The Coward Serapatists' Response
We were shocked to learn that again our Institute has been attacked in the columns of “Üzenet” and we felt it necessary to answer the false accusations, the slander and the theological errors. We do so for the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures and for the defense of the reformed confessions and of the purity of the reformed teachings. We are surprised that the Reformed Church has so soon turned to “a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all”, (Gal. 1:6,7), only the one, which has been revealed to us in the Word. We say this because Tamás Juhász puts it as follows: “Let us take into account the mistakes of this confession” (KGITM) and let us see what our Reformed Church teaches on the basis of the Holy Scriptures.” Therefore it is obvious for everyone that the article published in “Üzenet” reflects the present theological, confessional and practical positions of the Reformed Church. Later we will discuss the question of whether this position is biblical and to what extent it follows the reformed teachings and confessions.
Secondly, the fact that “neither the Hungarian Reformed Church nor the reformed churches of the neighboring countries have recognized the school (KGITM) as theirs” does not mean that our Institute (KGITM) is not reformed. In other words, does the reformed faith not exist outside the Hungarian Reformed Church (HRC)?
Thirdly, we simply transmit the message of those “uninformed young men” when we tell you that everybody at the Institute is aware of what they have taken up. And if the young men are uninformed, it only reveals the lack of teaching and other failure within the church.
Finally, if our confession is “alien to the spirit of our Reformed Church” let us examine what is the “correct spirituality” of the church and one of its professors of dogmatics. In the process of our examination we refer to the Bible, the reformed confessions and some reformed theologians.
1. According to this spirituality, István Török says: “The Bible in itself is a literary product full of fallibility; a human document, that is, a dark place. It offers continual occasion for shock.” (Török István, Dogmatika, p. 81.) Karl Barth, the highly regarded liberal theologian of the HRC, holds this opinion: “The prophets and apostles in their offices, witnessing roles or in the act itself of writing their testimonies were real people in history just as we are, and this is why they are sinners in their acts, they can be wrong and in fact, they are sinners in their speeches and written words because of their errors.” (Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, I, 2, p. 507.) Tamás Juhász, in following the above mentioned footsteps, comments: “ But not just the copiers made mistakes: the writers of Holy Scripture were frail people who could err.” Is this what the correct Hungarian reformed spirituality teaches? We hope that there are and there will be those who object to this just as the Bible does (Ps. 119:89, John 17:17, 2 Pt. 1: 19-21) when it claims the following about itself in 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed.”
Luther also emphasizes the inerrancy of Scripture in his sermon on John 3:16: “This is God’s Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go. The Word must stand, for God cannot lie; and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or title of His Word remains unfulfilled.” (John Warwick Montgomery, God’s Inerrant Word, p. 62. WA, 10, III, 162/Kirchenpostille) He also says: “I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred.” (John Warwick Montgomery, God’s Inerrant Word, p. 84. WA, 2, 618) Calvin tells us the following: “When that which is set forth is acknowledged to be the Word of God, there is no one so deplorably insolent – unless devoid also both of common sense and of humanity itself – as to dare impugn the credibility of Him who speaks.” (Institutes, Book 1, VII., 1.) Now let us turn our attention to the words of Károlyi Gáspár: “... the writings of the prophets and the apostles are perfect, complete, without any error, clear and true.” (Károlyi Gáspár, The preface of the Vizsoly Bible, Studia et acta ecclesiastica, vol. 3, p. 524.) Let us now have a look at the view of one of our contemporary theologians: “The Bible is authoritative: moreover, it is ultimately and absolutely authoritative. It does not, cannot, err, nor will it ever lead us astray.” (John R de Witt, What is the Reformed Faith?, p. 7.) This is the teaching of the Bible and of the reformers on this matter. If this point does not stand then everything is relative. We do not understand why Tamás Juhász refers later to this Scripture, which contains errors. If the foundation is so weak, what will the house be like which is built on it?
2. The testimony of the author and the Hungarian Reformed Church about their present interpretation of the Bible is very interesting: “We do not believe that the Bible must be “interpreted” in a Reformed or Calvinistic way.” What makes them say this? Is it possible that there is no difference between the reformed and e.g. the catholic interpretation of the Bible?
Our answer to this question is that we do not put the confessions over the Bible and we acknowledge that the Bible explains itself. What we declare in this 2nd point is simply what we believe, that is, our reformed forefathers interpretation of the Bible is correct. This is why we made it clearer which confessions we hold to. The reformers never arrived at the same conclusion with the Catholics or with the Unitarians. In this era, when everybody professes to be a Christian and says they interpret “the Scripture by ... Scripture”, but the results would differ, we felt it necessary to clarify that we interpret the Bible in the reformed way (and not in the catholic, Unitarian, Adventist, etc., way). It means that our interpretation is in agreement with the interpretation given by the reformed confessions. We did not lay particular stress on any of them because we believe that these confessions set forth the same truths of faith. And how God taught us these truths from His Word, we believe, is not of Tamás Juhász’s concern to measure. The following statement – “If they had quoted accurately, we would not have any objection against it.” – is merely an evasion. It is so firstly because we did not quote any of the Reformed confessions in our confession. And secondly because the author of the article is not annoyed by the lack of accurate quoting but by the content of our confession.
b. Let us now look at what he says: “God did not elect anybody to eternal death”. But we say that the testimonies of the Bible and the reformers speak otherwise (1Pt. 2:8, Rom. 9:17 – 18). Calvin says: “No one who wishes to be thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death.” (Institutes, Book 3, XXI., 5) This is why he goes on to say: “Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.” (Institutes, Book 3, XXI., 5) Péter Méliusz Juhász says the following on this matter: “The election is two-fold; one for life and the other to perish. We should talk in a proper way about the causes and order of both elections...” (Méliusz Juhász, Péter, Magyar prédikációk, Studia et acta ecclesiastica, vol. 3., p. 358.) We can see here that the reformers did use the expression of being elected for life or death. But if the expression “to elect” should still cause trouble, let us quote the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 3. 3rd sub-heading, to which Tamás Juhász also refers but points out wrongly that “He... did not elect but “left” the others in damnation.” The confession, however, says this: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 3.) Hence, God does not “leave” it to chance.
c. “The atonement of Jesus Christ is universal and did not happen only for the “elect” – says Tamás Juhász. In saying so he has gone astray to the wide road of the false teaching of Arminianism. His reference to The Heidelberg Catechism 20 and The Canon of Dort 11, 5-6 is devoid of all foundation since universal redemption is not even mentioned in them. Citing John 3:16, according to which Jesus Christ is the redeemer of the world is not an argument, because it does not necessarily mean that under the word ‘world’ we must understand each individual. “Look how the world has gone after him!” (John 12:19) – was said about Jesus, but nobody understands it in the sense that every single person on earth would have been following him. On the other hand, the Bible speaks clearly about Christ having given his life for those whom the Father had given to him, that is, the elected ones. (Isa. 53:4-8, 11, Eph. 5:25, Gal. 1:4, John 17:19, John 10:14-15, Matt. 1:21, Matt. 20:28, Rom. 5:8, Hebrews 10:14) Let us see a Hungarian reformed dogma from the 16th century: “Whom did Christ redeem? The power of Christ’s sacrifice only affected the elect as he himself proves it: I offer myself up for them.” (Tamás Félegyházi, Dogmatika, Studia et acta ecclesiastica, vol. 3., p. 795.) The Canon of Dort talks about it very plainly, too: “that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father.” (The Canon of Dort, II, 8) In the end let us hear what a believing professor of dogmatics says about it: “That is why reformed theology confessed that between the two different viewpoints particularism was right. Because Christ died only for believers and his death was only for the salvation of the elect” (Jenő Sebestyén, Református Dogmatika, vol. 2., p. 121.) Thus, we see what the teachings of the Bible and the reformers are and what Tamás Juhász and the church teaches about it as well.
d. His criticism of the points on irresistible (and not un-regrettable!) grace and the perseverance of the saints is very obscure. We did not say that those who are irresistibly called by God will not have some sin in their lives in the future. Furthermore, none of us is going to draw up the register of the saints. The Westminster Confession, however, puts it clearly: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to the grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, X., 1) The answer given to question 54 in The Heidelberg Catechism speaks clearly about the perseverance of the saints.
Tamás Juhász calls our claim that the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox Churches do not confess justification by grace through faith “an exaggerated and ignorant simplification”, but he does not substantiate his claim. Perhaps he knows something about a change in the Roman Catholic church. We, however, do not know anything about it! But we do know that since the time of the Reformation they have added to their teachings some dogmas (the Pope’s infallibility, Assumption). In October 1996 the Pope accepted the theory of evolution, too. The Synod of Trent declared the following about the teaching of justification by grace through faith: “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Chris’s sake, or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified: let him be anathema.” (The Synod of Trent. Session VI, Canon 12) It goes without saying that Tamás Juhász’s position denies the basis of the Reformation.
3. On the basis of the Bible and the confessions women can be and must be excluded from the office of minister. The Bible teaches that women must not rule over men because this would mean disobeying God’s always abiding creation order (Gen. 3:16, 1Tim. 2:13-14, 1Cor. 11:3, 8-9, 1Pt. 3:1-7). This is why it is forbidden for women to be ministers or elders as spiritual leaders of the congregation who have authority (1Tim. 2:12, 1Cor. 14:34-35). It is nonsense to talk about being put into the background due to social status since no religion or society today honors women so highly as the Bible does, and God’s truth does not change with time. The Second Helvetic Confession says: “We teach that baptism should not be ministered in the Church by women or midwives. For Paul excludes women from ecclesiastical callings; but baptism belongs to ecclesiastical offices.” (The Second Helvetic Confession, Ch. XX.) We read the same in the 9th and 44th paragraphs of Articuli Maiores (a work written at the Synod in Debrecen in 1567) where it is clearly said: “According to the Word of God, the whole service of teaching by preaching is forbidden for women as well as the administering of the Sacraments thereof.” Calvin writes in his explanation on 1Tim. 2:12: “ ...for all wise men have always rejected the government of women, as an unnatural monstrosity. Thus for a woman to usurp the right to teach would be a sort of mingling of earth and heaven.”
4. “For those who have been trained in the Institute from Miskolc it is worth knowing that in the Hungarian Reformed Church the bishop’s office is a historical remnant and in principle it is nothing more than the office of president or moderator.” – says Tamás Juhász. We do not believe that this question can be settled simply with “it is worth knowing”. An unbiblical office (Phil. 1:1, Tit. 1:5-7, Acts 20:28) cannot be preserved as a historical remnant. If this office bears so little importance, why did the church insist on it so much that it punished severely all those who protested against it? Why did the church exclude the Hungarian puritan leaders at the National (and not regional!) Synod in 1646? Is it not “the sin” of our Institute that it is independent and not subject to the bishop’s authority?
The author of the article is right when he says that in theory the bishop’s office is nothing more than being moderator, but everybody knows very well in practice how much authority the bishop has! Try standing up against the bishop’s circular letters sent “with love”!
Let us see what The Second Helvetic Confession says about this matter: “Yet Jerome does not avouch this as an order set down of God; for straightway he adds, ‘Even as the elders knew, by the continual custom of the Church, that they were subject to him that is set over them, so the bishops must know that they are above elders rather by custom than by the prescribed rule of God’s truth, ...’, Thus far Jerome. Now, therefore, no man can forbid by any right that we may return to the old appointment of God, and rather receive that than the custom devised by men.” (The Second Helvetic Confession, Ch. XVIII.) The Belgic Confession also puts it very clearly: “As for the Ministers of God’s Word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all Ministers of Christ, the only universal Bishop and only head of the Church.” (The Belgic Confession, 31.) Finally, let us quote Calvin’s successor, Beza: “I most willingly leave the whole frame of Episcopal authority to the papists, of which (I openly profess) the Holy Spirit of God was never the author, but human policy, which if we do not observe to be accursed by God, we certainly as yet see nothing at all: and nourish we do a viper in our bosoms which will kill the mother.” (Iain H. Murray, The Reformation of the Church, p. 101.) The Hungarian “Episcopal” Reformed Church would act in accordance with God’s Word and the reformed confession if it cleansed itself from this “historical remnant”.
5. It is very sad that our two sentences about church discipline are clichés for the church. It may be that “everybody acknowledges” the truth of the two sentences. Yet, nobody practices it because it is not allowed in the nominal church to differentiate between a believer and an unbeliever. The Bible, however, draws a clear line between the church and the world, a believer and an unbeliever (2Cor. 6:11-18, 1John 2:15-17). Moreover, we can read about special cases of church discipline in the Bible: Matt. 18:15-18. 1Cor. 5:5, 9-13, 2Thess. 3:6, Tit. 3:10-11. (See also The Second Helvetic Confession, Chs. XIV, XVII, XVIII, and The Heidelberg Catechism Questions 83, 84, 85.) Calvin says the following in connection with the administration of the Sacraments: “And here also we must preserve the order of the Lord’s Supper, that it may not be profaned by being administered indiscriminately. For it is very true that he to whom its distribution has been committed, if he knowingly and willingly admits an unworthy person whom he could rightfully turn away, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord’s body to dogs.” (Institutes, Book 4, Ch. XII, 5) Also: It is “ ...to the dishonor of God, as if his holy church [cf. Eph. 5:25-26] were a conspiracy of wicked and abandoned men. For since the church itself is the body of Christ [Col. 1:24], it cannot be corrupted by such foul and decaying members without some disgrace falling upon its Head. Therefore, that there may be no such thing in the church to brand its most sacred name with disgrace, they from whose wickedness infamy redounds to the Christian name must be banished from its family.” (Institutes, book 4, XII, 5) Now let us see what Dr. Endre Illyés has to say about this issue in his book published in Debrecen in 1941: “Church discipline, based on the Bible and reformed foundations, had almost faded away by the end of the 19th century, and in the end it completely disappeared from the life of the Hungarian Reformed Church.” (Egyházfegyelem a magyar református egyházban, p. 186.) It is regrettable that the church practices the distorted conception of Tamás Juhász about church discipline, thus rejecting biblical church discipline.
6. We do not question the idea of unity in Christ based on the Bible, and we even say together with the psalmist: “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (Psalm 133:1) But we protest against the false unity proclaimed by the World Council of Churches (WCC) because it is not founded upon the Bible and because its aim is syncretism. Therefore, we profess what The Second Helvetic Confession says: “It consists not in outward rites and ceremonies, but rather in the truth and unity of the Catholic faith. This Catholic faith is not taught us by the ordinances or laws of men, but by the holy Scriptures,...” (The Second Helvetic Confession, Ch. XVII) What kind of unity does the WCC proclaim then? It is such in which the confessions are no longer authoritative and the Bible is not the only foundation but in the name of “love”, “tolerance” and “peace” they tread on Christ’s truth. It is impossible for the Hungarian Reformed Church to hold on to their confessions and be a member of the WCC at the same time!
It is interesting to pay attention to the following quotation, too: “Who do they think they are to believe that their presence or absence is so remarkable?!” Here it shows how important they think the individual is in the church! Can this be the reason for hundreds of thousands being absent from the churches? Are the “rebels attacking from inside” responsible? Are the “janissaries” responsible for this, too? Or is it really “The Comedy of Errors” (which, by the way, was written by Shakespeare)?
Some may laugh at us but we should rather cry because of the prevailing conditions in the church. For the church has abandoned its confessions and reformed heritage, of which it boasts. Is it not the time to stop and repent because of our condition and that of the church? Is it not relevant what Jeremiah said: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Jer. 6:16) If this does not happen, then there is nothing left but the way of modernism, ecumenism and liberalism, in which the church is heading at present. These ways, however, are not the ways of “reformed spirituality”. These ways – as we have already seen – mean giving up the truths of the Bible and of the Reformation, and result in such a Church which has not been a holy mother for a long time and has not been one “in the unity of the true faith” (The Heidelberg Catechism, Question 54.), and does not strive to glorify God.
Everybody should think his or her opinion over seriously, because “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isa. 5:20). Let us not be acceptors of the truth of the Word only “in theory” but let us be its keepers, consistent doers and defenders.
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Romans 12:1,2)
How can you get saved?
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Acts. 16:31
