bore it away. For the glory of God, for the glory of the truth, the Lord Jesus Christ, those who signed the act of separation did so. That itself was the grace of God to us, so that at the end of it all, There is nothing, nothing in which man can boast. This is the act of separation, holy work, holy reformation of Jehovah of his church. I thank you for your attention. Thank you, Reverend Lanning, for that speech. What comes to mind as I was listening was, may all the glory be God's, all of God, none of man. Thanks again. This time we'd like to gather up any questions that you had, maybe pass them to the center. And we would like to do some singing and give the speaker a hand. our consistory some time to look over the questions for a few minutes. I'd like to recommend that we stand up for a few minutes and sing and stretch. I'd like to start with Psalter number 242. Sing all four verses, 242. O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? ♪ Gloria to God we hail ♪ ♪ Gloria in the highest still ♪ ♪ Of greater power we will prevail ♪ Next, I'd like to sing psalter number 231. Sing all three stanzas. ♪ Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name O praise thy name ♪ So we may be wise and free ♪ ♪ To God shall music show ♪ ♪ And the salvation of His foe ♪ ♪ If we believe what God wills say ♪ Next to sing psalter number 379. 379. Stanzas 1, 3, 4, and 5. O come, O come, Emmanuel, O come, O come, Emmanuel, O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, God, will I ever forget her still? Will I forget to love thee now? Will I who now remember thee Next, psalter number 240. Sing the five stanzas of 240. ♪ Come to me ♪ ♪ That I may be one in selfless ♪ ♪ In thy mercy answer me ♪ ♪ O God of creation ♪ from the sky, from air to earth, from the air, and from the heart. Glory to God, we hail to darkness, in the light, and in the rest. ♪ And there I'll be happy unless I'm old ♪ ♪ Proud and helpless in my office ♪ ♪ Crying in my miserable home ♪ ♪ But to thee, with hands outstretched ♪ Dear old home, our solemn nation, we are safe here on high. O come, let us adore thy wonders, tell the world of the earth. Let me in to tell my praises. I have love in my descent. To all of you this morning, proud to be shall be. Bless me, God, all the day forever. Let me love my neighbor see. All my heart resents sorrow. Praise the God. Praise the God. O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Dear God, how high you'll be when I'm with you. Salter 381, sing the four stanzas. Sing, oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ In that most holy burning line ♪ ♪ In that most holy burning line ♪ ♪ God have mercy, have mercy ♪ ♪ Have mercy, you perfect King ♪ Glory to the newborn King! Glory to the newborn King! Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave me. How goodly I have shared them with you. How precious for the life that ye are to save me and my foes from harm. O Lord, have mercy on me. O Lord, have mercy on me. O Lord, have mercy on me. I think we'll have the question and answer now if I understand correctly. I'm going to read the questions Change of plans Thank you again, Ryan. We have quite a few questions. In fact, more than we're going to be able to answer tonight. We've, the evangelism committee has set a nine 30 hard stop for the evening so that we can have time for fellowship and refreshments yet. If there are questions that do not get answered tonight here, we hope to treat those in some form somewhere. that you will be able to find on the First RPC website, firstrpc.org. So if your question does not get answered here, look for it there in some form. Can the other office bearers, in particular Reverend Lanning and Elder Van Buren, attest to the truth of the events that have been recounted on Elder Engelsma's blog? Yes, that question's been asked. That is something that we lived through together, and I do, I attest to what's been written. There was much, much that was done that was disturbing, and we, as fellow consistory members, labored very hard to help each other understand, and even to see what was right, and the right way to go forward. And that was often allowed to go in the wrong way. And what Dewey has said is true, and it is the situation that we had. And I can attest to the truth of everything that Elder Engelsma has written as well, and I appreciate The way that blog is setting out the facts, it is analyzing the facts, but I can attest that what it is setting out is the facts. And I'd just like to say, too, that what is laid out in the blog is not meant to defend us or our actions. It's meant only to show what was done that was was not according to the Word of God. And it has to be seen as the defense of the name of the Lord and not of the defense of men. The next question, can you speak to the argument that you were deposed for your conduct and emphatically not for your doctrine? And I think Elder Engelsma has something to say about that. So I think in the first place, that charge will always come, that it's not doctrine, but it's conduct. History has shown that to be the case time and time again. In fact, I remember reading about Machen and his separation, and the charge came back that it was his unruly conduct and his, I remember the words, his lack of zeal for the unity of the church. that caused him the problems and the situation that he was in. But the truth is, is that this division that took place didn't just happen in the last two months. There's been a division in the Protestant Reformed churches for the last four or five years. And that can be witnessed, I'll speak just as a lay person, or as a member of the church, of our reaction when the controversy first arose. And we rose up almost with one voice to condemn the appellants and the Protestants, and to defend the man and the men who were preaching, teaching, and tolerating the false doctrine. And that continued unabated for five years. So, The Protestant Reformed churches have been making a choice week after week, month after month, and I think those words probably prick all of us, at least they do me, in the choices that I made throughout this controversy. We've been making that choice, and we chose to defend a doctrine that displaces Christ, which according to the 22nd article of the Belgic Confession, is too gross a blasphemy. We chose to defend that, and we chose to condemn the few voices that were brave enough to condemn that lie. And so what's taken place in the last two months or three months is really just a coming to fruition and a coming to fulfillment of what has been present in our churches for the last five years. So for someone to say that it's not doctrine and behavior is willfully to ignore the history that's taken place. And it might be the case that it's just sheer apathy or complacency for many, which is no excuse. So this is emphatically doctrine, so that the doctrine of further reformation theologian is what reigns in the editorial page of the Standard Bear. And those who want to set forth the truth of the gospel have to form their own magazine. Next question. You said there were years of fruitless labor with protests. What about Synod 2018? Would that demonstrate there was hope for another protest for your deposition? At Classes East in January, Synod spoke. There's no need to wait until June in Senate 2021 to find out what Senate thinks about deposition. It was not only classes east that spoke, but the three synodical deputies or synodical delegates voted in unison to concur with my deposition in the second place. In answer to that question, my deposition and understand that I'm loathe to speak of myself, but necessity demands it here, I suppose. But my deposition was, in effect, synods reversing the decision it made in Senate 2018. In Senate 2018 Senate said the sermons that were brought to it compromised the gospel. Senate said those sermons displaced the perfect work of Christ. And I took that and I ran with that. And I dare say that everyone here or everyone who has heard even a little of the controversy has seen that and has heard me saying that. Does it grip us? Do we see how wretched it is to displace the perfect work of Christ? God hates that. He hates it that his son was displaced and his work was displaced. When I rebuked the Protestant reformed churches for falling into that sin and then continuing by minimizing the seriousness of that error and demonstrating the minimizing of that error, the church's response was to cast me out. And by that, they cast out that view of Synod 2018. The question I would have for the Protestant Reformed churches is, do you believe that the gospel really was compromised? Do you believe that? If you believe the gospel was compromised, that has to set you on a certain course. It has to set you on the course of rebuking yourselves, even deposing and disciplining yourselves. It has to set you on that course. But if you take the other course of throwing out the man who's bringing that rebuke, then you are repudiating your own decision in Synod 2018. So no, I do not believe there was hope for a protest at Synod and that such a protest was not necessary anyway to know what Synod thought. Synod judged through its synodical deputies. Next question, by joining the RPC now, would it mean the same thing as signing the Act of Separation? So someone that joined today would not sign the act of separation. That document was signed that formed the church, but someone signing today would not sign that document. They would join the way they would join any other church, or in this case, any other denomination, by requesting their papers, bringing those papers to the council of First RPC, where those papers would be accepted. So it asks, would it mean the same thing? Someone that joined today may have that same conviction and probably would have the same conviction because the 28th article of the Belgian confession says that you do not come out of the true church. So by joining the church, first RPC or confessing, that this is where the truth is most clearly taught. So from that aspect, perhaps, but it would not be signing or re-signing the act of separation. Next question, is there a proper way that an office bearer can come out of the PRC other than an act of separation? Each office bearer is going to have to weigh that himself. When God called that man to office, he gave him the charge to feed the sheep and care for the sheep. And the man made a vow in the formula of subscription that he would endeavor to keep the church free from error, free from false doctrine. And so a man who is an office bearer I believe who is convicted that he must go out must do that also by leading others out with him. Whether that has to be done in every case by a new act of separation. So for example, an office bearer coming out to form a new congregation, whether he has to do that through an act of separation could be debatable, I suppose. but certainly he would have to be giving notice and instruction to God's people why he's coming out and why he's calling them to come out too. There are a few questions here that are similar. Yeah, thanks. First, we feel the call to separate. How can we do this if we live in the West? Similar for those of us that feel the need to separate or feel the actions of the PR denomination are wrong. What can we do if we wouldn't have a pastor? Do we need to wait for certain events to happen elsewhere before separating from our church? And similar, how can we come out? Can a group separate without a pastor or leadership of elders and deacons? The answer is that a congregation who feels, or members who feel the need to separate, do not have to wait for any specific event to happen. If they are convicted now, today, or yesterday, or tomorrow, that they can no longer in good conscience remain as members in the Protestant reformed churches, then they may come out. And as they come out, a church can be organized that can be organized because the people of God are the church and the special offices to arise out of the church. We would be willing to help in that in coming down to lead a meeting and to let's say, chair a congregational meeting at which nominations for office bearers are made, and a vote is taken, and that church is instituted. We are prepared to help in that. But a congregation or members that are convicted, even without office bearers, that they must come out can do that, and the church can be reinstituted. That happened in many cases in the off-skidding of 1834, so that the fathers of that secession, de Kock and van Velzen and others, were very busy organizing congregations. As far as coming out without a pastor, that too can be done. I do not know how the Lord is going to provide. I don't know that anybody knows how the Lord is going to provide, but we do know this, he will provide. He always has, and he will continue to provide. And his word to his flock is, fear not, little flock. It is your father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom, including giving them that kingdom through the preaching of the pure gospel. So I don't have all of the answers to exactly how pastors will be provided, but we may rest assured that God will provide. This question, what about staying to inform others? This is a question I hear. This is asked with the recognition that there are problems in the PRC. This comes from one who was ignorant at first and saw many around them ignorant too. So Herbert Lanning addressed this question to a degree in his speech. So I won't repeat that. But those who do stay should recognize that the watchmen who were on the walls saw danger and saw the sword coming and called the people out. And that's in Ezekiel 33. If you blow the trumpet and warn the people, then whosoever heareth the sound and taketh not warning, if the sword come and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. If the watchman doesn't sound the trumpet, the blood will be upon his head. So when you do stay, and if you do protest and you do appeal, remember that the watchman who were on the walls considered all of those things. If we felt it was the calling to stay and protest, we would have done that. But there comes a time when the trumpet has to be sounded, that the people have to come out. So Be very, very careful, because what can happen is that you're gonna stay for six months to protest, and then your grandchildren are still in that church. And anecdotally, the morning that Elder Van Baren and I, I believe it was, when we were relieved of our duties, there was a Christian Reformed man visiting, and he heard the announcement, and Elder Van Baren and I happened upon him, and we were talking, And he warned us. He said, be careful. This sounds like there could be a split coming if office bearers are being relieved of their duties. And so for this man, the most grievous thing he could consider would be a split would be coming. And I was thinking the most grievous thing would be to be a member of the Christian Reformed Church in the year 2021. Perhaps that man had a grandfather or grandmother that stayed. and now he's in a denomination that has homosexuals serving in office. So, like Reverend Lanning said in his speech, beware. Should those in a Protestant Reformed church with faithful preaching, faithful administration of sacraments, and faithful application of church discipline leave their congregation. Apostasy does not happen in a denomination evenly. It doesn't happen in every sermon the same. It doesn't happen in every congregation the same. Within a denomination, there may be stronger ministers, that is sounder ministers, and less sound ministers. There may be more sound consistories and less sound consistories. And that means that apostasy may show up in one place faster than it does another. It also happens in a denomination that there is a spiritual element, even in an apostatizing denomination, there's a spiritual element that loves the truth, that insists on it. and probably is busy protesting and doing other work to try to reform the denomination. But within a single denomination, we remain corporately responsible for each other, so that if there is a man who judges his own local individual congregation to be sound and faithful according to the marks, that man cannot congratulate himself on his soundness, and he may not assure himself that it will always be this way for him and his church. The denomination as a whole is responsible, and when there is corruption in a part, or to use the words of Jesus, leaven in a part, that leaven will leaven the whole lump, so that that man is endangering his generations if he is not actively laboring in his denomination for her reform and repentance. Is this back? Yes, it is. What are your thoughts on partaking of the Lord's Supper? Is it okay for a believer to abstain from partaking of the Lord's Supper if fellow partakers believe works have a role in fellowship or the covenant? And if the form speaks of being united in true brotherly love? The Lord's Supper is a testimony of unity in the faith and unity of confession. It is a testimony of the like-mindedness in the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ that Paul writes about in Romans 15. Those who sit down together at the Lord's table confess with the same mouth the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ. In an apostatizing congregation or denomination, If false doctrine is being tolerated, defended, or even explicitly taught, then a believer who rejects those things cannot confess with one mouth with the other members of that denomination and congregation. And this is how the sacraments play in to the marks of the true church. The moment you corrupt the truth, you take away all of the marks of the true church. You don't lose one mark for a while, but keep the others. The moment the truth is lost or corrupted, that's the moment you lose them all. And when a member then says, I cannot partake of communion here because I am not united with you in what you have done with the truth, then it is not that believer's fault that he is not partaking of the Lord's supper. The church itself has corrupted the sacrament by taking it away from that member. And the same for baptism. If a member cannot say, I confess the truth as it is taught in this Christian church, it is the church's fault for taking the gospel away from that member and baptism away from that member. So you see how the corruption of the truth runs through all the marks, including the sacraments. Speaking for myself, what I believe ought to be the view if I were in a congregation that was corrupting the truth and had shown it was committed to that, I would not take the Lord's Supper so that if communion had been offered at Byron Center those last months, I would not have partaken, never mind the fact that I was under discipline, but I would not have taken even if I could have. I have a question here. Are we called to be reconciled with each other? As we are called to be reconciled with each other, does Matthew 524 apply with the RPC and the PRC? And Matthew 524 says, leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother and then come and offer thy gift. I think that's, um, There are certain understandings there that would help us see that as the act of separation laid out, it is the desire of the RPC to be reconciled. But that reconciling has to go along with what Reverend Lanning laid out tonight in the speech as well, that there must be repentance and turning so that we can speak again with one mind. That's all I would have on that. Question. Is there a way to help people understand this if they refuse to read? What is our response to the elders that refuse to read or study material? What is our response if the consistory refuses to answer questions about the events in the PRC? This is not the first controversy that has shown individuals, office bearers or otherwise, that have refused to read. God's people have died for lack of knowledge in the past. I shouldn't say God's people, but men and women have died for lack of knowledge in the past, and they will continue to do so. I think to ease, perhaps, the conscience of this writer, it doesn't depend on you. Your calling is to be faithful, not successful. So when you bring these things faithfully to your consistory, the word of God, the creeds, and you bring them to your pastor, you try to engage them in discussion. If they will not hear that word, if they're hardening their shoulder to that word, then that's not your fault and you should not reproach yourself for that. Your responsibility is to be faithful, to bring the word of God, and then when your conscience convicts you because the marks are so clear that you come out, that you come out of that church, and there will be those who are destroyed for lack of knowledge, but that blood will not be on your heads, on your head. I am still Protestant Reformed and heard that you preached that we would not welcome those members back of First Reformed Protestant Church. Why would you preach that? Everyone I've talked to would welcome them all back. This question raises what it would mean for members of First Reformed Protestant Church to go back to the Protestant Reformed Churches. That would require that we would say with the Protestant Reformed Churches, the word of God is sin. The word of God is schism. That's what the Protestant Reformed Churches have said. That's what my discipline was, and that's what my deposition was. Word of God in Jeremiah 23 verses 4 and 14 applied to the Protestant Reformed churches today is sin. So if there is anyone in the Protestant Reformed churches who believes that there's some path where there's a very easy return and everybody goes back and things were like they were before, that's not the case. And I can assure you that the Protestant Reformed churches would require that we repent and would require that we say with them that that sermon is schismatic. And I cannot say that, and I don't believe anybody in First Reformed Protestant Church can say that. That's blasphemy, to call the Word of God sin. As far as the sermon goes that's referenced here, I did preach that The members of the church were pretty well despised everywhere. And if they would try to join a respectable church, respectable in quotation marks, people would say, what are you doing here? Can't you go to the next church down the road? That statement was not made ignorantly or lightly. Those things were said. to many of God's people who joined first reformed Protestant church. They were said to them when they joined Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church. There were men who were called to judge their membership who said, I don't want them here or who didn't rise up in holy horror. When that statement was made, I don't want them here. There were members who approached them and said, what are you doing here? The members of First Reformed Protestant Church are no strangers to being slandered, reviled, and falsely spoken of. I'm thankful that the premise behind this question is that not everybody thinks that way. in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I'm glad to hear that. But what was actually said to many of the members is shameful. They have borne reproach. Two of them who began protesting in 2015 and 16 have borne unbelievable reproach and will bear the scars of their reproach to their graves. They do it without complaint. Thank God for that. And thank the Lord Jesus Christ who says to us, blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. But behind this question is some misunderstanding about the meaning of that statement and about what it would mean to go back. Another question in that line, the act of separation wasn't the reason SISM was brought up. and I think what's meant here is the charge of schism against me for my preaching. Do you acknowledge your charge of schism was due to misapplying scripture by putting yourself in the same light as Jeremiah? This question brings to light a strange view of the preaching of the gospel that, to my knowledge, is new in the Protestant Reformed churches. I have not heard of this view of the preaching of the gospel before, but this view of the preaching of the gospel is that when the minister preaches the word, and even preaches it faithfully, there are parts of the word that are not the word of God. There are parts of the sermon that are not the word of God. And the view is not this, that if the minister speaks false doctrine, that's not the word of God. I subscribe to that. If a minister speaks false doctrine, he's brought man's word. And that man's word is not the word of God. And there must be rebuke for bringing man's word. But the view is this, that when the minister applies the word of God and the doctrine, the sound doctrine of the word of God to the congregation, That part of the sermon is not the word of God. And if the minister insists it is the word of God and you must heed it, then he is proud and then he is putting himself forth as some inspired prophet who knows the hearts of the people. That is a strange and novel view of preaching in the Protestant Reformed churches. If that view were only held by an individual or maybe one question, I'd be inclined to say it's not a view. It's just a mistake. But that view was brought up by the fathers of the classes in classes East. The accusation was made on the floor several times that I view myself as inspired, that I think I'm a prophet. I think I know the hearts of God's people. that made it into the official decision they adopted. The truth is, the minister is not inspired. I certainly am not. But God has given every minister an inspired book to preach. And when the minister takes the sound doctrine of the word of God and applies it to the church, including by rebuking the church, including when he says, Oh, church, there's evidence that you're guilty of this. Repent that what the minister is preaching there is the word of God, not his own word, not the word of man, but the very word of God. The minister must know that about his preaching. Otherwise, what's he doing on the pulpit? Who cares what he thinks? Church needs to hear what God thinks. And the congregation needs to know that the sound word of God faithfully applied is the word of God. And that second Timothy four preach the word in season out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. Rebuke with doctrine. So yes, The official formal charge of schism was leveled against me for my preaching. The word of God was called schism. The word of God faithfully brought was called sin. But certainly the act of separation has been declared schismatic too by many. Should matters in a consistory room be kept private when dealing with a sin? Does it say in the Bible to spread sins? There's probably 20 questions on this. I choose this one deliberately, not because I want to speak in defense of myself and the blog, because it's my responsibility. If there's something written there that's in error, that's false, then that should be brought to me and shown. and that would not be the responsibility of this council or consistory. But it has been brought up a lot, and I fear it's an impediment for some, so I'd like to answer that briefly. There is precedent for relaying a history that names names, that quotes individuals, even in private meetings or at classes, If you reread the history of the PRCA by Hoeksema, and no, this is not Dewey comparing himself to Hoeksema, but if you reread that history, he deliberately names names, so that today we know that it was J. de Hoog, W. Hoeksema, and H. van der Vennen as the three elders that appeared in his parlor with the protest against him, which wasn't actually written by them, And what they were putting forth falsely, he names their names deliberately. And he says, these names need to be recorded for the history. And he goes on to name more names, Reverend Vandermeer and Reverend Shands. And he tells exactly how those men behave themselves. And he relays conversations that he has had with them and even things that were said on the floor of classes. And he points out the utter corruption that went on at those meetings. I recommend that you read those first two or three chapters. And I think you will, as I did, find it chilling at what went on at those classes meetings. So he calls it the grossest corruption. And he says that even a worldly court would not deal with a man the way that he was dealt with. And when you consider the history that just went on in the last two months, That is a sobering, sobering thing to consider that when a church is apostatizing, its assemblies become corrupt, they become political, they become very shrewd, and it's hard to find Christ in those assemblies. There's also the biblical precedent of naming names. First, Second Timothy two, Second Timothy four, Alexander the Coppersmith, Hymenaeus, Philetus, there are names named there. And I've, in the past, I've used the example of the idea of a watchman, but having considered that more, I think that, or sounding a trumpet, but having considered that more, I think that the sound of a trumpet is the official work of the church. So what we're doing tonight in the preaching, So my effort, think of what I'm doing then in the blog is not blowing a trumpet but banging pots and pans together and just generally making a racket. Trying to get your attention that all is not well. It's not well at all. Think of a family member running into your bedroom at two in the morning, flicking the light on and saying, there's a fire, your house is on fire. And sure enough, you look and there's black smoke billowing at the ceiling, coming out from under the doors. You're gonna have two reactions when you see that, when you hear that. You're gonna say, yes, there is a fire and I need to investigate it and I probably need to get out of the house. Or you're gonna say, turn the light off. Can't you see I'm sleeping? So you're gonna have one of two reactions. But I think of John chapter three too in relation to these things. John chapter three also, 19 through 21. And this is the condemnation that light is coming to the world and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. In my last blog post, I put one of the first questions that was asked by a delegate, why Reverend Lanning doesn't have to pursue the assemblies or something like that. But that wasn't the first question asked during the deposition. The first question asked was this, Mr. Chairman, are we sure they can't hear us from behind the glass? What are the doctrinal differences between the first Reformed Protestant Church and the Protestant Reformed denomination? The main doctrinal difference is that the Protestant Reformed churches have taught, tolerated, and defended conditional fellowship with God. Conditional fellowship, that's the heart of the doctrinal difference. First Reformed Protestant Church maintains unconditional fellowship with God. That doctrine of conditional fellowship with God was brought to light in a sermon on John 14, verse 6, where Jesus says, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me. And the sermon taught that our obedience is part of the way to the Father. And the sermon made clear that it was dealing with the experience of being with Father, the experience of covenant fellowship with God. And part of the way to that experience of fellowship is our obedience. That doctrine of conditional fellowship has given rise to other false doctrines, conditional assurance, instead of the assurance of faith, It is currently giving rise to corruption of the truth of total depravity. It has given rise to the teaching that if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do so that the salvation and fellowship of God's people is preached to them as man and man's doings. That's the doctrinal issue, conditional fellowship. The doctrinal issue does not go by that name in the Protestant Reformed Churches. It goes by this name, fellowship in the way of obedience. That's how you'll hear it in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I do not object to the phrase in the way of obedience as Herman Hoeksema taught that. I do not object to that phrase as it has been used in the past by Protestant Reformed ministers, but that phrase has been corrupted. That phrase has been taken over by conditional theology in the Protestant Reformed churches. The sermon that taught Our obedience is part of the way to the Father, was defended by a consistory, Hope's consistory, by Classus East, and by Synod 2016. In every case, the defense of that phrase, or that false statement, that our obedience is part of the way to the Father, in every case it was defended with the language in the way of. All that the sermon means, these assemblies said, is that we enjoy fellowship in the way of our obedience. What the assemblies got wrong is that that is not what the sermon taught, not at all what the sermon taught. The sermon displaced Christ. The sermon made something other than faith the means of obtaining Christ and all his benefits. The sermon taught rank heresy, sheer conditionalism, though it was careful enough never to use the word. Conditional fellowship is the doctrinal difference. That shows up in the preaching, and it shows up in the preaching this way. When some fellowship or some blessing of God is held back from God's people, until first their works have been preached to them. And once their works have been preached to them, then they are told in the way of, you will now have this fellowship. That's false doctrine. That's conditional fellowship. It's conditional covenant at its heart. I'd like to just speak to the one accusation. that this was not done in love. And I just want to say that in our work in the consistory at Byron Center, Protestant Reformed Church, there was love throughout all that was done on our behalf, and I speak as Dewey and I, and there was love in the consistory also, but there was a love for bringing what had to be seen as the truth according to the word of God And this act of separation that we signed and wrote, or wrote and signed, was done in love. And I love the members of the Protestant Reformed Church, I'm speaking for myself, so much that this is what we had to do for the sake of the Protestant Reformed Churches. But it's the love for the truth that must be first. And we do love our family and friends. And we love so much as a father loves a child, he will rebuke and call to repentance. And that has to be seen as love. Otherwise, it's not of God. I believe we're going to have to call a halt here. There are questions left. So as before, look at look to the website for the answer to these in some form. We have to have closing devotions, and we want to meet our hard stop at 9.30. Everyone is invited to stay afterwards for refreshments and fellowship together. Thank you very much for your attendance tonight. It's very encouraging to see so many interested in the topic of the act of separation and so many questions that reveal that interest. Let's close together in a word of prayer. Our Father which art in heaven, at the close of this evening, we draw nigh unto thee through Jesus Christ our Lord. We come to thee through him, for thou hast given him to be our Savior. our head, our mediator, our life, our rock, our way, our truth, our life, the covenant has given him to be our righteousness and wisdom and sanctification and redemption. There is no one like him in all of the world. His glory shines from eternity to eternity. We thank the father that thou hast redeemed us in him. through his blood and brought us near to thyself in the cords of covenant love and given us thy fellowship by grace. We pray that thou will bless what was spoken tonight in the lecture as well as in the questions and the answers for the illumination of thy word upon our path. that we may see clearly by thy spirit and by thy word what is our calling, that we may hear the warnings of thy word and the warnings that we confess in the confessions of the church, that we may respond appropriately by thy grace for thy glory. We beseech Thee, Father, that Thou wilt be merciful to us, for Thou hast revealed unto us through all of this our own corruption and filth. Thou hast shown us that we are the chief of sinners, each of us knowing our own hearts and the corruption therein, knowing our own actions and thoughts. We pray, Father, that Thou wilt forgive all our iniquities in the blood of Jesus Christ. Pray that thou wilt establish us not upon an institution which is idolatry. That thou wilt not establish our feet upon a denomination, so that all of our strength, we think, is from that institute. But establish our feet upon the rock, Jesus Christ, who alone is our foundation, the foundation against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. We beseech thee, Father, that thou wilt be with us in our fellowship this evening. Keep us in safety also on our way home. Remember us in mercy. Bless thy people. Give us understanding. Through Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray, amen.