Dear Terry,

The error of the sermon is that it does away with the call of God to us to return. This call is serious, permits the errant child of God or church to respond, “I cannot and need not return,” which is to do away with the call itself. When God says to us, “return!” He is serious. We must return, must actively return. And His call itself works in us the returning. In the way of our actual, and active, returning, which God effectually accomplishes by the exhortation, He then returns to us in our experience, which is a real returning on the part of God.

What Andy Lanning has forgotten is that he needs the church, as the church does not need him. The church keeps us from going off on our own, as though knowledge of the truth is our invention. “I am the theologian, and wisdom concerning the Word of God is born with me” thinks an Andy Lanning. He is going to ruin himself and destroy those who are attached to him. Everything about this—the loss of him, the loss of his flock, and their ruin—is unutterable grief.

Notice distinctly that he himself deliberately rejects the entire Reformed tradition regarding the meaning of “return to me, and I will return to you.”

Not to be overlooked is that his peculiar interpretation of the Malachi passage is the denial of spiritual activity on the part of the believer. When God says “return,” He does not mean “return,” but He means “do nothing, but keep on falling; I will catch you apart from your returning.” This is ominous for a theology. It turns the gospel of grace into a denial that God works in us to will and to do (Phil. 2). I do not recognize this message as the Reformed faith in which I have been brought up from childhood, which I have preached and taught for many years, and which I have learned in all my study. Although it presents itself as a praise of grace, in opposition to Arminian praise of the will and works of man, it is no such thing. In fact, it disparages grace. Grace is so wonderful that it not only consists of God’s catching us when we are falling, but also teaches that God works in us to return when we stray. God not only is serious when He says to us, “return,” but also effects our active returning.

When Andy denies this, in the interests, he thinks of grace, he shows himself to be advancing beyond and contrary to the Reformed creeds. He is developing a new religion. I refer to the Canons of Dordt, 3&4, Articles 11ff. God saves us in such a way that we actively bring forth the fruits of good actions (including “returning to God when we stray—DEJ), that we do actively believe (which includes repenting and returning—DJE), that we are not treated as senseless stocks and blocks, and that does not exclude or subvert the use of the gospel (which includes the admonition, “return to me—DJE).

IN addition to all the grief referred to above, there is also the verification of the charge of our foes that the theology of the PRC is at its heart the rejection of the saving work of God in us and of the place of exhortation in the preaching.

I mourn for the reasons referred to above and more.

Cordially in Christ,

Prof. Engelsma