Dear Professor Engelsma,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the beginning and the ending.

I write this as an open letter to you, Prof., with the intention to distribute it to others as well. Having spoken and written about each other to various audiences this week, I take this opportunity to write directly to you, while still making this available to those who are interested. Anyone who reads this may pass it along as they wish.

The Call of the Gospel

Your latest email to the Engelsma Forum and to Terry Dykstra, dated June 17, 2021, states what you believe to be the issue between us. “The issue, as AL’s handling of Malachi 3 and James 4 clearly shows, is whether there is a call of the gospel that effectually draws God’s elect people to God—in a true and living faith—so that they experience that God draws nigh to them.”

This statement of the issue is consistent with your previous statements. “The error of the sermon is that it does away with the call of God to us to return.” “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 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” (Professor Engelsma to Terry Dykstra, June 14, 2021).

Your statement of the issue was helpful to me, because it explains why you have been unloading both barrels at me in your public correspondence to family and friends. You think I deny that there is a serious, urgent call and command of the gospel that calls men to repent of their sin and to believe in Jesus Christ. You think I deny that this call of the gospel is effectual, actually drawing God’s people to God in a true and living faith. You think I deny spiritual activity on the part of the believer in the believer’s actually coming to God in faith as the result of the gospel’s call. You think I deny that by this call of the gospel that draws God’s people to him in faith, they experience that God draws nigh to them.

Well, if I truly denied the effectual call of the gospel with the implications listed above, then I would deserve both barrels, and I would even hand you more slugs so that you could keep blasting away.

The reality is that I do not deny any of those things, not in my sermon or lecture or anywhere else. In case anyone has been led to think that I do deny these things, let me now confess what I actually believe regarding the call of the gospel.

I believe that the call of the gospel is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). This call of the gospel includes the promise “that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” This promise is the essence of the call of the gospel and the power by which men are saved. This call of the gospel includes the “command to repent and believe” (Canons 2.5). This call of the gospel is found throughout the Old Testament (Isaiah 55:1-4, for example), and the New Testament (Acts 2:38–39 and James 4:8, for example).

I believe that the call of the gospel is a serious, urgent call and command, by which God seriously calls everyone who hears to repent of his sins and to believe in Jesus Christ. The seriousness of the call does not mean that God intends or wills the salvation of all who hear the call, but it does mean that it is the duty of everyone who hears to repent and believe. Men who hear the call of the gospel but do not repent are guilty for their disobedience to the solemn call of the gospel. “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” (Rom. 10:16). “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). “The wrath of God abideth upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it, and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith, are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them” (Canons 1.4).

I believe that the call of the gospel is gracious and effectual for the elect, working in their hearts a true faith in Jesus Christ by the operation of the Holy Ghost. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). “But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God, given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own” (Canons 2.7). “What therefore neither the light of nature nor the law could do, that God performs by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the Word or ministry of reconciliation, which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, by means whereof it hath pleased God to save such as believe, as well under the Old as under the New Testament” (Canons 3–4.6). 

Q. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence doth this faith proceed? 

A. From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments. (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 25, Q&A 65)

I believe that the call of the gospel also has an effect on the reprobate, not to save them, but to harden them in their sin and rebellion against God. This hardening by the gospel was God’s eternal purpose with them according to his decree of reprobation. “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Rom. 9:17–18).

That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God’s eternal decree, For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15:18). Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation. (Canons 1.6)

I believe that the faith which the Holy Ghost works by the call of the gospel in the heart of the elect is the believer’s union with Christ and is the believer’s holy activity of knowing God and trusting in him. The believer’s activity of faith is in no sense a work, but is the opposite of working, and is the believer’s receiving from God all of the blessings that Christ has purchased for him. Faith is the believer’s coming to Christ, believing on Christ, and abiding in Christ, all of which coming, believing, and abiding in Christ is the gift of God to the believer, and all of which coming, believing, and abiding in Christ is produced by God in the believer (John 6:35; 15:4; Canons 3–4.14). 

Q. Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ? 

A. No, only those who are ingrafted into Him, and receive all His benefits, by a true faith. 

Q. What is true faith? 

A. True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 20–21)

I believe that God’s drawing the believer to himself by the call of the gospel is God’s fellowship with the believer, also in the believer’s experience. The believer hears God and believes in him, because God has already drawn nigh to the believer by his Word and Spirit. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). 

For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart. (Jer. 24:6–7)

Such is my confession of the call of the gospel. I suppose that my confession will not stop the slander of some that I deny the efficacious call of the gospel according to the Reformed faith. But I do humbly entreat you, in light of my confession, that you stop teaching men that I am developing a new, hyper-Calvinist religion that does away with the call of the gospel. I also entreat you to do what you can to stop that slander on the forums where it has already been spread.

Malachi 3:7

The issue between us is not the call of the gospel. How is it, then, that one could come to think that the issue between us is disagreement over the call of the gospel? It comes from this, that in my exegesis of Malachi 3:7, I interpret God’s command to Israel, “Return to me,” to be the call or command of the law, and not the call or command of the gospel.

Everyone agrees that there is a command in the text. The command is, “Return to me.” “Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?”

The exegetical question regarding the command in the text is whether it is the command of the gospel—which would be effectual actually to cause apostatizing Israel to return to God by the power of the Holy Ghost—or whether it is the command of the law—which would show Israel what she must do but what she cannot do and therefore what she must rely entirely upon God to do for her.

I exegeted the call, “Return to me,” as the call or command of the law. First, because there is no explicit call for faith. Other passages that make the call of the gospel, such as Acts 16:31 and James 4:8, do explicitly call for faith (“Believe” and “Draw nigh”). Other passages that make the call of the law, such as Luke 10:28, do not explicitly call for faith but only for obedience (“Do this”). Second, because the emphasis in the text (it seems to me) is not on the salvation that God has accomplished by the Savior, as is characteristic of the command of the gospel, but on the requirement laid upon Israel, as is characteristic of the command of the law. Third, because Israel’s response is not to turn, but to fail to return and refuse to return and even to deny that she has departed. “But ye said, Wherein shall we return?” This response emphasizes the law by highlighting what the command of the law always exposes: the sin and misery of man, including his inability to obey and his unwillingness to obey.

Incidentally, Martin Luther also exegeted the command of this text as the command of the law and not the command of the gospel, which command of the law exposes what lazy man should do but cannot do.

7. Return to Me, and I will return to you. These words seem to support the free will of man. They are, however, words of the Law, upon which the ability to obey does not immediately follow. After all, He has already said that they had never kept the Law, even if they were eager to keep it. To be sure, God is a good Lawgiver, but we are lazy doers of it. The Law tells us what we should do. He says, “Return to obey Me, and I will return to you to bless you. I will be your kind Father of mercies.”

How shall we return? The prophet has to deal with holy hypocrites, who are unwilling to accept rebuke and who are unaware of any sin or turning away from God.¹

Exegeting the call of Malachi 3:7 as the call of the law, I explained that the purpose of this call is to expose our own weakness and inability to return. The law shows us what we must do, and the law shows us that we cannot do it. The purpose of the law is not to harden the elect but to expose the already existing hardness of our hearts. Exposing the elect’s sin, the law shuts up the believer from himself so that his only hope for salvation, including all of his hope for returning to God, is found outside of himself in Jesus Christ. All of this is Reformed doctrine, as found in Canons 3–4.5–6.

Your original correspondent suggested to you that my exegesis of the call as the law actually denies the call of the gospel and the activity of man and that my teaching is, therefore, a new theology. “As you can read in the transcription, Andy’s interpretation is quite different. The way he explains it seems to me to be an entirely new theology and a redefining of terms… ‘command of the gospel (repent)’ = ‘law.’ response of faith to the command = do nothing, else you are justifying yourself by works” (Terry Dykstra to Professor Engelsma, June 13, 2021). You have apparently taken up your correspondent’s suggestion.

Contrary to your correspondent and to your agreement with your correspondent, my exegesis of the call of Malachi 3:7 as the command of the law, not the command of the gospel, does not mean that I deny that there is such a thing as the call of the gospel. I certainly believe that there is a call of the gospel with all of its implications, as confessed above. I believe that call of the gospel to be made in many passages of scripture. For example, I believe that the other text to which you referred, James 4:8, could very well be exegeted as the call of the gospel. My exegesis of Malachi 3:7 as the law is not a denial that there is an efficacious call of the gospel. It only means that in this particular passage, I see the call of the law and not the call of the gospel.

Neither does this mean that I refuse to allow one to interpret Malachi 3:7 as the call of the gospel. There may be good reasons why a believer is led to interpret that call as the call of the gospel. You have made a good case that the call of Malachi 3:7 is in fact the call of the gospel, especially in light of Malachi 3:18 and the promise that God’s people shall return. I happen to prefer Luther’s exegesis to Engelsma’s in this case, but that does not rule out explaining the text as the call of the gospel. But then let the man who exegetes the call of Malachi 3:7 as the gospel not accuse the man who exegetes that call as the law of having some ultra-orthodox, hyper-Calvinist, new religion.

The Issue: Does Man’s Activity Precede God’s Activity?

If the issue between us is not the call of the gospel, then what is it? The issue is this: whether man is first and God is second in any aspect of man’s salvation. Specifically, the issue is whether man’s activity precedes God’s activity in man’s enjoyment and experience of covenant fellowship with God. This explains why I preached what I did in Malachi 3:7 and why I said what I did in the lecture on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. I have not denied the efficacious call of the gospel, but I have denied that man’s activity precedes God’s activity. I have denied that God’s activity of returning depends upon man’s activity of returning or even waits for man’s activity of returning. Man and his activity do not precede God and his activity, even in the matter of man’s experience, and perhaps especially in the matter of man’s experience. This is the theological issue, the only theological issue, on which you and I disagree in the matter of Malachi 3:7.

I realize that you deny this to be the issue: “The issue is not, as AL completely erroneously (whether by mistake or malice) presents it, whether man is first in any aspect of salvation, or whether God is first. As a matter of simple, plain fact, I did not write that in James 4 or in Malachi 3, ‘man is first’” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021).

Therefore, let me demonstrate (without any malice and with all the respect of a former student for his beloved professor) that this is indeed the issue between us. Regarding your condemnation of my sermon on Malachi 3:7, you compare it to a previous sermon of yours on James 4:8. About these sermons, you write the following, with my underlining:

“We do draw nigh to God; God calls us seriously to do so; and there is a sense, a certain, specific sense, in which our drawing nigh precedes God’s drawing nigh to us. To deny this is to contradict the inspired Word of God” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 14, 2021).

“A member of the church, who considered himself the most orthodox member of the congregation and probably of the denomination, if not of the catholic church of all time, objected to my sermon because I did justice to the obvious truth that there is a sense—one, specific and very important sense—in which our drawing nigh to God, in the language of the text, precedes God’s drawing nigh to us and in which sermon I vehemently exhorted the congregation, including the ultra-orthodox member, to draw nigh to God” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021).

“Even one who is ‘mentally challenged’ can understand James to be teaching that it is our solemn, serious calling to draw nigh to God; that in a certain sense our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us; and that it is not Christian orthodoxy to deny our serious calling or that in a certain sense our drawing nigh to God precedes His drawing nigh to us” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021).

“First, to repeat, there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us. Let even the ‘idiot’ Christians among us take note that the text plainly says so” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021).

“Let all us ‘idiots’ look closely at James 4:8. And let us see with the eyes of faith, not blinded by a man-made scheme of ultra-orthodoxy, eyes that understand the clear teaching of God’s Word, that there is an important sense in which our drawing nigh to God, by the effectual allure of the promise that in this way God will graciously draw nigh to us (than which experience nothing is more precious), precedes God’s drawing nigh to us” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021).

“Question to AL: does he deny that God draws nigh to us in the way of His drawing us nigh to Himself, so that our drawing nigh to Him precedes our experience of His drawing nigh to [us]?” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021).

“God is always first in salvation, but with regard to the assurance of salvation He works in the order of drawing me to Himself as the way to draw nigh to me” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021).

“Otherwise even AL will have to acknowledge to his congregation that there is a sense in which our returning to God, by the effectual power of the grace of God in the call, precedes God’s returning to us, who have gone astray” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021).

“Let AL and his audience ask the question of himself and of themselves in light of Malachi 3: does the passage not teach that there is a sense in which Israel’s returning to God, by His efficacious call, precedes Israel’s enjoyment of these blessings. This does not mean that man is first. To charge this against one who rightly explains Malachi 3 is not merely a reprehensible tactic by which one thinks to win an argument, but also the twisting of Holy Scripture by which one opposes the way of God’s saving work with his people” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021).

“Presenting my thought as man’s preceding God is sheer falsehood. The truth is, as I also made plain, that our drawing nigh to God, by His effectual call, precedes God’s drawing nigh to us in our experience” (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 17, 2021).

This is evidently a very important point, which you make repeatedly and forcefully. This is the point that I object to. I do not believe that “there is a certain, specific sense, in which our drawing nigh precedes God’s drawing nigh to us.” Rather, the activity of God always and in every sense and without exception precedes the activity of man. Specifically, God’s drawing nigh to man always and in every sense and without exception precedes man’s drawing nigh to God.

Jesus’ word about our coming to Jesus, which is the same as our drawing nigh to him by faith, is that God’s activity is first.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:44–45)

Jesus’ word about our coming to the Father, which is the same as our drawing nigh to him by faith, is that we come to the Father only by Jesus. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Jesus’ word about our abiding in him, which is the same as our drawing nigh to him in faith, is that Jesus’ activity is first. “For without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5).

God’s word about our being gathered unto God is that this is entirely his work in returning to us.

For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer. (Isa. 54:7–8)

God’s word about our turning or returning to God is that God’s turning of us is first.

I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. (Jer. 31:18–19)

The apostle’s word about all of God’s good work in his people is that God both begins that work and perfects it. “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

The whole Reformed faith, and in fact the true Christian faith, is that God saves man, that God’s activity accounts for man’s activity, and that man’s activity in his salvation does not account for (or precede) God’s activity.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:8–10)

In light of all of this, it is wrong to say that “there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us.”

I recognize that you also have insisted that God is the one who first draws us to him, and that our activity of drawing nigh to God is the result of his drawing us to himself. You teach (and have always taught, as I can attest from my years under your instruction in seminary) that “God is always first in salvation.” The problem is that you have now gone beyond that teaching by introducing the teaching that “there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us.” You have added to the truth that “God is always first in salvation” a “but.” “God is always first in salvation, but with regard to the assurance of salvation He works in the order of drawing me to Himself as the way to draw nigh to me.” The addition of this “but” overthrows the truth that God is always first in salvation. It introduces an aspect of our salvation where God is not first. It introduces an aspect of our salvation where man is first, for “our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us.”

In explanation of your teaching that “our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us,” you appeal to man’s experience. It is in this sense of our experience that our activity precedes God’s activity.

First, to repeat, there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us…Second, this sense has to do with our experience of salvation, which is not an unimportant aspect of our salvation. When we draw nigh to God, by faith including faith’s repentance, God draws nigh to us in our experience. We have the consciousness that God is our near-by friend and that we are close to Him, in His bosom, which is Jesus, so to say. (Professor Engelsma to Forum and Terry Dykstra, June 16, 2021)

However, the teaching that man’s activity precedes God’s activity is not made right by an appeal to man’s experience of salvation. Even in man’s experience—especially in man’s experience—God’s activity precedes man’s activity. The believer who draws nigh to God experiences that God has already drawn nigh to him. The believer’s drawing nigh to God in no way precedes God’s drawing nigh to him, but follows God’s drawing nigh to him in the Word of the gospel. “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God” (Heb. 7:19). The better hope of Jesus Christ and his gospel comes first in the believer’s hearing and experience and heart, and afterward by that better hope the believer draws nigh unto God.

The believer who turns to God experiences that God has already come to the believer. “Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh” (Jer. 31:19). By his Word and Spirit, God turns the believer in the believer’s own experience, and afterward the believer repents and smites upon his thigh in his grief and sorrow for his sin.

The reason for God’s activity preceding man’s activity even in the believer’s experience is so that, even in the believer’s experience, he does not boast in himself but gives all of the glory to God. Not only is he saved by grace through faith and not works, but he at every point experiences that he is saved by grace through faith and not by works, so that even in the matter of his experience he has nothing in which to boast (Eph. 2:8–9).

The fact is that the call of the gospel is God’s drawing nigh to us. The call does not merely declare that God will draw nigh, but is his actual drawing nigh. By that Word itself as it is preached, God is already nigh us. “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach” (Rom. 10:8). By the message and promise and content of that Word as it is preached, Jesus Christ is already nigh us, clearly set before our eyes. “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth” (Gal. 3:1). By the Spirit who carries that Word into our hearts so that we know God as our Father and cry unto him, God is already nigh us. “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15).

What of the fact that the wording of the call of the gospel has man’s activity preceding God’s activity? “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (James 4:8). Simply this: The order in the call is not the order of God’s operation. Just because man’s activity is spoken first and God’s activity is spoken second, that does not mean that in the bestowal of salvation, man’s activity must precede God’s activity. The order of God’s operation in salvation is established throughout the scriptures to be this: “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). In that order of operation, man’s activity can never precede God’s.

The order in the call is given the way it is to establish that it is indeed God’s serious call to man to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The order also warns the departing hearer that there is no salvation in his departing. The order also assures the child of God that God is merciful and that he does indeed receive sinners who have gone away from him by their sin and rebellion. But the order in the call does not establish the order of God’s operation.

It has been a hallmark of Reformed exegesis to interpret the order of the call as establishing man’s duty, sounding a warning, and establishing God’s mercy, but not as establishing the order of God’s operation. In the order of God’s operation, God is first. For example, John Calvin on James 4:8:

Draw nigh to God. He again reminds us that the aid of God will not be wanting to us, provided we give place to him. For when he bids us to draw nigh to God, that we may know him to be near to us, he intimates that we are destitute of his grace, because we withdraw from him. But as God stands on our side, there is no reason to fear succumbing. But if any one concludes from this passage, that the first part of the work belongs to us, and that afterwards the grace of God follows, the Apostle meant no such thing; for though we ought to do this, yet it does not immediately follow that we can. And the Spirit of God, in exhorting us to our duty, derogates nothing from himself, or from his own power; but the very thing he bids us to do, he himself fulfills in us.²

In order to be faithful to the text, including the order of the call, there is no need to find a way for man’s activity to precede God’s activity in any sense, whether experience or otherwise.

In fact, teaching that there is some sense in which man’s activity precedes God’s activity introduces a condition into man’s salvation. Every departure from the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone has made man’s willing or doing precede God’s willing and doing. Though you have been the sworn foe of works-righteousness and the champion of salvation by grace, as everyone can and will attest, your insistence now that “there is a vitally important sense in which, in our salvation, our drawing nigh to God precedes God’s drawing nigh to us” is a departure from the gospel of sovereign grace.

I beseech you to reconsider your position on man’s activity preceding God’s activity in any sense in our salvation. I also beseech you to reconsider the charges that you have blasted at my theology: Ultra-orthodox. Hyper-Calvinism. New religion. New theology. Reactionary theology. Doctrinal deviations. I wear those charges gladly, for they are the false charges that the gospel of salvation by grace alone always draws. If I must wear these charges from you, then I shall. However, I would much rather not wear these charges from you personally, for it is bewildering and grievous to me that such charges should come from you, who taught me in years past that salvation is of the Lord.

Warmly in Christ,

Rev. Andy Lanning