Dear Professor Engelsma,

I am writing to you because of your letters to Terry Dykstra and your family regarding Reverend Lanning’s sermon on Malachi 3:7. I know those letters were not addressed to me personally, and so I was not necessarily the originally intended audience. However, those letters have made the rounds in the public domain. As such, I believe they deserve a public response.

I must say I am quite surprised by your lack of charity toward Reverend Lanning. You claim that Reverend Lanning thinks the church needs him, that he is “the theologian, and wisdom concerning the Word of God is born with me.” You know Reverend Lanning, and you know that is not who he is or what he thinks of himself. You also know that every reformer of the church has been accused of that same thing. Athanasius stood against the whole church world. So did Luther. The examples could be expounded. These accusations were hurled against them as well. Shall you also now join in the chorus of the Pharisees, Pelagius, Erasmus, Rome, and all the others who have said the same thing against the Lord’s servants?

I am also surprised at how you speak of Reverend Lanning as if he were your enemy, when you have a letter before synod asking the PRC to reconcile with him and the Reformed Protestant Churches. I will remind you of James 1:8: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” Anyone who is serious about reconciling does not speak this way about the one with whom he is trying to reconcile.

I am also disappointed in your pettiness. I have seen the Facebook trolls call Reverend Lanning “Andy,” but I thought better of you. He is a minister of the word of God in a church of Jesus Christ. He has been called by this church and is watched over by his elders. Whatever you call Reverend Lanning is really of no import, but it is interesting to see the fulfillment of Christ’s words in John 15:20: “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” At the cross of Jesus, the Pharisees argued with Pilate about Jesus’ superscription. They wanted to take away his title, “The King of the Jews,” to “He said he was the king of the Jews” in order to discredit and disparage Christ. It is not surprising then that since they tried to take away the title of our Lord, so too they will try to take away the title of his servants in order to belittle and demean their office. It is a shame that you also partook in this persecution.

The above things are just superficial and irrelevant. The real issue is what you say regarding Reverend Lanning’s teaching. You claim that Reverend Lanning’s error is that he does away with the call and command to return unto the Lord. If this claim of yours was not so serious, it would be laughable. The man who was deposed from office in part for calling his church and denomination to repentance, to return to the Lord, is actually the one who does away with the call to repent? I believe you are seriously mistaken and that you have been a false witness against your neighbor.

I cannot just make this charge against you, however. I am duty bound to follow the way of Deuteronomy 19:16–19:

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

I must diligently make inquisition of the sermon to see if your accusation stands. If it does not, then you are a false witness and have the calling to repent.

Throughout the sermon it was emphasized that the call to return must be issued from the pulpit repeatedly and urgently.

The church of the Lord Jesus Christ must constantly hear that call, “Return.” She must constantly hear that call “Return” because she is constantly, according to herself, tempted to depart. And according to her old man, she is departing…His call to his church is “Return.” That call to return is a call to repentance. It is a call to see the departure, to acknowledge it, and to hate it. It is a call to leave that departure forthwith, as fast as we can, and return unto the truth of Jehovah. That’s the call to return: see that departure, acknowledge it, hate it, and come back to me. It’s a call to repentance.

And that is a necessary call when the church is departing. The call to return must be made. It must be made forcefully and sharply and without letting up on it. “Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Your charge that Reverend Lanning does away with the call to repent cannot be based on the body of the sermon itself. He issued that call seriously and fervently to the congregation in this sermon.

However, you do not base your claim on anything that was actually said but upon your own interpretation and understanding of what Reverend Lanning means to teach by his sermon. You claim that the sermon denies spiritual activity on the part of the believer, such that Reverend Lanning means to teach “do nothing, but keep on falling; I will catch you apart from your returning.” I encourage you to read the sermon again. It was never said “do nothing” in response to this call. It was never said to just “keep on falling” in your sin. Your characterization of what was taught is born of your own imagination.

One way you can tell a man is a false witness is that he provides no evidence for his accusations. Another way that you can see a false witness is that he takes the words of the accused and twists them to his own devices and meaning. You see both of these things with the false witnesses at Jesus’ trial. They had no evidence, and the evidence they did present was a wicked twisting of what Jesus actually said. The entirety of your letter presents no evidence for your claims. You cite no quotations from the sermon to substantiate your claims. You prove nothing but only assert your own thoughts. Not only do you provide no quotations, but what you do present in your letter in quotation marks are your own misunderstandings and twisting of what was said.

What was taught in the sermon was that when we as individuals or as churches depart from the Lord by departing from his ordinances, the Lord presents to us the demand to repent and return unto him. This call to repent is a serious calling that we must obey. It is a call that we must stop departing from Jehovah and return unto him. The sermon says, “And that call must be made because the church that is departing must be broken from her departure. She must not be allowed to continue tolerating it.” The sermon does not teach to “do nothing.” This is a call to do something. It is a call to break from our departure and not allow ourselves to continue in it.

And again the sermon instructs us, “You and I know that this rebuke is for us. We must heed that rebuke this morning.” To heed a rebuke means to obey it, to do what that rebuke calls us to do. This is not a calling to “do nothing.” It is a calling to obey and to do what God calls us to do.

What was said in the sermon about the believer’s activity was this:

What does a church look like that understands the truth of the word of God and that gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? What’s her response to the corruption of the ordinances? Her response is that she keeps those ordinances. It’s intolerable for her that those ordinances be corrupted; that the preaching of the gospel have mixed in it filth that takes away from the glory of God, that takes away from the righteousness of Christ. She won’t tolerate that. She says about those ordinances, “We must keep them. We want to keep them, guard them, preserve them pure without any mixture of that wretched lie.”

The believer keeps, guards, and preserves the purity of doctrine in the church. They are active in this work. This was the confession of the sermon regarding the activity of the believer.

However, the point of the sermon was not just to teach us what we must do, but also what we can do, and that in our own strength. Can we repent and return of our own strength? That was the question and burden of the last part of the sermon. The sermon teaches

that law as it thunders upon us, “Return unto me,” exposes us as being unable in ourselves. That’s the function of that call; that’s the function of that command, that law of God in the text, “Return unto me.”…When the child of God hears the call that way, that call drives home to him, “I cannot. I cannot. That’s my sin. That’s my weakness; that’s my depravity. That’s my hopelessness in myself. I cannot. All I can do of my own is plummet and be destroyed.”

And that’s the confession that the church makes when that call comes to us, “Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts.”…All we can do is plummet and realize we cannot in ourselves return unto him.

What was taught here is in perfect harmony with Belgic Confession, article 14:

Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin, and has nothing of himself, unless it is given from heaven. For who may presume to boast that he of himself can do any good, since Christ saith, No man can come to Me except the Father, which hath sent Me, draw him?…In short, who dare suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the apostle saith ought justly to be held sure and firm, that God worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. For there is no will nor understanding conformable to the divine will and understanding but what Christ hath wrought in man, which He teaches us when He saith, Without Me ye can do nothing.

As well as Canons 5.8:

Thus, it is not in consequence of their own merits or strength, but of God’s free mercy, that they do not totally fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish finally in their backslidings; which with respect to themselves is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible.

Because of what was taught in the sermon, you say Reverend Lanning “denies” that God by his grace works in us to return when we stray. Really? Reverend Lanning in this sermon “denies” that God works in us the returning when we stray? This is a baseless accusation. It is not grounded in what was actually said, nor is it an honest evaluation of the implications of what was said.

What was taught in the sermon was this:

There is only one hope for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is only one hope for those who have departed, who are called by God to return. And that one hope is not that we somehow arrest our fall into destruction and turn around and go to Jehovah, but that “the Lord of hosts” comes down to us and takes hold of us by the power of his sovereign grace and takes hold of us in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as that gospel is proclaimed and as that gospel was pictured in the sprinkling of the water in the sacrament of baptism; that Jehovah God by that gospel gives to us Christ, gives to us his righteousness, imputes it as ours; that Jehovah saves us from hell and destruction and sin and death by his only begotten Son. That’s what he did when he sent the Lord Jesus Christ in our flesh. There we were, plummeting into destruction, and Jehovah came down, came down, sending his only begotten Son to take hold of us to save us from all our sin. That’s the hope, the one hope of the church of Jesus Christ. And that’s the hope that Jehovah declares to this his people.

To be saved from our sin means to be justified and sanctified. This is what the gospel and specifically the sacrament of baptism teaches us. Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 26: “What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ? It is to receive of God the remission of sins freely…and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ.” This is what it means to be taken hold of by the power of God’s sovereign grace in the gospel, as symbolized in the sacrament of baptism, and to be given Christ, such that he saves us from all our sins.

Contrary to what you say, that Reverend Lanning is “advancing beyond and contrary to the Reformed creeds” and that “he is developing a new religion,” this sermon faithfully taught the calling placed before the believer to repent. It demanded that we actively and consciously turn from our sins and return unto God. It also showed us our inability to obey that command in and of ourselves. And it brought the comfort and glory of the gospel that salvation is of the Lord, so that by him and through him and to him be all the glory and praise and honor.

It is my prayer that you see the error of your accusations, that you see them as unjust and a false witness before men and before the Judge of heaven and earth. It is my prayer that the Lord work repentance in your heart for what you have done and that you repent before God and man of your sins.

Your brother and spiritual son in Christ,

Matthew Overway