What's in the August issue of the Standard Bearer....?

Editorial | Our Church Order, Psalms, and Hymns

Strength of Youth| "To Teach Them to War": Warfare—A Clear Scriptural Imperative (2)

All Around Us | The Movie: Son of God


Visit the Standard Bearer Archives to view past issues.


The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate

Image result for bill nye vs ken ham debate

(Article written by Rev. Clay Spronk from the May 15, 2014 issue of The Standard Bearer)

On February 4 “the science guy” Bill Nye, representing the evolutionist perspective, and Ken Ham, representing the creationist perspective, debated the question, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” The debate was live-streamed on the Internet and watched by a large audience. I didn’t find any reports about the size of the audience, but I assume it numbered in the thousands. If you did not see the debate yet, you can watch it for free for a limited time at debatelive.org, and I recommend that you do so.

Ken Ham believes in the biblical account of creation. He believes that the book of Genesis is a historical book that records the actual history of how God created the heavens and the earth. He believes that God’s work of bringing all creatures into existence took place over the span of six ordinary 24-hour days. Ham is the founder of answersingenesis.org, a website devoted to teaching and defending the record of God’s act of creating the world found in the book of Genesis.

Bill Nye is an unbelieving scientist. During the debate Nye did not say he had no religion, but he argued that religion should be divorced from science. He views the world from a purely naturalistic perspective. God had nothing to do with the origin of the world. And God has nothing to do with the development of the world. The universe started with a Big Bang and has developed over billions of years through the process of evolution. Nye stated several times during the debate that evolution is a process by which complexity is added to the universe. By means of evolution, simple non-living things have become more complex living things. Thus, all things in the world (rocks, plants, animals, and humans) have a single origin. Ken Ham accurately described Nye’s position as “molecules to man” evolution. Human beings should look not only at monkeys as their ancestors, but rocks and trees as well.

I found the debate between these two men fascinating. Both men demonstrated that they have a vast knowledge of God’s wonderful creation. They discussed layers of ice with atmosphere trapped between them, the distribution of fossils in layers of rock, the expansion of the universe, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, radiometric dating, and many other fascinating subjects. Ham and Nye were very sharp and clear in their presentations, so that even children could follow along (mine did until they had to go to bed).

The two men asked each other profound questions. Ham asked Nye how he accounts for non-living things becoming living things if life did not come from God. He asked him how he accounts for the laws of logic and of nature if they were not created by God. Nye asked Ham how he can believe the earth is only 6,000 years old since scientists have discovered rocks and other things in the world that appear to be over 6,000 years old. He asked him how there could have been a flood 4,000 years ago when there are trees scientists estimate to be over 9,000 years old. Wouldn’t those trees have died during the flood?

Sometimes both men were unable to answer the questions posed to them. Nye was asked by one of the audience members where the atoms came from that produced the Big Bang. He admitted that he did not know where matter came from. He also admitted that he could not explain where consciousness came from—that is, from his evolutionist perspective he could not explain how consciousness developed from unconscious matter.

Ham admitted that he could not answer certain questions about why the earth appeared to be older than 6,000 years old (I wished that he would say something about God building age into the creation, but he never did). He could not explain why there were 680,000 layers of ice in the arctic north, which many scientist claim would have taken 680,000 years to form at the rate of one layer per year. He mentioned that there are plausible theories that explain how those layers could have formed at a much quicker rate than one layer per year, but he readily admitted that they were only theories. Ham also admitted that he could not explain why different types of fossils in the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon were not mixed among each other in all of the layers. Several times during the debate Nye referred to these fossils in the rock layers of the Grand Canyon. He explains the fact that different types of fossils are not mixed among the layers as the result of the layers forming over a long period time. If the Grand Canyon was formed during the Great Flood, he claims the fossils should be mixed among all the layers of rock. Ham admitted once again he could posit only theories for why the fossils are not mixed.

It is interesting that both men were unable to answer certain questions. But more important is the reason why they were not able to answer those questions. Nye was not able to answer questions about the origin of matter and of consciousness because he rejects the authority of the Bible. When Nye admitted he could not answer these questions because science does not provide an answer, Ham responded by saying, “there is a book” that answers these questions, it is called the Bible.

The questions Ham was unable to answer were different. They were questions that cannot be answered by science and are not answered by the Bible. They were questions that Nye could not answer, even though he claimed he could. Ham convincingly explained why science cannot answer every question by distinguishing between “observable” science and “historical” science. Observable science is science based on what human beings are able to see. In observable science, scientists are able to establish definite facts. Scientists are able to explain how evaporation works because they can observe it. Historical science is science that attempts to explain things that were unobserved by human beings. In historical science scientists are not able to establish definite facts by means of normal scientific investigation. Scientists might suppose that ice layers in the arctic north took 680,000 years to form at the rate of one layer per year. Or scientists might suppose that the Grand Canyon’s layers took millions of years to form. But these suppositions cannot be established as facts because no scientist was present to observe the formation of the ice layers or of the Grand Canyon. This means that when Ham said he could not give definite answers but only posit theories about what happened in the past in these instances, he was being honest. And when Nye claimed he knows for a fact what happened in the past, he was being dishonest.

Ham’s honesty extended to admitting his beliefs could not be scientifically proven either. Why does he believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Why does he believe that a flood once covered the whole earth? Why does he believe that Noah survived the flood in an ark? Ham openly professed that he believes these FACTS because they are revealed in the Bible.

Nye was honest about his rejection of the authority of the Bible. He repeatedly ridiculed Ham’s insistence that Scripture is the only proper basis for understanding the origin of the universe. He refused to view the Bible as the word of God. He referred to the flood as Ken Ham’s flood, and to the “kinds” mentioned in Genesis 1 as Ken Ham’s kinds, refusing to acknowledge that the flood and kinds spoken of in Genesis are of God.

Thus, Ham was right when he explained that the main difference between himself and Nye is what they view as the ultimate authority. He explained that there are only two options—one must either bow to the authority of God (and His Word) or to the authority of man. Ham’s creationistic perspective bows to the authority of God. Nye’s evolutionistic perspective bows to the authority of man.

The debate demonstrated that the fundamental difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is spiritual. The difference is: faith vs. unbelief.

After the debate some Christians who accept the claims of evolutionary science that the world is billions of years old and that monkeys are the ancestors of humans attacked Ken Ham as “unscientific” and “fundamentalist.” One theologian, Peter Enns, claimed Ham did not come off very well and did not have any response for Nye’s explanation of scientific “facts.” Enns believes in Nye’s molecules to man theory of evolution and believes that it is unscientific and a poor representation of Christianity for Ham to reject it. And though Enns expressed doubts about Nye before the debate on Twitter, afterwards he praised Nye’s scientific acumen. For Enns the difference is that Nye is a good scientist and Ham is a poor scientist.

However, during the debate Ham proved himself to be a very knowledgeable scientist. He also played videos from renowned scientists to prove that creationists are as capable of scientific investigation and discovery as evolutionists. And Ham did respond to all of Nye’s “scientific” claims that seemed to support the theory of evolution. Ham explained very clearly that he does not accept the authority of scientists to explain what happened in the past, especially when the explanations of scientists contradict the Bible. The essential difference between the two debaters is that Ham is a believer and Nye is not.

Ham did not cast Christians in an unfavorable light as unscientific bumpkins. I was not at all embarrassed by the way Ham represented the Christian faith. As I was watching the debate I cheered as I heard Ham affirm the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of Genesis, and of the whole Bible. I cheered as I heard Ham faithfully explain the natural meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour days.

I blame the many so-called Christians who accept the evolutionary claims of scientists that contradict the Bible for misrepresenting and distorting Christianity. Many and influential are the Christians who are more interested in defending and promoting molecules-to-man evolution than they are in defending the veracity of the Bible. They bring shame to the name of Christian by accepting that death existed before the fall into sin, that Adam (if he existed at all) descended from monkeys, and every other silly man-made belief that is part of the theory of evolution. It seems that evolution is taking over the church. So I am thrilled that a large audience was exposed to a man with the courage and conviction of faith to stand for the plain truth of God’s Word concerning the origin of the world.

I also rejoice that Ham explained the significance of Genesis for Christian morality and for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why don’t we view people as animals? Why don’t we support the killing of old people and fetuses? Why is homosexuality wrong? Why is marriage a lifelong bond? How did sin come into the world? And why do we need the Savior, Jesus Christ? Ham explained, we find these answers in Genesis if we take it as it is, the word of God. He stood before thousands of people, including many members of major media outlets, boldly asserting the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

My children asked me a couple of times, “Who won the debate?” That is often a subjective question. But for those who believe that God created the world in six 24- hour days exactly as He says in Genesis 1, who believe in the supreme authority of God’s Word, and who love to hear the beliefs of the Christian faith confessed and defended, there is no doubt Ken Ham was the winner.


Did you know?

The RFPA published the 1st issue of the RFPA Update in Sept. 1998.


View the very 1st issue here: 

Its purpose, as stated in the very 1st RFPA Update issue: "...to inform subscribers to its Standard Bearer, buyers of its books, and members of the RFPA about the association and its many endeavors. 
"Another purpose is to encourage men who live in the area of Grand Rapids, MI to become members of the RFPA at the annual meeting.
"In the interim between RFPA catalogs, the newsletter will keep readers abreast of publication news."

Look for the Spring Update (Issue #25) in your mailboxes next month!



Special Issue on Psalm Singing

Singing the Psalms

There are in brief three things that our Lord has commanded us to
observe in our spiritual assemblies, namely, the Preaching of his Word, the
public and solemn prayers, and the administration of his sacraments. As to
the public prayers, these are of two kinds: some are offered by means of
words alone, the others with song.... We know by experience that song has
great force and vigor to move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and
praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal. It must always be looked
to that the song be not light and frivolous, but have weight and majesty
as Saint Augustine says, and there is likewise a great difference between
the music one makes to entertain men at the table and in their homes, and
the psalms which are sung in the Church in the presence of God and his
angels.... Wherefore, although we look far and wide and search on every
hand, we shall not find better songs nor songs better suited to that end than
the Psalms of David which the Holy Spirit made and uttered through him.
And for this reason, when we sing them we may be certain that God puts the
words in our mouths as if he himself sang in us to exalt his glory.
—John Calvin

What's in the the March 15 Standard Bearer?

Read these articles and more in the upcoming March 15 issue of The Standard Bearer.

Not a subscriber? Purchase an eSubscription or a hard copy subscription today!


Meditation | Godliness for Officebearers

"Officebearers must be able to say: Do as I do. Follow my example."

O Come Let Us Worship | The Reading of the Law in Worship


"...in the covenantal dialogue, God is speaking to us, declaring His sovereignty over us. He is placing upon us His holy Law in order that we might be humbled before Him."


God's Wonderful Works | Calling (1): Fishing for Men

"Preaching is fishing. It is the means God uses not to create the fish, but to draw out the fish that He has already created. God uses the preaching of the gospel to draw out those whom He has already regenerated."

Know the standard, and follow it - Read the Standard Bearer.

Are you a subscriber to The Standard Bearer?

If not, subscribe today for $10.50 at the new subscriber rate! 

What other readers are saying:

"...we cherish [the] magazine."

"I love reading the Standard Bearer. Many articles I read twice. I always look forward to seeing the next one come in the mail box."

"The Standard Bearer is a must-read for any individual interested in the truth of the gospel, and is a staple of my reading diet."



Also take the time to visit the Standard Bearer Archives to peruse past issues!



Covenant, Antithesis and the Secession: A Response to Rev. Nathan Langerak

We thought this response to a recent Standard Bearer article written by Rev. Nathan Langerak, "The Juggernaut of Apostasy" (December 1, 2013 SB issue) would be of interest to our readers.
Click on the link below to read the response written by Wes Bredenhof:

Coming soon to your mailbox...

Looking forward to receiving the February 1 issue of the Standard Bearer? Here's a taste of what's to come in the next issue of our Reformed magazine:

All Around Us | Biblical Patriarchy Not Biblical

"The goal of biblical patriarchy is an earthly goal, an earthly kingdom of earthly power with earthly riches. It is uninterested in the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ with its cross and marked absence of earthly power and riches."

Special Article | The Sacrifice of Thanksgiving


" He [David] resolves that he will take up his place among God's people. He will go to the courts of God so that he can begin to express his gratitude to God for his deliverance."


God's Wonderful Works | Does Man Have a Free Will?

"Something must be infused into us first, so that we go from being corrupt trees that produce only corrupt fruit, to being good trees that "bring forth the fruit of good actions."


Read these articles and more in the upcoming February 1 issue of the Standard Bearer. Not a subscriber? Purchase an eSubscription or a hard copy subscription today!



RFPA Update Fall 2013

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Schism of 1953 within the Protestant Reformed Churches. In the newest issue of the RFPA Update, learn about the role of the Standard Bearer throughout the schism and read a review of our most recent book publication which also details much of the history of the schism. Click here for to view the entire Update as a PDF.



The SB and the PRC: A Trumpet Blast and Reformed Testimony

by Prof. David J. Engelsma

Rightly, both friend and foe of the magazine perceive the Standard Bearer (SB) as the literary voice of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRC). That the SB is published by a “free” association, that is, an association that is independent of the churches, does not affect the perception. All hear this voice as a trumpet—a clear, loud sounding of the Reformed faith as purely known and boldly confessed by the PRC.

In an address at the 1945 RFPA annual meeting, the cofounder and first editor of the magazine, Herman Hoeksema, said, “The Standard Bearer wants to send forth a trumpet blast of no uncertain sound. It purposes to send forth a testimony that is very specifically Reformed.” Hoeksema added that the “very heart” of this specifically Reformed truth, that the SB would clearly and loudly testify, is “the idea of the covenant of grace.” And the truth of the covenant of grace “dare not be divorced from the doctrine of sovereign predestination.”

Little did Hoeksema know that in a few years the SB would have to give a “trumpet blast of no uncertain sound” regarding the doctrine of the covenant for the defense of the Reformed faith within the PRC themselves. But this it did, for the preservation of the churches in the pure Reformed faith, for the development of the doctrine of the covenant by means of controversy, and for the public exposure of grievous heresy regarding the covenant with believers and their children.

The year 2013 is the sixtieth anniversary of a notable schism in the PRC. The issue was the doctrine of the covenant, whether having its source in the eternal decree of election and, therefore, made unconditionally with Jesus Christ as head of the covenant and with all the elect in him (Gal. 3:16, 19, 29), or cut loose from election and, therefore, made conditionally with all who are baptized. Involved in the controversy was also the conception of the covenant as a living, warm bond of intimate fellowship, reflecting the life of the Trinity, rather than a cold contract or agreement, patterned after a business deal or a political alliance. In June, 1953, the large, influential First PR Church in Grand Rapids, mother church of the PRC, was divided over the issue of the covenant. In September, 1953, the schism spread to Classis West of the PRC. In October, 1953, the schism sundered the churches in Classis East, thus becoming denomination-wide.

To celebrate schism in the church of Jesus Christ, schism being a gross, public sin that does damage to the visible church of Christ, is inappropriate. We mourned the schism. Sixty years later, we still mourn the schism. But we celebrate the work of Christ in and by the wicked, hurtful schism. That work was the preservation of the PRC in their belief and confession of salvation by sovereign, particular (unconditional) covenant of grace. We celebrate also the work of Christ by the schism of bringing about development of the doctrine of the covenant; of causing a Reformed denomination officially to adopt and confess orthodox Reformed principles of the doctrine of the covenant (in the PRC’s Declaration of Principles); and of exposing and condemning a perennial threat to the truth of the covenant and the gospel of grace in Reformed churches.

The main instrument of the Spirit of Christ in this work, other than the sermons preached by the faithful PR ministers, was the SB. Beginning in 1948 and continuing through the heat of the controversy in the early 1950s, the SB explained the issues of the controversy and defended the truth of the covenant, crossing swords with the enemies of the truth in the PRC. Thus the magazine preserved the PRC, though in much smaller size than before the schism.

The crucial importance of the SB for the PRC and their confession of the truth of the gospel of grace in the schism of 1953 was not the first time the magazine had functioned in this capacity in hard times. The SB was instrumental in forming the PRC in March, 1925. The first issue of the SB was published in October, 1924, when Hoeksema, G. M. Ophoff, and H. Danhof and their congregations were still members of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).

Quite directly, the SB occasioned the formation of the PRC as a separate Reformed denomination. Rather than the churches producing the magazine, the magazine helped to produce the churches. The deposition by CR classes of Hoeksema, Ophoff, and Danhof and the expelling of their congregations from the CRC were due, in no small part, to the ministers’ publishing of the SB and writing against the doctrine of common grace, which the synod of the CRC had adopted in the summer of 1924. A ground for the deposition of Danhof and Ophoff and their consistories was their “association with the SB.” Although his involvement in the SB was not mentioned in the grounds for Hoeksema’s deposition, it was mentioned in the proceedings that led up to it (Herman Hoeksema, The Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids, 1947], 252, 158).

In the early years of the PRC, the SB was the main means of the expansion of the denomination among Christian Reformed people who shared the PRC’s rejection of common grace and convictions concerning particular grace and the antithesis.

The SB vigorously and uncompromisingly defended the unconditional covenant during the internal struggle of the PRC in the early 1950s that culminated in the schism of 1953. This defense is shown today as a glorious defense of the gospel of grace by current developments concerning the covenant in many reputedly conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America. The heresy of the federal vision, which is widespread and entrenched in these churches, openly denies justification by faith alone—the heart of the gospel—and thus all the doctrines of grace confessed by the Canons of Dordt with specific regard to salvation in the covenant. For the Reformed critique of the theology of the federal (covenant) vision, see my Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root (Jenison, MI: RFPA, 2012).

By its own admission the federal vision is nothing other than the development of the doctrine of a conditional covenant that the PRC repudiated in 1951 by the adoption of a synodical document called the Declaration of Principles, and in 1953 by the discipline of a minister who was preaching the conditional covenant. For the full account of the adoption of the Declaration of Principles, including its contents, and an account of the schism itself, see Battle for Sovereign Grace in the Covenant (Jenison, MI: RFPA, 2013). The witness of the SB in the late 1940s and early 1950s to the unconditional covenant, now summed up in the Declaration of Principles would be the salvation of Reformed churches in North America, if only they would give heed to it.

The important work of the SB on behalf of the PRC and the Reformed faith and life is not finished. What this work—a calling—continues to be is indicated in the statement of the SB’s purpose by the founders of the magazine. Originally, the purpose of the magazine was to develop and defend the truth of particular grace against the theology of the three points of common grace adopted by the CRC synod of 1924 (cf. Hoeksema, PRC in America, 134–35). The importance of this calling of the SB, still today, in AD 2013, is evident from the appalling apostasy of the CRC, both in doctrine and in life, as that church goes on foolishly and wickedly developing and applying its doctrine of common grace.

In their announcement to the CRC that they intended to publish the SB, Danhof and Hoeksema advised the CRC that the magazine would testify that “the doctrine of common grace necessarily leads to world conformity” (Om Recht en Waarheid [For justice and truth], Kalamazoo, MI: Dalm Printing, n.d., 46; the translation of the Dutch is mine). This warning, many other Reformed churches besides the CRC need to hear. They criticize the CRC for its falling away, while themselves embracing, defending, and preaching the false doctrine that has destroyed that church.

As editor Herman Hoeksema declared in his address to the annual meeting of the RFPA in 1945, the calling of the SB is to sound a “trumpet blast of no uncertain sound” that is “very specifically Reformed.” And the “very heart” of this “very specifically Reformed” blast is “found in the idea of the covenant of God,” which “dare not be divorced from the doctrine of sovereign predestination.”

If ever there were a time when such a blast should be sounded throughout all of Reformed Christendom, it is the present. The churches are plagued either by the absence of a covenant consciousness, as Arminian evangelicalism corrupts the churches, or by the heresy of a conditional covenant that is deliberately divorced from sovereign predestination and is, therefore, also the Arminian error.

For such a time as this, God has raised up the PRC and their SB.

In carrying out this calling, the SB must not only be positive, but also negative. The constitution of the RFPA requires the SB “to reveal false and deceptive views repugnant [to the Word of God as expressed in the Reformed creeds].” The SB must be polemical—a fighting magazine. The wars of the Lord did not end in 1953. And the Lord’s wars intend the destruction of the foe.

For this warfare courage is demanded. The magazine must be willing to endure slander and ridicule, while persevering in the conflict without wavering. Love of the truth must outweigh the suffering of the hatred of men.

This means that the editors and writers of the magazine must be willing to be studiously ignored by the wider Reformed community in their magazines and journals, as though the content of the SB is unworthy of consideration. They must write without desiring or expecting the praise of men, in anticipation of the only commendation that matters—the Lord’s “well done, good and faithful servant.”

But if history lasts another one hundred years, Reformed scholars somewhere in the world (for the Reformed faith will endure; God grant that it may be in the PRC) will write that, in the midst of shameful embarrassment at the Reformed, Christian faith and life and in an environment of dreadful apostasy, there was a magazine known as the SB that kept and fought for the faith of Jesus Christ according to the Reformed religion.


In Review: Battle for Sovereign Grace in the Covenant

David J. Engelsma
Reformed Free Publishing Association
Jenison, MI, 2013
Hardcover, 304 pages; $28.95
Reviewed by Justin Smidstra

Battle for Sovereign Grace in the Covenant is a timely publication, examining the controversy over the doctrine of the covenant. This treatment is merited not only by the present need to preserve the history of the schism of 1953, which becomes more distant with each passing generation, but also by the present ecclesiastical landscape in which conditional covenant theology is rampant even within the walls of conservative Reformed churches. This book is an important historical study readily applicable to the lives of contemporary Reformed Christians.

Historically, the book covers the provisional adoption of the Declaration of Principles in 1950, through the tumultuous period of controversy leading up to and following the synod of 1951, and concludes with the schism of 1953 and the subsequent return of the schismatic churches to the CRC. The commentary on this history is engaging as the author not only recounts these events but analyzes them, explains their meaning for the churches, and provides insight into why they occurred.

The author focuses primarily on the Declaration of Principles, the document that precipitated the controversy. This Declaration, as the author maintains, is a landmark document in the history of Reformed Christianity. This is not because it teaches anything new. Rather the Declaration articulates that which the PRC has always confessed, namely that the covenant is sovereignly established by God with the head of the covenant Jesus Christ and the elect seed of believers. The covenant is therefore governed by election and is dependent for its fulfillment solely on the gracious work of God. In the course of the book, the author articulates this covenant doctrine and decisively refutes the disguised Arminian view of the Liberated, which divorces the covenant from election.

The author also draws out some important implications of the Declaration for Reformed churches today. First, the doctrine of the unconditional covenant is not a peculiar creation of the PRC alone; rather it is a doctrine that necessarily arises from a consistently applied Calvinist theology. This is accomplished by proving the complete harmony of the Declaration with the confessions. In this way, by illustrating the soundness of the Declaration’s creedal argument on behalf of the unconditional covenant, the author demonstrates that all Reformed churches who subscribe to the three forms of unity are bound to confess that the covenant is unconditional. It is a matter of creedal fidelity.

Second is the application of the Declaration to the current controversy surrounding the federal vision, a theology that teaches on the basis of the conditional covenant that God gives the covenantal promise to every baptized child and that the fulfillment of that promise depends upon the child’s fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant. This latest mutation of “salvation by works” theology that now plagues numerous Reformed Churches is essentially the same covenant theology that was unmasked and defeated by PRC in the 1950s. The Declaration holds the cure, but few have sought to learn from history’s light. Indeed the Battle for Sovereign Grace shows that this battle is an ongoing battle between the true gospel and the false gospel and, as members of the church militant, we are called to fight the good fight on behalf of God’s truth.

In this regard this book is a very worthwhile read for anyone, young and old alike, who cherish the truth of the covenant and who desire to see this heritage preserved for the good of the church and the glory of God.

Mr. Justin Smidstra is a member of Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church in Hudsonville, MI, and will be entering the Protestant Reformed Seminary this fall, the Lord willing.


Catch Up with Calvin for only $31.45!

Click here to purchase. Valid through October 31, 2013.
*Book Club or any other discount does not apply. Book club members will not be charged for shipping.

As the anniversary of the celebrated Protestant Reformation approaches, let us give thanks to God for John Calvin and the wonderful reformation he also brought about, by God’s power.

Calvin’s Calvinism features the treatise written by Calvin in 1522 on the doctrines of predestination and providence represents his mature thoughts on these subjects. The Reformed Faith of John Calvin is the perfect book for those in search of a succinct summary of the Calvin’s Institutes.

Stock your shelves with these two valuable volumes and catch up with Calvin!


From Our Readers

Thank you for your valuable publication of the eBook version of the Church Order Commentary. I have already learned much from it and am very grateful for yet another outstanding RFPA publication (as always, the best that there is)!
—Reader from Tennessee

In the last year I was introduced to the Standard Bearer. I have found so much already that has helped us grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord. This is a Reformed journal to which every Reformed believer should be a subscriber. When I finish each issue, I leave it in the narthex of my church for others to read. Thank you for maintaining fidelity to God’s Word as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity.
—Reader from New York

I received Reformed Dogmatics by Hoeksema. Thank you for sending along a free copy of Our Goodly Heritage Preserved and a free copy of the Standard Bearer. I thoroughly enjoy reading the SB and read many SB articles online while deployed in Afghanistan.
—Reader from Michigan


Perversion, Praise, and Promises: Sneak Peak at the Next Issue of the Standard Bearer

Looking forward to receiving the September 1 issue of the Standard Bearer? Here's a taste of what's to come in the next issue of our Reformed magazine:

Editorial | The Persistent Sanctioning of Sexual Sins by Reformed Churches

"Our stand on sexual intimacy and marital faithfulness has direct bearing on our view of the church's relationship to Christ, and of his relationship to us."

O Come Let Us Worship | Praising the Lord in the Congregation:The Element of Singing




“The worship service is a dialog between God and his people. God our friend-sovereign speaks in his word, and we his friend-servants respond in singing and prayer. “ 


Special Article | Christ Reveals the Name of God




"John calls Christ the 'eternal life.' Not only does Christ proclaim eternal life. Not only does he work eternal life. No, he is himself eternal life.”


Read these articles and more in the upcoming September 1 issue of the Standard Bearer. Not a subscriber? Purchase an eSubscription or a hardcopy subscription today!

Post Tags

On Twitter

Follow @reformedfreepub