A few years ago Neal Punt wrote his book, Unconditional Good News. Last year I wrote a thesis for Westminster Theological Seminary in which I criticized this book because I believe that in it Punt contradicts the Scriptures and the creeds of the Christian Reformed Church. Since Neal Punt continues to try to stir up discussion by challenging people to demonstrate that he bas deviated from the Reformed faith, the editor asked me to briefly set forth a few of Punt’s particular deviations.
Neal Punt teaches what be calls “biblical universalism.” Two problems with this teaching are that it is neither universalism nor biblical. I am going to look at just a few of the assertions that are important for what Punt considers to be a new teaching. The fact that he may at one place or another take back what he here asserts only demonstrates one of two things. Either he should not have asserted what he did not want to assert, or he is confused. In either case he has failed to be a clear teacher of the truth to the church.
His whole system rests on a foundation of twelve New Testament texts that use universal terminology; that is “the world,” “all men” or “every one.” In exegeting these texts in his book, Punt states his purpose as follows:
We intend to demonstrate that (1) each of the following texts speaks of the full benefits of salvation in Christ; and (2) this salvation is applied to all persons (p.37).
Elsewhere he claims, “All the descendants of Adam . . . are saved” (p. 6). In these statements he is clearly in conflict with his Lord who prayed, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned , and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was Your good pleasure” (Lk. 10:21). Futhermore, the very first child of Adam was not saved, but “belonged to the evil one” (1 Jn. 3:12).
Punt is also in conflict with the creeds. “Are all men saved through Christ just as all were lost through Adam? No” (H.C . Q. & A. 20). “. . . it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation , and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father . . .” (Canons II, 8, see also I, 15).
Since Punt believes he has shown that the full benefits of salvation are applied to all persons, he denies that faith is instrumental in entering the state of grace. He says that faith “. . . is not a factor in our being established in a state of grace” (p. 89). In this statement he is in conflict with Scripture: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand” (Rom. 5:1, 2). “For it is by grace you have been saved , through faith . . .” (Eph. 2:8). He also is in disagreement with the catechism when it says, “Only those are saved who by true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all His blessings” (A. 20) . The Confession also states, “And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits . . .” (B .C. XX:II).
In accordance with the preceding idea, he believes that gospel proclamation is no more than an objective announcement of what God has done for the listener. He claims that the only reason people can be required to repent and believe the gospel is the “. . . assumption that those so addressed are in union with Christ” (p. 83). But if that were so then all people every where would necessarily be united to Christ, for Paul teaches that God now “…commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).
However, although Punt has “proven” that the full benefits of Christ are applied to all persons, even he does not want to say all persons are united to Christ or saved. He believes that those who refuse to acknowledge God will perish. “Those who will be lost are those, and those only, who willfully and ultimately refuse to acknowledge God . . .” (p. 30). He does not think that anyone is condemned because of original sin. “Original sin is never punished apart from the committing of actual sin” (p. 26). In this instance he has stepped into an error that is rejected by the Synod of Dort which ” rejects the errors of those . . . who teach: That God, simply by virtue of His righteous will, did not decide either to leave anyone in the fall ofAdam and in the common state of sin and condemnation . . . . For this is firmly decreed: ‘He hath mercy on whom He will and whom He will He hardeneth’ (Rom . 9:18)” (Canons, Rejection of Errors I, 8).
As I already said, this teaching is neither universalism nor biblical; it is rather a deviation from the Reformed faith which we profess.
Wayne Leigh is a student at Calvin Theological Seminary.
