Posting 23 RESPONDING TO CHRISTIAN RENEWAL

               Christian Renewal (a Canadian publication) published a series of five articles that were highly critical of Evangelical Inclusivism. I was not given sufficient space to respond in Christian Renewal. I was allotted only 4 columns to respond to 29 columns.  I decided to completely ignore the 29 columns and used the 4 columns to summarize my thesis.

               I sent a direct response to each of the criticisms to the 2,400 recipients of my online postings. These responses were very helpful in fleshing out the implications of Evangelical Inclusivism. I culled ten of these that would be helpful to the readers of this book and report the substance of them below.

               Although Christian Renewal used some pejorative phrases, it began by giving a fair summary of what I call Evangelical Inclusivism, followed by these criticisms:

       1. “Rather than starting his discussion with man's fall in

            Adam, Punt starts with man's salvation in Christ and

            works backward to Adam.”

               That I do. Creation itself is part of the “background” for Christ's work on earth: “All things were created . . . for him.” So also “man's fall” was part of the reality into which Christ came. Col. 1:15-20 reveals Christ's place in this real-life drama: “He is the beginning . . . so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (emphasis added). Especially when talking about “the good news,” it is the second Adam (Christ) and not the first Adam who “is the beginning” and occupies the place of “supremacy.”

              Those who insist on beginning “with man's fall in Adam” do so because they think mankind first of all needs to be told they are sinners. Such is not the case. God has already spoken to sinners about his wrath (see Rom. 1:18, 19, 20; 2:15). Because God's wrath against sin has been “made plain to them . . . since the creation of the world,” therefore many are asking, “Who can show us any good?" (Ps. 4:6) The extremes to which many have gone in sacrificing their possessions, their bodies, and even their own children in order to appease the "gods," whom they consider to be against them, testifies to the seriousness with which they view their plight.

                Despite their external boasting of goodness, sinners know better. At a deep level, sinners are afraid, non-trusting, insecure, and self-defensive. What the masses of mankind need to know is that the same holiness that accuses them has provided a full and free forgiveness for their sins. Only then will they dare to admit to themselves, to God, and to others that they are sinners worthy of judgment (see Posting 9).

       2. “Punt refuses to see faith—even faith created by the

            Spirit of God—as a ‘condition' of salvation,” says

            Christian Renewal. To substantiate this claim, Christian

            Renewal quotes Dr. Cornel Venema (President and

            Professor, Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed

            Seminary) to the effect that “faith must be termed a

            ‘condition' for salvation” (from “an unpublished 1987

            review of Punt's first book”).

                “Even the very best we do in this life” is “imperfect and stained with sin” (Heid. Cat. Q & A 62, emphasis added). Insofar as faith is something we do, it is “imperfect and stained with sin.” As such, our faith cannot be a “condition” for salvation. 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).

                Faith is the “fruit and effects” of election; it is not a “condition” to bring us into the state of grace. “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.” “Election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness and other saving gifts and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects ” (Canons of Dort I, Art. 9, emphasis added).

                   To say that faith is a condition for salvation contradicts these words of the apostle: “God who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9).

                Faith is necessary and it “is indispensable to the reception of the gospel.” However, we must pursue the question, “Why is faith ‘indispensable to the reception of the gospel?'” When this question is pursued (see Posting 5), it becomes clear that both the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds emphatically deny that faith is a “condition” for salvation.

         3. Christian Renewal says Report 30 (Acts of Synod 1980, pp.

           468–558), a three-year study, is “hopelessly muddled.”

              No matter how Christian Renewal chooses to characterize Report 30, the same cannot be said about Synod's “recommendations” and “grounds” for adopting Report 30 and for referring it "to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation. —adopted" (Acts of Synod 1980, p. 76).

              Report 30 gave an emphatic “no” to Dr. Harry Boer’s complaint. “The heart, the soul, the essence, the sine qua non” (Boer’s words) of his complaint was that the Canons of Dort teach that "a segment of mankind is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever come into being” (Acts of Synod 1980, p. 497). Synod concluded that the Canons of Dort do not teach that God has “consigned certain human beings to damnation apart from any merit or demerit on their part” (p. 75).

               With this emphatic “no,” Synods 1980 and 1981 embraced the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism and with it the good and necessary implication that all who die in infancy are saved (see Posting 11).

        4. Christian Renewal dismisses what I have written about

            the so-called “universalistic” texts by repeating what

            traditional Calvinists have always said about these

            passages.(What I say about these texts, Posting 14)

               This is “the heart” of the matter. If what I say about these passages in Posting 1 can be shown to be in error, then there can be no Evangelical Inclusivism as proposed in this study. Christian Renewal should work with one or more faculty members. They should be able to formulate a definitive refutation of my arguments in Posting 1. Such a refutation could become a welcome addition to my website for all my readers to consider.

        5. Christian Renewal cites many biblical passages that

            clearly say “All those who believe in the Lord Jesus

            Christ will be saved.” From these passages it concludes,

            “Only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will

             be saved.”

               Christian Renewal does not claim I deny what these passages say. He disapproves of the fact that I say these passages do not mean “only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.”                 It is a logical fallacy to say, as Christian Renewal says: “All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved,” means “only those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” It is just as reasonable to say that “all apples are fruit” means “only apples are fruit.” That is an obvious violation of Logic 101.

                  C.S. Lewis was fully aware of the many scriptural passages that say “All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” However, Lewis does not draw the faulty conclusion that therefore “only those who have a New Testament knowledge of Jesus Christ will be saved.” Lewis says, “We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him” (Book II, 5, p. 65, emphasis added).

         6. Christian Renewal claims I am in a “confessional conflict”

           with Heidelberg Catechism Q & As 20, 60, and 65. He

           notes that these questions were part of the charges filed

           against me in a heresy trial.

               Christian Renewal records neither my response to these charges nor the outcome of the heresy trial that contained these charges. These charges made their way to the national Synod of 1985 where the following recommendation was adopted:

         "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).

                For a full account of this trial and its outcome see Posting 24.

        7. Under a section entitled “Faith's Role,” Christian

            Renewal says that because I have said there is nothing a

            sinner can do to move God to “not count their sins

            against them,” it makes no sense for me to also say, “All

            they must do is ‘accept’ the good news that God has

            already reconciled them to himself.“

                There is, of course, nothing sinners can do to move God to “not count their sins against them” because “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18).  Sins are not counted against God’s elect because their sins were nailed to the cross 2,000 years ago.

               “Accepting this good news” (to believe) is not an attempt to “move God not count their sins against them.” We must ask “Why is ‘Accepting this good news’ essential for those who have heard the gospel?” This is essential for those who have heard the gospel because if they refuse to accept “this good news” (to believe) they will be rejecting the will of God as it has been made known to them. It is not because by “believing” they fulfill a condition for salvation (see Posting 5).

           8. Christian Renewal says, “Oddly enough, Evangelical

               Inclusivism would seem to make abortion the most

               certain means of evangelism ever devised!” The editor

               of Christian Renewal thought enough of this quote to

               make it a prominent sidebar of Christian Renewal's

               third article.

                  Is Christian Renewal ridiculing the fact that God could overturn the evil of abortion for good? Are they saying that those who advocate Evangelical Inclusivism would encourage abortion? The same could then be said for godly parents who “ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy” (Acts of Synod, 1962, p. 107).

                Evidently Christian Renewal believes that some infants are “. . . consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever come into being,” thereby repeating the very same charge that Dr. Harry Boer made against the Canons of Dort. Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God consigns some infants who die in infancy to Hell. The Christian Reformed Church officially denies that the Canons of Dort teach any such thing (see Posting 11). To say or imply that perhaps God does consign some infants who die in infancy to Hell is a very precarious position to take and may be blasphemous.

        9. Christian Renewal claims that I “force” the interpretation

           of every one of the so-called “universalistic” texts

           through a “grid” in order to get a consistent result.

              What I say is “We may not prohibit the so-called ‘universalistic’ texts from ever saying that ‘all persons will be saved.'" This is not the adoption of a “grid.” This is to deny the use of a particular “grid” that has been regularly used.

              Arminian and traditional Calvinistic theologians use this grid: “No text may ever say, ‘All persons will be saved.’” They use this "grid" whenever they interpret the so-called "universalistic" passages, no matter how clearly these texts say precisely this.

              It is understandable that Christian Renewal and other traditional Calvinists and Arminians get very nervous about what I say in Posting 1. If they would allow just one of the so-called “universalistic” texts to say “all persons will be saved,” their theological assumption (“All persons will be finally lost except those who the Bible declares will be saved.”) would be invalidated.  

        10. Christian Renewal quotes portions of Articles 27, 28, and

            29 of the Belgic Confession to claim that Evangelical

            Inclusivism contradicts what these articles say about the

            “one catholic or universal Church.” The confession

            describes the Church as “a gathering of those who are

            saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one

            ought to withdraw from it” and “all people are obliged

            to join and unite with it” and submit “to its instruction 

            and discipline.” “All believers” ought “to join this

            assembly wherever God has established it.”

            Christian Renewal continues to say, “There is nothing

            spiritualized” about the definition of this church as found

            in Article 29. Its members are defined “as those who

            bear ‘the marks of Christians,' including a faith that 

            receives Jesus Christ as the only Savior.” This definition

            alone would seem to dictate that either Evangelical

            Inclusivism or the Belgic Confession fails to 'fully agree

            with the Word of God,’” says Christian Renewal.

              We ought to keep two thoughts in mind about the Belgic Confession's description of the true church: 

             Guido de Bres, the primary author of this confession, lived in the age when theologians seldom seemed to realize that there were entire nations and peoples who were never exposed to the teachings of the Bible. All of civilization was pictured as being Christian or those opposed to Christianity. In such a scenario everything described in these three articles makes very good and understandable sense.

              In the third article of his series, Christian Renewal says, “We learn that all are called to exercise faith according to their capacity.” We can probably agree that those who die in infancy and certain mentally challenged persons do not “have the capacity” to join such a church as described in the Belgic Confession. So also those who have never been exposed to the written Word of God during their lifetime on earth do not “have the capacity” to either join or withdraw from the assembly of believers. They have never heard of “a gathering of those who are saved.”