Posting 24 THE 1985 HERESY TRIAL

              The scriptural teaching of unconditional election speaks of a definite number of persons—less than all—who, before the foundation of the world, were chosen in Christ to a certain-to-be-realized salvation. From this fact it seems reasonable to conclude that there must also be some who were not so chosen and their having been “passed by” accounts for their damnation. 

THE OPPOSITE OF ELECTION

               However, the Bible never speaks this way and neither may we. It has been said that in this particular matter the Bible is “splendidly illogical.” According to the Scriptures, the opposite of election to salvation is not non-election resulting in damnation. Rather, the opposite of election to salvation is willful, persistent, disobedience to the will of God as it has been made known to the person who is condemned. We must accept what the Scriptures teach concerning election and non-election even though these concepts cannot be neatly harmonized in our mind.

              Because the many so-called “universalistic” texts speak of salvation in terms of all persons, Evangelical Inclusivism teaches that all persons are elect in Christ and are certain to come to salvation, except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost. Those who will be lost are those, and only those, who, in addition to their sin in Adam, finally reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience (Rom. 1 & 2) OR in gospel presentation.

THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST ME

              This definition of the elect has vast implications for our Christian life. These relate to our theology, the message of missions, the cultural mandate, and many other practical aspects of Kingdom activity. In light of these significant implications, it is not surprising the Lethbridge Christian Reformed Church council of Alberta, Canada concluded that in advocating the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism I was promoting a doctrine that was contrary to the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds.

              After some correspondence with me, a six-page, single-spaced document containing four sections of charges leveled against my writings was sent to my church council. These charges and my written response to them were thoroughly discussed in the council (elders and deacons) of the church of which I was the pastor.  The council concluded that these charges did not prove that I had contradicted the Scriptures or creeds either in my book Unconditional Good News or in other published articles.

CLASSIS CHICAGO SOUTH

                The Lethbridge Council appealed this decision to Classis Chicago South. The Classis was comprised of the fourteen Christian Reformed churches in the area. A Classis advisory committee prepared the following responses to the Lethbridge charges and distributed them to the churches five weeks before the special evening session of classis. The record of these charges is maintained by the Stated Clerk of Classis Chicago South.

              On March 1, 1985, the Kedvale Avenue church sanctuary was filled with delegates and spectators. Even in those days it was uncommon for a minister to be officially charged with heresy.

              The following four responses to the charges brought against me are transcribed from the minutes of that special evening session of Classis Chicago South. Classis responded as follows:

 “A) Classis finds that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt contradicts the Scripture or the creeds when:

      1. He uses the terms “unconditional good news,” or

          “objective announcement” as a definition of the gospel.

                  Ground: It is possible to use a restricted or narrower definition

                  of the gospel than one finds in the creeds or the Scriptures

                  and still stay within the bounds of the truths expressed in the

                  creeds and the Scriptures.

      2. He holds that faith is not essential in establishing us in

          the state of grace.

                 Ground: The quotations in point II of the charges do not show

                 that Punt disagrees with the creeds. Their summary of the

                 creedal teaching Punt affirms (Cf. Response A, Para. 2, p. 5).

      3. He affirms that “Believers must regard all others as joined

          with them in obeying the cultural mandate unless and

          until those with whom they work reject the revelation God

          has given. . .” and makes similar statements.

                  Ground: This position respects the antithesis and only

                  recommends Scriptural tolerance in determining who is on the

                  other side. “For he that is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).

        4. He contends that all who die in infancy are saved, since no one is

            condemned on the basis of original sin alone. Ground: The creeds

            do not address this issue. All the references (I,1, 17; II Rej. Of

            errors, 5, III/IV, Rej. of Errors 1) state that all (elect and non-elect)

            are worthy of condemnation on the basis of original sin. This Punt             nowhere denies. Canons II rejection of errors 5 has as its

            obverse, “some shall be condemned because of original sin and

            some are not free from the guilt of original sin.”  But this may

            apply only to those who are also condemned and punished

            forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their

            other sins (I, 15). Furthermore, the isolated unexegeted texts

            found in charge four do not in any way prove that the position

            taken by Rev. Punt contradicts the Scriptures.

B) That classis finds that the appeal fails to demonstrate that

Punt contradicts the creeds when he affirms that “whoever brings the Word of God must assume that those who are being addressed are ‘elect in Christ,'” but that Punt does not give sufficient attention to the proper sense of the creeds.

               Each of the above four responses were discussed and voted on separately. The committee members and all twenty-eight delegates to Classis were free to ask whatever questions they wished. I was in the hot seat for nearly three hours. Each of the four responses were adopted by Classis.

               Following the adoption of the four points in section A, section B was placed on the table for discussion and questions. I informed Classis that I refused to be judged by the nebulous phrase that the committee called "the proper sense of the creeds." I said I had subscribed to the creeds "as written."  Classis was obligated to cite those portions of the creed I had violated, if any. This refusal stymied Classis.

               At the request of the chairman of Classis, I met separately with the members of the advisory committee during a recess. I suggested, and the committee agreed, that the following paragraph be substituted as section B. The following was adopted by Classis:

 A DIFERENT ASSUMPTION

  B) “Although Classis recognizes, with the Lethbridge consistory, that the assumption underlying the creeds is different than the one of Punt, namely ‘whoever brings  the Word of God must assume that those who are being addressed are elect in

Christ,’ Classis declares that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt goes beyond the limits set by the Word of God or the creeds.”

               I had no objection to this statement. As far back as page four of my first book, Unconditional Good News, I acknowledged that I worked with a different assumption than that which was “common to all mainstream historical theological traditions.” This has always been the position of Evangelical Inclusivism.

               Do we have a right to work with a different assumption than that which the authors of the creeds had in mind? I believe we do. In adopting the creeds, the church was so careful to include only those things that are clearly taught in the Scriptures that the authors' assumptions found no place in the creeds. Therefore Classis was unable to find any place where I contradicted the creeds.

APPEAL TO SYNOD 1985

                   Lethbridge appealed the decisions of Classis to the national synod (1985) of the Christian Reformed Church. The advisory committee of Synod reviewed the six pages of charges presented by Lethbridge, my reply to them, and Classis' summary and disposition of them. The following recommendation was presented to the full Synod and adopted by it

:

        That synod not sustain the appeal of the Lethbridge CRC 

        against the decision of Classis Chicago South re the views

        of Rev. Neal Punt.

             Ground: The appeal does not prove that Classis Chicago

                 South erred when it decided that the views of Rev.

                 Punt do not contradict the Scriptures or the

                 creeds.              Adopted (Acts of Synod, 1985, p. 790)

.  

Q & As 20, 60, AND 65 OF THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM

              Included in the four summaries of the charges leveled against me was the claim that the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism is inconsistent with Heidelberg Catechism Q & As 20, 60, and 65. An initial reading of these questions and answers seems to indicate that they are inconsistent with premise B that “All persons will be saved except those the Bible declares will be finally lost.”

     Q. 20 — Are all men saved through Christ just as we were           lost through Adam?

     A. No. Only those are saved who by true faith are grafted into

         Christ and accept all his blessings.

     Q. 60 — How are you right with God?

     A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.

     Q. 65 — You confess that by faith alone you share in Christ 

         and all his blessings; where does that faith come from?

     A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching           of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the           holy sacraments.

              To say that Evangelical Inclusivism contradicts these questions and answers, one must assume that the purpose of the Catechism, when it speaks of “true faith,” is to delineate all those, and only those, who will be saved. This cannot be the case for at least three reasons:

              First, when the Catechism asks “What is true faith?” it answers “True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel” (Q & A 21). If this is intended to describe “all those, and only those, who will be saved,” then it necessarily follows that no one dying in infancy and many mentally challenged persons can be saved.

              It would also mean that no one living their entire life beyond the reach of the gospel could be saved. This has never been the confession of the Reformed Church. At most the church has said the Scriptures do not address this question.

              Second, to say that the above questions and answers cannot be harmonized with the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism would be to say that God has made “true faith” to be a “condition” for salvation. Such is not the case:

           “Election [to salvation] took place, not on the basis of

            foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or

            of any other good quality and disposition, as though it

            were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the

            person to be saved” (Canons of Dort I, Art. 9, emphasis

            added).

               God has not chosen “the intrinsically unworthy act of faith,” or “the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation” (Canons of Dort, Rej. of Errors, III, emphasis added).              

              Finally, it is a misuse of the Catechism to treat it as a guide instructing us how to lead unbelievers to Christ. The entire Catechism is an exposition of Question and Answer 2. This question does not ask: "What must you know to be saved?” The theme of the entire Catechism is "What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?” What comfort? The comfort of knowing “That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul in life and in death—to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ" (Q & A 1).

              The Catechism addresses itself to mature individuals who have been meaningfully exposed to the truth of the gospel and have confessed Jesus Christ as their “faithful Savior.” The subject matter of the entire Catechism is “What is necessary for these believers to know so they can “live and die in the joy of” knowing they have been redeemed and made righteous in God’s sight. To experience this comfort, they must know how great their sin and misery are, how they are delivered from their sins and misery, and how to thank God for such deliverance.

              The expressed purpose of the entire Catechism is to expound this question: “What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?” The answer is “Three things . . .” The three things mentioned are the subject matter of the three parts of the Catechism. Evangelical Inclusivism fully agrees that in order “to live and die in the joy” of knowing they belong to their Savior, every believer must know these three biblical truths: 1) how great their sin and misery are; 2) how they are delivered from their sin and misery and; 3) how to thank God for such deliverance.