The biblical teaching about the eternal damnation of the lost is not a pleasant one, and no one should relish such a teaching. It is indeed a frightening and awesome fact to contemplate. We must therefore treat this doctrine with trepidation and respect. We are all saved by grace and none of us deserve that any more than those who are lost. What the fathers of Dort said about the teaching of election and reprobation applies here too: we must “conduct (ourselves) piously and religiously in handling this doctrine.”
Having said that, we need to say something else too: We must not allow sentiment to contradict the Word of God. The wish may not become the father of the thought. Much as we might wish that no one was lost, or that those without the gospel are lost, we may not allow this wish to govern our thinking on the subject and to over-ride the clear teaching of God’s Word. That danger always exists not only in liberal circles, but also among evangelicals. Lately some evangelicals (also of the Reformed stripe) are no longer as certain as they used to be about the biblical teaching regarding the lost. The door appears to be opening toward the idea that God can and does save people apart from the gospel of Christ. That an organization like the World Council of Churches calls into question the uniqueness of Christ and exclusivity of the Christian gospel, and that theologians like Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, John Hick, Paul Tillich and others do the same, is one thing. The Bible for them is not the final court of appeal. But that evangelicals who claim to hold firmly to the biblical faith begin to utter similar sentiments is disturbing. I mention Robert D. Brinsmead, Norman Anderson and Clark Pinnock, all of whom call into question in one way or another the lostness of people who lived “beyond the reach of the gospel.”
Closer to home, there are voices in the CRC that appear to take a similar view. In the June 3rd issue of the RES News Exchange, Dr. Paul Schrotenboer expresses sympathy and approval for Anderson when the latter says he does not want “dogmatically to exclude from salvation all those who have never heard the gospel.” Neal Punt, well-known for his theory of “biblical universalism,” advocates a similar position. Though he adamantly rejects absolute universalism and holds to the position that Christ died to save a definite number of people, and though he asserts that “we may not establish our own criteria for accepting scriptural teaching,” he nevertheless leaves open the possibility that “persons living beyond the reach of the gospel may be saved” and goes on to say “that there are rather strong indications in the Word of God” that this is indeed the case (in a speech given to the Calvin Seminary students).
Let me say a moment that Punt’s two “exceptions” which he uses as evidence for the above-mentioned position are untenable. He first mentions the Old Testament saints who could not have what we call “Christian faith.” But that is a mere technicality. Those saints were saved by faith in the Coming One, the Messiah (John 8:56; Heb. 11:13, 26, 27). As the Canons put it: God, through the ministry of reconciliation, which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, saves such as believe, both under the Old and the New Testament (III/IV, 6). Old Testament saints are clearly not saved apart from the gospel.
Secondly, Punt mentions covenant children who die in infancy. But once again, it is through the instrumentality of the gospel (by way of parents, etc.) that these children are regenerated. That happens, says Peter, through the living and abiding Word of God. So again, it is not apart from the gospel. Christ died for them as well as for adults.
I mention one more example: In a Banner that dealt with the issue of “universalism,” Prof. Cornelius Plantioga of Calvin Seminary made some ambivalent statements in the editorial he wrote. He began by saying that the problem is a difficult one, and that there were differing views on the matter. And though at the end of the article he granted that universal salvation was not a tenable option, he nevertheless made the ambivalent, not to say confusing, statement: When we tum to the Bible, we are not helped a great deal for the Bible seems to speak with more than one voice.
Now I don’t know if this statement was meant to be “cute” or provocative, but I do know it leaves a lot to be desired. The Bible’s overall message on the subject is anything but obscure and leads to only one conclusion: there are many who travel the broad way to destruction.
From all of this it appears that the theological spirit of the age is affecting us more than we care to admit. Years ago, in connection with the “love of God” controversy, Prof. Marten Woudstra made the statement that against the raging flood waters of universalism we must unitedly man the dikes, and not waste our time repairing shingles on the roof. That advice is apropos today. The kind of theology coming from the circles of the World Council of Churches is anything but encouraging. Yet some among us wish to lend a listening and sympathetic ear.
We must speak clearly today, also on this subject. The Bible speaks with utmost clarity about the only Name under heaven by which men must be saved, and apart from which there is no salvation. God is a loving and compassionate God, but He is also “a consuming fire,” and “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31; 12:29). Cf. also John 3:18, 36; Acts 4:12; 17:30, 31; Rom. 3:22–24; II Cor. 5:18, 19; II Thess. 1:7–10; I John 5:10–12; Rev. 21:27; 22:14. Cf. also Q. & A. 20 of the H. Catechism and the Canons I, 4. In view of the above, I could appreciate the Back to God Hour ad that appeared in The Banner. “The simple, unforgettable fact about those who do not know Jesus is that they will perish everlastingly.” That is the kind of clear, unequivocal language we need. I wish to conclude by quoting from the first chapter of the book, Evangelism on the Cutting Edge. We can learn from the clear language ofDr. Kenneth Kantzer, author of this first chapter: Responding to the claim of the Vancouver World Coucil of Churches Assembly that it is an unlikely option that “only those calling upon Jesus as their personal Savior can be saved,” and to the claim of Karl Rahner that there are “anonymous Christians,” Kantzer concludes:
If anyone is ever saved, therefore, it can only be on the basis of the atoning work of Christ and on condition of faith in Christ (Romans 3:25–6).
No one questions what God could do. In mysterious matters of the human soul, however, we can only be guided by His Word of revelation. And that divine Word seems to tie what the Bible means by salvation very tightly to the preaching of the gospel . . . .
Conversely, the Bible holds out little hope of human salvation for those who have never heard the gospel . . . .
This dreadful truth of the lostness of humankind without Christ is the dark side of the biblical message. But the good news is that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) . . . . And this in turn lays an immense responsibility on all who love God… to share this good news with all people everywhere.
J. Tuininga is the pastor of the First C.R. Church of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
