Rev. Neal Punt is pastor of the Evergreen Park Christian Reformed Church, Evergreen Park, Illinois. Recently (1980) he authored a 169 page book published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Unconditional Good News with the subtitle, Toward an Understanding of Biblical Universalism ($6.95). By request, I am addressing myself to an evaluation of this volume; hopefully, to give some guidance with respect to it. The book is not exactly easy to read, but, nevertheless, one that we can hardly afford to disregard.

In the Foreword to the book, Dr. Alexander C. De Jong advocates the reading of Punt’s book by saying: “When one tries to explicate with theological precision the gracious character, the God-glorifying content, the eschatological urgency of gospel preaching, together with the biblical warrant for that preaching, he undertakes a demanding task. This book adds a fresh, important, and attractive dimension to the continuing discussion. We owe it to ourselves to consider seriously this unique contribution of Rev. Punt.”

Moreover, as the author states in the Preface: “The Rev. Winston C. Boelkins, neighbor and colleague, collaborated in this work so closely, literally paragraph by paragraph, that without his insights and counsel regarding format and expression as well as his constant encouragement, this book could and should not have found it way into print.”

And added to this, in the Preface Punt also expresses his gratitude to: “Dr. Lester De Koster, Editor of The Banner [at that time] who, as one of the first readers of a preliminary draft, recommended that I complete the manuscript and present it for publication . . . .”

Although all this does not add up to any kind of an imprimatur, it does lend an additional impetus for giving our studied attention to this publication.

PUNT’S PREMISE – As the title and subtitle indicate, Punt wishes to set forth his thinking on “Unconditional Good News” and “Biblical Universalism.” It is well, right at the outset, to have clearly in mind, from Punt’s own statements, precisely what he wishes to say. Consider the following quotes:

“If 1 John 2:2 and other universalistic texts are seen in the light of the entire context of Scripture they can be most readily understood as teaching the premise of biblical universalism—that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost” (p. 55).

“The assumption with which we work is that all persons are elect in Christ. On the basis of this assumption we must tell all people what God has done for them in his Son! The awesome truth about God’s wrath is to be reserved for those who remain indifferent to or reject this good news which the church has been commissioned to proclaim to all people” (p. 132).

“The assumption with which we work is that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost.

“What a difference it makes to view others in connection with Jesus Christ! We should regard every person as a ‘brother for whom Christ died’ (1 Cor. 8:11). This general approach of biblical universalism breaks down barriers between people. It promotes a feeling of interdependence and mutual concern. . . .” (p. 143).

And what is the “unconditional good news?” “Yes,” says Punt, “all persons—except those who willfully disregard the will of God—can rest assured that Christ has died for them and has secured their salvation. This is the unconditional good news of the gospel” (p. 139).

Well, there you have it in brief.

What shall we say of this? Like mine, your retort may be: Punt‘s “biblical universalism” is neither biblical nor universal, and his “unconditional good news” is obviously not unconditional.

Now let’s take a further look.

   

PUNT‘S INFERENCES – The inferences that Punt draws from his premise are significant. Notice carefully what he says:

1. About reprobation – “True,” Punt writes, “in some mysterious, ambiguous way, the reprobation of some also occurs within the broad perspective of God’s ‘definite plan and foreknowledge’ (Acts 2:23). But one may well question the biblical validity of the claim made in the Canons of Dort that the reason some do not receive the gift of faith ‘proceeds from God’s eternal decree’ or that ‘it is the express testimony of sacred Scripture’ that ‘others are passed by in the eternal decree’ (I, 6,15).” In a footnote, Punt refers at this point to Dr. Harry Boer‘s gravamen addressed to the CRC Synod about reprobation.

“The more guarded confession which Lutheran theology makes,” Punt goes on to say, “seems closer to the express testimony of Scripture. The Formula of Concord expresses the Lutheran teaching as follows: ‘The eternal election of God or God’s predestination to salvation does not extend over the godly and the ungodly, but only over the children of God, who have been elected and predestinated to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as St. Paul says, even as he chose us in him, he destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ’ (Eph. 1:4,5).”

And, says Punt: “The advocacy of a doctrine of eternal election without a corresponding doctrine of eternal reprobation does not in the least diminish the usefulness of the doctrine of election or detract from ‘its very sweet fruits’ as these are set forth by Calvin . . . .” (pp. 59, 60).

So much then for the doctrine of reprobation.

2. About the atonement – Punt writes also about the inference he draws from his premise as to the atonement made by Christ for sin. According to Scripture and the specific teaching of the Canons of Dort, this atonement is limited or particular—only for the elect. Punt writes about this at some length and recognizes that this is a doctrine not to be denied.

However, Punt confuses the issue when he goes on to say: “What a difference it makes to view others in connection with Jesus Christ. We should regard every person [italics added] as a ‘brother for whom Christ died’ (1 Cor. 8:11). This general approach of biblical universalism breaks down barriers between people. . . . Biblical universalism puts lenses on our eyes so that we treat our fellow human beings as those for whom Christ died unless and until they by their indifference or continuing hostility separate themselves from us and from the Christ who lives in us” (p. 143).

But now notice what Punt does with 1 Corinthians 8:11. When Paul writes about the “brother for whom Christ died” Punt simply identifies this with every person with the exception of those he mentions. In verses 11, 12, 13 Paul calls those of whom he speaks a brother repeatedly (four times) and also as the brethren. How can Punt possibly make this mean every person in any sense?

“The only reason” says Punt, “some need for not using the expression ‘Christ died for you‘ in their evangelism endeavors is that it ‘may be untrue of many who hear.’” This appears to be a formidable argument at first sight. But its weakness is evident in this response [given by Harry Boer in The Reformed Journal, May-June 1966, p. 18]: “‘If I cannot say to every man that Christ died for him because some of those to whom I speak may be lost, then I can also not say to every believer that Christ died for him because some of them may in the end prove not to be elect. The history of the Church is replete with men and women who after having given every reason to be counted as believers died in unbelief and infidelity . . . .’” (pp. 148, 149).

The Canons of Dort are crystal clear and founded squarely on Scripture in teaching that the atonement is limited or particular. The matter becomes badly blurred in the position advocated by Punt and Boer.

3. About infant salvation – Another inference Punt draws from his premise is that “all who die in infancy are saved.” He writes:

“Traditional Reformed theology allows for the possibility of infant salvation. Biblical universalism goes a step further. Its basic premise not only allows for the possibility of infant salvation, but teaches that all who die in infancy are saved.

“The premise of biblical universalism does not imply that all infants without exception are elect in Christ. It does assure us, however, that those who die in infancy can never be numbered among those who have disregarded God’s will for their lives. We may conclude, therefore, that the death of an infant is evidence of the child’s election and salvation. Stated conversely non-elect infants do not die in their infancy. They continue to live to the age of accountability. . . .” (p. 126).

My recollection is still very vivid of being present at the deathbed and also conducting the funeral of a child of irreligious parents and also of how eagerly those parents, who had never taught their child how to pray, looked to me for the assurance that their dear one had gone to heaven. How easy it would have been for me to say that, but it was impossible without any clear ground from Scripture for saying so. A pastor is eager to give comfort when this is warranted by God’s Word but to extend God’s comfort to those who do not love and serve Him is an altogether different matter.

Accordingly, I must remain with what Punt calls “traditional Reformed theology” which does not go beyond allowing for the salvation of those who die as infants. We know that our covenant children who die in infancy are saved; we hope that the rest are saved.

4. About preaching the gospel – From his premise Punt draws inferences also about the preaching the gospel. He writes:

“There is a valid scriptural reason for announcing the divine anger against sin and the threat of judgment in order that sinners may recognize the need to repent and to turn to Christ as their only refuge. . . .

“Nevertheless, we must not assume that it is first of all necessary to warn sinners of impending disaster, to tell them that because God is displeased with their sin they are living on the brink of hell. Faithfulness in evangelism requires that it is not only the truth of God’s anger but also the revelation of his kindness that can lead to repentance and faith (Rom. 2:4). All persons are elect in Christ except those who refuse to have God in their knowledge—that is the good news Scripture declares in the universalistic texts. . .

“The assumption with which we work is that all persons are elect in Christ. On the basis of this assumption we must tell all people what God has done for them in his Son! The awesome truth about God’s wrath is to be reserved for those who remain indifferent to or reject this good news which the church has been commissioned to proclaim to all people” (p. 132).

Punt continues: “. . . if one does not feel free to say ‘Christ died for you,’ one finds himself in the awkward situation of inviting, asking, and even demanding of others that they believe something one does not feel free to declare of them. . . . How can one be asked to believe that one’s sins are forgiven if there is no scriptural warrant for telling that person that Christ died for him or her?” (pp. 154, 155).

We may well ask whether there was any New Testament preaching of the kind Punt advocates. How did John the Baptist preach? We are told that he came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:1,2). That’s quite different.

And what about our Lord’s preaching? We are told: “Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14, 15). Also different.

Consider also Paul’s preaching. On the Areopagus in Athens, he said: “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked, but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent; inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained. . . .” (Acts 17:30,31). Also different.

And what about Peter’s preaching? On the day of Pentecost he told the multitude: “Repent ye, and be baptiz~d every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). And that also is different.

Obviously, Punt has the cart before the horse. To be sure, in God’s counsel our election precedes our experience of salvation. However, our subjective assurance of election follows upon our repentance, faith, and obedience as evidence for the fact of our election.

The Canons of Dort know nothing of Punt‘s proposed method of preaching. Article 5 in Dort’s “Second Head of Doctrine” states: “Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.”

About the antithesis – In writing about “the cultural mandate,” Punt also presents an inference from his premise as to the antithesis: He writes:

“Biblical universalism necessarily implies that we may never propagate or cultivate the point of separation between belief and unbelief (the antithesis) simply to make that division become apparent to everyone. God‘s Word is not intended to engender opposition or to arouse hostility. To be sure, the antithesis does come to expression. . .” (pp. 130, 131).

Undoubtedly, the missing note in so much of Christendom today is an obliteration of the antithesis. “Think not,” Jesus said, “that I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). As Hendriksen says in his commentary on this verse: “The entrance of Christ into this world divides in two, splits apart; cleaves asunder, and in so doing ‘sets‘ or ‘turns’ one person against another” (p. 475).

By this time it should be sufficiently apparent that Punt’s premise and inferences are not to be reconciled with our historic Reformed commitment. His book is baffling in that he attempts to do the impossible—to reconcile his universalism with the particularism clearly taught in the Bible.