The question is whether or not Rev. Andy Lanning’s exegesis of Malachi 3:7 is within the boundary of the analogy of faith as represented by the Reformed faith. The sermon as he preached it and as the consistory of First Reformed Protestant Church approved it answers the question in the affirmative. Prof. David Engelsma’s position is that the exegesis is not within the boundary of the analogy of faith. This difference is at the heart of the controversy.

There is, however, a secondary question that arises out of the first. The secondary question is, what is this analogy of faith? If the exegesis of the sermon is said by one to be within the boundaries of the analogy of faith and therefore appropriately preached in a Reformed church, but another says it is not within the boundaries of the analogy of faith, there is disagreement over what the analogy of faith is.

The particular exegesis in question is that of Malachi 3:7. To be more specific, it is the particular exegesis that the command spoken by the Lord’s prophet to the returned captivity of Israel, a command to turn to the Lord, is a command of law as law, and that it is not the command of the gospel. To explore the controverted exegesis a bit further, it was presented as a command that revealed the hardness of heart and the incapability of those to whom it was preached to perform what was commanded them, namely to turn to the Lord.

Turning from the exegesis presented in the sermon to the analogy of faith, in the light of which the exegesis is to be judged as valid or invalid, it is first necessary to establish the relationship of this particular exegesis of Malachi 3:7 to the analogy of faith. Does the analogy of faith prohibit this particular exegesis? In such a case the presented exegesis of Malachi 3:7 is heretical. If the analogy of faith does not prohibit this exegesis, it still does not mean the exegesis is correct. There would be other rules regarding the interpretation of scripture to be applied to determine whether the exegesis is correct. It might be a mistaken, wrong exegesis, but it could not be characterized as doctrinal or theological error.

There are two examples we can use to demonstrate this. Whether Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt offering to God or whether he consecrated her to a lifetime of full service to the Lord is a matter of exegesis. Whether or not one exegesis is correct over against the other does not involve any violation of the analogy of faith. Another illustration would be the exegesis of Romans 7:7–25. To exegete the passage as Paul’s statement of his condition prior to his conversion reveals Pelagian tendencies. The Reformed exegesis of the passage is that it is Paul’s self-description as a regenerated, believing child of God. That is, the latter exegesis of Romans 7 is within the boundary of the analogy of faith, whereas the former is not.

What is the analogy of faith? What makes it so strong as to be such a standard against which the exegesis of scripture on the part of ministers and professors can be judged as heretical or as orthodox?

The basis of the analogy of faith is twofold. The first basis is the unity of scripture. Scripture is one. It is one in its fundamental message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its unity is that it is the one revelation of the Son of God as the savior from sin through the blood of the cross of Calvary. It is also one because it consistently teaches the truth of God, which is always a complete unity. How many different things scripture teaches! Yet all its teachings are one. There is no contradiction in the Bible. All its teachings are completely in harmony with each other.

The second basis is the God-conferred, Spirit-given ability of faith to receive the above basis and to believe and confess this truth of God’s word. It is the ability to understand what scripture teaches in its unity and to believe, think, and speak accordingly. By this faith the believer can know and confess the truth of scripture. By this faith the believing church can preach and teach the scriptures. By this faith believers and the church are meant to exercise discernment and judgment, testing the spirits according to the exhortation of 1 John 4:1.

Reformed churches have their analogy of faith in their common doctrinal heritage, the three forms of unity. The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt are not only the doctrinal standards of Reformed churches as the basis for judgment in all doctrinal controversies that must be decided by the deliberative assemblies, but also these creeds must be subscribed to by all officebearers in Reformed churches. In signing the Formula of Subscription, ministers, elders, and deacons promise both to abide by these creedal doctrines in their preaching and teaching and to defend and maintain them against all errors contrary to them.

Thus we must expect that whatever exegesis is presented in a sermon on Malachi 3:7 in a Reformed church, it is required to conform with the doctrines of the three forms of unity. Certainly, the exegesis may not contradict those doctrines. Does, then, the particular exegesis of Malachi 3:7—the repentance demanded by the law, which demonstrates the incapability of man to repent of his sin of falling away from the Lord—conform to the doctrines of the three forms of unity? Additionally, does this particular exegesis apply in any way to the people of God, so that its application also is in conformity with the doctrine of the three forms of unity?

It does indeed. There are two distinct places in the three forms of unity that show conformity. The first is in the Canons of Dordt 3–4.5.

In the same light are we to consider the law of the decalogue, delivered by God to His peculiar people, the Jews, by the hands of Moses. For though it discovers the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof, yet as it neither points out a remedy nor imparts strength to extricate him from misery, and thus, being weak through the flesh, leaves the transgressor under the curse, man cannot by this law obtain saving grace. (Confessions and Church Order, 167)

This article concerns the law, and that in distinction from the gospel treated in the following article. It also speaks of the target of the law: it was “delivered by God to His peculiar people, the Jews.” The article then declares the work of the law: “it discovers the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof.”

Is it possible, in light of the above expression of the three forms of unity, to exegete Malachi 3:7 and to apply it in such a way that the command of God’s law to repent from sin demonstrates inability to repent according to the truth of total depravity? Is such an exegesis with its application within the framework of the three forms of unity? Does this expression of the law in some respect or another apply to the people of God?

The second place in the three forms of unity that shows conformance is the first section of the Heidelberg Catechism, “Of the Misery of Man.” In light of the form of the Heidelberg Catechism as a teaching document for instruction of Reformed believers and their seed in the churches and schools, this first section teaches them their misery, from which they need deliverance by the grace of God in Christ.

Considering this first section, the following points are outstanding concerning the controverted exegesis of Malachi 3:7.

First, question and answer 3 teach concerning the source of the misery of man that we know that misery “out of the law of God” (Confessions and Church Order, 84). The law is set before believers and their seed as the standard of God’s word to show to man his misery.

Second, that standard is then applied to believers and their seed with respect to their ability to “keep all these things perfectly.” They are taught, “I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor” (Q&A 5, in Confessions and Church Order, 85). The important, qualifying words must be noted in answer 5: “by nature.”

Third, this same qualification is expressed in answer 8 regarding the present condition of believers and their seed, but from the positive viewpoint of grace. They are taught to answer in the affirmative the question concerning themselves, “Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?” But there is the same exception taught: “except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God” (Confessions and Church Order, 86). By nature, of themselves, yes, believers and their seed are prone to hate God and the neighbor. By nature, of themselves, yes, they are wholly incapable of doing any good and inclined to all wickedness.

Fourth, this first section of the Heidelberg Catechism, as much as the third section, is true of believers and their seed. The Heidelberg Catechism, representing the analogy of faith, is a doctrinal unity. There is no conflict between the first and the third sections. Nor is the truth somewhere between the two. There is no balance required between them. It is impossible to so emphasize the first section as to deny the third. It is impossible to so emphasize the third as to deny the first. Much less may one play off the one against the other as if practically there is a conflict between them. The distinction between the two is simple. The misery of man is by nature. The misery of Reformed believers and their seed is by nature. The ability and exercise of the elect, regenerated children of God beginning to keep not only some but all the commandments of God is by grace alone. Their true repentance as a matter of true conversion is by grace alone.

There is only one conclusion to draw based on the above: the exegesis of Malachi 3:7, meeting with such scorn and despite, does indeed conform to the doctrines of the three forms of unity, the standard of the faith in Reformed churches. That having been stated, it is beyond the scope of this article to treat whether this exegesis is correct.

However, the fact that this exegesis of Malachi 3:7 has met with such scorn and despite is cause for deep concern and reflection. Why? Why is it expressed so powerfully that this exegesis is clearly outside the boundary of what is Protestant Reformed? Why should the preaching of Malachi 3:7 in this manner be held up as an example of what must necessarily happen when one departs from the denomination of the Protestant Reformed Churches? If the sermon does indeed conform to the Reformed standards of doctrine, why is it declared to be so far outside the boundary of Protestant Reformed preaching and teaching?

One reason may be purely psychological in nature, simply reactionary. If the Protestant Reformed Churches are entirely orthodox and Reformed in their character, and that character is entirely doctrinal, it must follow that if one truly departs from that denomination, that departure must be doctrinal in nature. Similarly, doctrinal deviation must certainly result as a reaction against the denomination, a simple consequence of departure. Departure must result in some kind of doctrinal deviation. So such a sermon on Malachi 3:7 can handily be found and declared out of the boundary of orthodoxy.

Another reason may be tactical. There may be deep concern over members of the Protestant Reformed Churches departing for the newly formed Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC). There may be deep concern over sympathy and empathy among the membership of the Protestant Reformed Churches for the fledgling denomination. A way to cut off that flow and sympathy and empathy is to present grounds for the RPC to be heretical in her preaching and teaching. As one must hate the lie, so one must hate the RPC for teaching and promoting the lie.

This reason seems to be more likely, given that the new denomination is popularly scorned along the lines of doctrinal deviation. The ministers, officebearers, and members are widely regarded as hyper-Calvinistic and antinomian and those who deny the necessity of good works, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and the reward of grace. Into such a mix it is easy to inject a particular sermon with its particular exegesis.

These reasons are somewhat superficial. As merely psychological, reactionary, or tactical, they will likely fade over time and allow for the gradual restoration of objectivity. Perhaps the conclusion could gradually take hold that maybe such an exegesis of Malachi 3:7 is a possibility in a Reformed church.

But there is another reason that is of far deeper concern. This reason is that this controverted exegesis of Malachi 3:7, while within the boundary of the doctrines of the three forms of unity, is nevertheless outside the boundaries of the Protestant Reformed Churches. Is it thought impossible in the Protestant Reformed Churches that the law can be so applied to God’s people to demonstrate to them their present inability by nature to do anything that God has commanded? Is it thought impossible that the law can show that by nature God’s people are incapable of doing any good and inclined to all evil? Specifically, can the law show God’s people that they are in this life unable of themselves to repent of their sins and turn from their evil ways of departing from the Lord, back to him?

The validity of this reason is demonstrated in the controversy that has developed in the Protestant Reformed Churches. Those who have stood in the controversy for the truth of salvation by grace alone without good works were charged with the error of antinomianism. They were charged with denying the possibility and necessity of good works. Even when the stand of these individuals was maintained by the synod and the synod rejected the charge of antinomianism, the controversy continued. Other doctrines and teachings began to be skewed according to the controversy. Charges of antinomianism continued. Good works continued to be maintained as they had originally been preached: done for the reason of obtaining blessings of assurance of salvation. Faith was declared to be an act done in order to obtain assurance of salvation. Other doctrines were affected. Elect, regenerated believers can no longer be said to be totally depraved in any respect. Grace does enable and grace does equip, but believers so enabled and equipped must nevertheless do their part in order to bring grace to its completion in actual good works and obedience.

In light of this development in the controversy, the energetic rejection of the preaching of the law according to Malachi 3:7 is not difficult to understand. Malachi 3:7 powerfully deprives man of all ability by nature to repent of his sin, to turn from it to God. It has nothing good to say of man of himself, by nature. It has nothing good to say of the elect, regenerated child of God by nature. It emphatically demonstrates to the elect, regenerated child of God that all his repentance, from beginning to end, is always and only by grace, not by anything in himself. Should grace leave anything undone, even for something so fundamental as repentance, there can only be impenitence, the stubborn refusal to turn from sin to the Lord. This teaching of the law, as exemplified in the proper, Reformed exegesis of Malachi 3:7, serves the doctrine of glorious, complete, sovereign, and irresistible grace, that salvation in every respect is the work of grace alone. This proper preaching of the law in Reformed churches makes absolutely clear what is well stated in the Canons of Dordt: “Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received” (3–4.12, in Confessions and Church Order, 169).

By grace alone.