I received this signed
email:
"You are one of the first to put forth the time
and effort to communicate to most CRC pastors via email. I
hope you realize what an awesome responsibility you have taken
upon yourself in light of being one of the first ones out
of the blocks. I hope also that you have given sufficient
thought to how you will one day give account to God for all
that you are so aggressively promoting to CRC pastors."
This is a forthright, well-written, thoughtful warning. It
is not something I can lightly dismiss (James 3:1). Other faithful
friends have also mentioned this to me.
Accountability in this matter
is a two-sided coin for me. I came across this insight by Dr. Charles
Hodge based on Rom. 5:18: "All the descendants of Adam, except
those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the
kingdom of God, are saved" (Systematic Theology, Vol.
I, P. 26). This initiated nearly 17 years of intensive, prayerful,
review of all the so-called "univeralistic" passages of
Scripture (See Posting # 2) before permitting Eerdmans to publish
my first book.
A
Cautious Approach
The decision to make my
conclusions public was not made recklessly. In addition to collaborating
with a colleague about each chapter as it was produced, I sent a copy
of the completed manuscript to 64 pastors and professors before permitting
Eerdmans to publish my first book. Only one hinted that I might be
in conflict with the creeds. Later formal charges were leveled against
me. Classis concluded that the charges were not substantiated and
Synod 1985 sustained the decision of Classis (See FAQs # 11).
I consider it to be providential
that in the very same month (June 1980) that my first book appeared,
Synod sent a three-year study report "to the churches for elucidation
of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation."
This elucidation (Report 30) reached the identical conclusion I came
to, namely, that no one will suffer eternal death (be reprobate) solely
on the basis of their original sin in Adam ( Posting # 11). This perspective
answers many questions that have been a conundrum for sincere Christians
for years. Not only does it necessarily imply that all who die in
infancy are saved, it also has vast implications for many other questions
relating to the doctrine of salvation (Posting # 19).
Accountability
A Two-sided Coin
So, on the one hand I am accountable for what I am "promoting
to CRC pastors." On the other hand, I must consider that
if God was leading me to understand his truth I will be accountable
if I do not do what I can to help others understand
what God is saying in his word.
There are other dimensions to this matter of accountability.
In January of 1981 I was invited to write an article in The
Banner. The editor, the Rev. Andrew Kuyvenhoven, made this
editorial comment:
PUNT'S
BOOK. Rev. Neal Punt is an ordinary minister with an extraordinary
diligence. His book, Unconditional Good News, says that most of
us approach the world and the Bible with the assumption that all
people are lost unless they believe in Christ. But, says he, if
we would do justice to the kind of universalism taught in the Scriptures,
we would talk to people in the conviction that forgiveness and life
are given to them, unless they reject the gospel [more accurately
"unless they reject whatever revelation God has given of himself
to them" N.P.] and continue in unbelief. Hence, we must assume
everyone's election in Christ until the contrary appears.
Punt
carefully avoids all Arminian pitfalls and Lutheran solutions. He
maintains a thorough going doctrine of sovereign grace, and a Calvinistic,
'particular' or 'definite' atonement.
I
asked Rev. Punt to summarize his thesis for this issue of The Banner.
It would appear less than fraternal if I would now use my space
in the same Banner to air my questions, doubts, and disagreements.
His summary may give food for thought even to those who cannot bring
themselves to read his book.
The
merit ofthe book is in its exaltation of the second Adam. Everyone
who opens our eys afresh to what God has done inChrist will bring
some new life to ourthinking and preaching AK
Little
Response From Leaders
This is a very positive
and even a very courageous, and much appreciated, editorial comment.
This is especially true when one considers the prevalent "atmosphere"
regarding doctrinal matters in the early 1980's. I hope no one, especially
Rev. Kuyvenhoven, misunderstands my motive for quoting it. It is,
of course, a public document.
Although Kuyvenhoven remained
editor for eight more years, he never expressed to me or to the readers
of The Banner his "questions, doubts, and disagreements."
I mention this only because I have found this to be a rather consistent
pattern in response to what I have written. With one exception, no
one in a position of leadership in the CRC (i.e. teacher or professor
in a college or seminary or someone appointed to office by synod)
has engaged in extended public discussion about the question of Biblical
Universalism*.
One can hardly consider
it an evenhanded gesture on the part of the Calvin Theological Journal
to assign a professor of Mid America Theological Seminary to write
a review of my first book. No matter what that professor might
have concluded, his very job would have been in jeopardy if he had
expressed agreement with the basic thrust of my book. The fact
that Eerdmans published the book is evidence that the book was worthy
of a careful, evenhanded evaluation.
Students tell me of professors who
lecture against what I have written. These leaders limit their criticisms
to classroom discussions and do not bother to contact me.
A
strange Silence
Undoubtedly there are many
reasons for this silence. Dr. Ronald H. Nash estimates that
more than 50 percent of "professors at mainstream evangelical colleges
and seminaries" may hold to some form of Inclusivism (Is Jesus The
Only Savior?, Zondervan, 1994, P. 107). If this estimate is
anywhere near correct, it may account for some of the lack of response
to my "agressively promoting" Biblical Universalism.
Perhaps more of these teachers accept
some form of Inclusivism than they are willing to be publicly identified
with it. It is this silence that compels me to "aggressively"
promote my thoughts among CRC clergy.
I invite those in positions
of leadership to air their "questions, doubts, and disagreements"
by way of this website, either anonymously or over their signatures.
There is, after all, a matter of accountability.
- - - - - - - -
*BIBLICAL
UNIVERSALISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ
except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost,
namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever
revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience
or in gospel presentation.
Biblical Universalism is based upon these three biblical facts:
1) The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized
salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained and they do so
in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (Posting
No. 2).
2) We must accept the so-called "universalistic" texts as
written. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed
upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as
a whole (Posting No. 3).
3) All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by
the imputed sin of Adam (original sin). However, the Scriptures do
not teach or imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely
on the basis of their sin in Adam APART FROM actual, willful and persistent
sin on the part of the person so consigned (Posting No. 4).
Back
to Frequently Asked Questions
Contact the Author,
Neal Punt at: whenindoubt1@charter.net
©
2000 by Northland Books. Box 63, Allendale MI 49401. Unlimited permission
to copy and distribute this document without altering text is hereby
granted if this source is acknowledged.
