Having read Neal Punt’s book, Unconditional Good News, I have so many question marks and disagreements, it’s hard to know where to begin in trying to analyze and critique it. (As an aside, I find it hard to believe that Dr. A. C. DeJong, who wrote a foreword to the book, should be able to say—according to what the Rev. Punt told me in some correspondence I have had with him—that he could find no wrong turn which Punt had made in his book, either exegetically or theologically. It seems we must read with different glasses.) I expressed some of my disagreements in a letter to the “Voices” in a recent Banner. In this article I want to focus mainly on one item: the nature of gospel–proclamation. I hope later to call attention to some other points in another article, D.V.

Before beginning, I want to make a general comment about the book. I cannot avoid the impression that Punt is, unintentionally no doubt, trying to fit the message of Scripture into a straight-jacket where it doesn’t belong and, consequently, doesn’t fit. By and large, I believe, he makes problems where there ought not to be any. Arminians and Calvinists may not always have avoided that temptation in the past, but Punt avoids it even less as far as I can see. His approach is far too “logical” and simplistic. It simply doesn’t do justice to the richness and majesty and fullness of the Word. Time and again I felt a sense of frustration in the “easy” way Punt tries to solve difficult problems. It leaves one dissatisfied, to say the least. Later I hope to illustrate this more fully.

I believe Punt makes one of his more major errors in the way he describes the gospel. To him it is first of all simply an announcement of good news that must be told to all men. “Thus the church must announce the good news to all persons, preaching ‘the necessity of faith, and (doing) it with an urgency which is existential to the core’” (p. 108). The last part of this sentence is a quotation from Berkouwer, and actually is a bit confusing, since Punt disagrees with Berkouwer on this point. Berkouwer takes issue with Barth “for making gospel proclamation an announcement about a given state of affairs.” Berkouwer says the Scriptures “do not offer us a note of information; they come with an importunate message demanding an answer of faith.” And thus there is an “insoluble relation” between “the sovereignty of grace and the earnestness of the call to faith” (cf. p. 101 of Punt). Though Berkouwer wishes to uphold undiluted the sovereignty of God in our salvation, and though he denies any meritoriousness to our act of faith, he nevertheless states that “we will in any case have to take as our point of departure the seriousness with which the New Testament takes the human response to the proclamation.” And in this connection Berkouwer does not hesitate to speak of “an essential correlation between faith and salvation.”

Now it is with this concept of faith that Punt takes issue. Punt says Berkouwer has “contaminated” the Reformed concept of faith, since “he inserts an active human element which is unacceptable” (p. 102). And in this connection Punt says that Barth “recognizes correctly (ital. mine, J .T.) that the gospel is the announcement of an objective state of affairs for the elect informing them of what God has done for them in Christ” (p. 108). The response of the person comes later: “We have stressed that no human activity is needed in establishing a person in the state of grace” (p. 109). The response of “costly obedience” comes later, in order to enjoy the benefits of grace. According to Punt, the only real decision which man can make is a negative one—the decision to disregard or disbelieve. This is an “instrumental cause” in the damnation of man, causing God’s wrath to come on him. “There is, however, no human act or attitude of faith which is essential for the miracle of grace to occur” (p. 106).

I have tried to give a rather full and fair description of Punt’s viewpoint here. What it boils down to is that faith is not essential in establishing us in God’s grace. The gospel is first of all simply an announcement of what God has done. And this announcement must be made to all men, since all are elect except those who reject the gospel (that in itself is a statement needing some comment sooner or later).

What we have here is essentially a repeat of the “love of God” controversy in 1967. (Punt discusses this in the last chapter of his book, and endorses the view that it is proper to say to all men: God loves you and Christ died for you.) What was said then ought to be said again: The gospel is not a mere announcement of some objective state of affairs, but always an urgent appeal to repent and believe. Let’s take a look at the biblical record for a moment: When John the Baptist and Jesus came on the scene, they both preached the gospel of repentance (Matt. 3:2; 4:17); Jesus told his disciples “that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations” (Luke 24:47; cf. Mark 6:12); in the book of Acts (the mission-book of the Bible) we find Peter telling the crowds to repent of their sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38); we find this throughout the book: 3:19, 17:30, 26:30. In the book of Revelation we find God’s judgments upon an unrepentant world—9:20, 21, 16:9, 16:11. The gospel never comes as a “neutral” announcement, but as an urgent appeal to come and drink of the waters of life—Isa. 55:1,2; Rev. 22:17. Cf. further Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7. Enough to make the point and make it well.

Punt says the Reformers did not agree with Berkouwer’s view of faith, and then tries to prove that with reference to the creeds. But when we check the creeds, we find again that though they studiously avoid making faith a “good work” that contributes to our salvation, they do nevertheless insist upon the necessity of faith for obtaining salvation. A. 20 of the H.C. says that only t hose are saved who are ingrafted into Christ by a true faith; Q. 65 repeats the same thing; Q. & A. 60 teach that I am righteous before God only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; The Canons of Dort, Chap. III/IV, Art. 8 states that God “seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.” Art. 12 of the same chapter says that though salvation is completely the work of God’s Spirit, that same Spirit, nevertheless, actuates and influences our will. “Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received.” So here is that “act of man” and that “human activity which Punt appears to negate or reject in our salvation. Therefore Art. 16 rightly states that God does not deal with us as senseless stocks and blocks, nor does he take away our will, but quickens, corrects and bends it. But because such an act of faith does not fit in with Punt’s concept of the gospel, nor with his concept of “universalism,” he has to do away with it. He quotes Daane approvingly at one point, but apparently fails to get the gist of what Daane says, namely that “preaching . . . presents the truth of the gospel . . . as something to be believed, accepted—the preacher must even persuade him to do so—on pain of being damned if he does not.” That’s something quite different than a mere “announcement.”

(to be continued)

Response by Punt

The crucial question is whether the universalistic texts support the premise of biblical universalism. There are two parallel, 400-year-old patterns of exegesis by equally competent persons; one demonstrating that the universalistic texts relate to actual (not potential) salvation; the other establishing the fact that these texts speak of all persons. For 400 years neither has been able to effectively demonstrate that the other is in basic error. I doubt that Jelle Tuininga will be able to do so in his lifetime.

These texts say, “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:22). This obvious reading of these texts devastates Arminian theology. Calvinists can accept these texts just as we find them in every version of the Bible: expressing the genius of Reformed theology; establishing the premise “All persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares (in its broader context) will be lost.”

Berkouwer, for the sake of urgency, teaches a human response essential to grace and a gospel that is not an announcement for the elect. If the gospel is essentially something other than an announcement of a given state of affairs for the elect, then the gospel is a good suggestion or good idea, but it is no longer good news.

Every human response “is imperfect and stained with sin” (Heid. Cat. Q. 62), and therefore cannot be essential “for the miracle of grace to occur.” For this reason the Reformers insisted that in the precise matter of establishing us in the state of grace, “faith is inactive, entirely negative, empty or completely passive” (p. 102, my book). Berkouwer’s view is a serious departure from the truth that “salvation is of the Lord.”

For the biblical basis for the urgency of proclamation see Chapter IX (my book) or ask the editor to give Punt a little more space on these pages. 

Cordially, Neal Punt