PUNT’S “BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM”

Dear Editor:

I greatly appreciate the fairness and accuracy with which the Rev. John Vander Ploeg presented the premise of my book in his article “Punt’s ‘Biblical Universalism’” (Feb. ’81).

The most important question, however, is whether my exegesis of the so-called “universalistic” texts is biblically accurate. The article says nothing about this.

Until someone demonstrates that I have taken a wrong turn exegetically I will continue to ask the Church to consider the premise of biblical universalism and the inferences that follow from it. I must do this even though I realize it is difficult for us to adjust to the different “mind set” required by this premise.

Rev. Vander Ploeg’s observations about the kind of preaching found in the New Testament appear to be completely at variance with the observations made by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book III, iii, 2).

Neal Punt

REPLY TO REV. PUNT

In the February issue of The Outlook, by request, I attempted to evaluate a recent book by Rev. Neal Punt on Unconditional Good News with its subtitle Toward an Understanding of Biblical Universalism.

A careful reading of Punt’s book left me with the conclusion that his “biblical universalism” is neither biblical nor universal and that his “unconditional good news” is not unconditional.

In response to my review Rev . Punt in a courteous letter to the editor states:

1. “The most important question, however, is whether my exegesis of the so-called ‘universalistic’ texts is biblically accurate. The article says nothing about this.” 2. “Rev. Vander Ploeg’s observations about the kind of preaching found in the New Testament appear to be completely at variance with the observations made by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book III, iii, 2).”

Punt’s implied request that attention be given to the “so-called ‘universalistic’” texts is certainly in order and accordingly I wish to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do this as well as the editor for allowing me extra space to make this possible.

Punt’s position – To refresh the memory it will be well to recapitulate Punt’s premise and the inferences he draws from it. Note the following brief excerpts from his book.

“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 in different 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” (p. 143).

According to 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).

From the above premise Punt goes on to draw a number of erroneous inferences: about reprobation, the atonement, infant salvation, preaching the gospel, and the antithesis.

Punt’s ‘universalistic’ texts – It is obviously impossible within the space available here to give a full exegesis of every text to which Punt appeals. Accordingly, some selection and generalization will have to be made

1. First, the fact is that my review did say something about 1 Corinthians 8:11 as one of the texts that Punt adduces. According to Punt: “We should regard every person [italics added] as a ‘brother for whom Christ died’ (1 Cor. 8:11). This general approval of biblical universalism breaks down barriers between people . . .” (p. 143).

“But now notice,” my review stated, “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 as brother repeatedly (four times) and also as the brethren. How can Punt possibly make this mean every person in any sense?”

2. In a personal letter to me Rev. Punt writes: “I do want to know if my (rather Hodge’s) premise is biblically valid and I do want you to know that this is not some· thing I have entered into lightly without much preparation.”

Calling upon Hodge, Punt entitles the first chapter of his book: “All the Descendants of Adam . . . are Saved.” He tells us the following: “The quotation in our chapter title comes from the great nineteenth–century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge. He accepted our second presupposition, formulating it as follows: ‘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 I, 26)’. Hodge claims that Scripture furnishes us with the premise that all men are saved, except those whom the Bible expressly excludes from such union with Christ. This premise he finds in Romans 5:18 – Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.

“That this is Hodge’s interpretation of Romans 5:18 is demonstrated by his use of this premise to prove the thesis that all who die in infancy are saved . . .” (p. 6).

It is well at this point to compare Hodge with Hodge, or to look at what the same Hodge says elsewhere as to the meaning of Romans 5:18. In the third volume of his Systematic Theology (pp. 871, 872) Hodge clearly disavows universalism in this verse when he writes: “Restorationists appeal also to Romans 5:18: ‘As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.’ This is made to mean, that as all men are condemned for Adam’s offense, so all men are justified for the righteousness of Christ. The same interpretation is put upon the parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 15:22: ‘As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’ In both these passages, however, that ‘all’ is necessarily limited by the context. It is the all who are in Adam, that die; and the all who are in Christ that are made alive.” It should be obvious that, if Hodge in Volume I of his Systematic Theology holds to some kind of universalism in Romans 5:18, he repudiates it in Volume III.

Moreover, this is equally clear from what Hodge says about Romans 5:18 in his commentary on this epistle as follows: “The second question of importance respecting this verse is, whether the all men of the second clause is coextensive with the all men of the first. Are the all who are justified for the righteousness of Christ the all who are condemned for the sin of Adam? In regard to this point, it may be remarked, in the first place, that no inference can be fairly drawn in favor of an affirmative answer to this question, from the mere universality of the expression. Nothing is more familiar to the readers of the Scriptures than that such terms are to be limited by the nature of the subject or the context” (p. 268).

It is clear from the above that Hodge left no doubt about the limitations he placed on the second all men in Romans 5:18 and that he leaves no room for any kind of “universalism” at this point.

In view of Rev. Punt‘s reliance upon Hodge and because he states in his letter: “I do want to know if my (rather Hodge’s) premise is biblically valid . . .”, it may be of interest to add the following from Charles Hodge As a Dogmatician, a doctoral dissertation by Ralph J . Danhof:

“In essence, Hodge also must admit what Zwingli asserted as his opinion that all infants dying in infancy are certainly regenerated. In other words, Hodge denies that reprobation applies to infants who have died in infancy. Hodge attempted to prove this doctrine from an assertion made by the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12–21. Hodge also held that the Westminster Confession does not controvert his position. It is evident that Hodge extended the bounds of the Covenant of Grace to a greater compass than Scripture warrants. Scripture only teaches that the Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham and his seed. Hodge also admitted that the salvation of all infants dying in infancy is a doctrine admitted by all Evangelical Protestants (Systematic Theology, Volume II, p. 212). Truth is that this is more than Hodge could ever prove, for this doctrine has never been admitted by Calvinistic theologians of Dutch ancestry. Calvin has never dared to pronounce any positive judgment as to the salvation of all infants dying in infancy. The Synod of Dort did not dare go any further than to state its opinion on children of the Covenant, and left the infants of the heathen who die in infancy to the just judgment of God . . . we believe that this [infant salvation] is more than the facts of Scripture will warrant. Romans 5:12-21 does not teach that all infants are saved who die in infancy, and if this conclusion is pressed in· to the designation ‘all’, it equally includes all who have fallen in Adam, and it appears inconsistent to apply the ‘all’ only to in· Cants dying in infancy. The ‘all’ in Christ are only the elect and the regenerate, and Paul does not say anymore than this” (pp. 194, 195).

3. The so–called “universalistic” texts are those that speak of all and of the world being saved and of Christ dying for all men. The meaning, as Hendriksen points out in considering 1 Timothy 2:7 in his commentary on that epistle. is that salvation is “for all men, regardless of rank, station, race, or nationality.” The terms all, the world, and all men were used at times, as Berkhof states, “to indicate that the Old Testament particularism belongs to the past, and made way for New Testament universalism.”

The point is that, in the salvation of His people, God saves mankind. Rather than allowing Satan to wrest the world and mankind away from Him unto their destruction He redeems and reclaims that which He made for Himself and His glory. God’s world and mankind are saved even as a tree is saved notwithstanding a great many of its branches being lopped off and cast into the fire. The great multitude in glory that no man can number and their glorious abode in the hereafter constitute God’s original creation that He refuses to surrender to Satan and the forc.es of hell.

In his efforts to establish his universalism, Punt objects to the above delimitation on these universal terms. However, he too knows full well that in exegeting a passage one must always compare Scripture with Scripture and allow those passages that are clear to shed light on the meaning of other passages that are difficult. Now it is clear in the Bible that Christ did not die to atone for the sins of all men and that all men will not be saved, and that not all men are elect.

Of course, Punt knows as well as the rest of us that there is no universal salvation and therefore, when he keeps on insisting that he finds universalism in the Bible, he also keeps on insisting that there are always exceptions. It should be clear then that Punt’s universalism is not universal. Either these “universalistic” texts are uni· versa! in their extent or coverage or they are restricted or limited. We cannot have it both ways.

It is precisely this that makes Punt’s book so baffling to the reader. Throughout he attempts to make a case for a certain kind of universalism while at the same time conceding the particularism so clearly taught in Scripture. There is an unrelieved tension in his reasoning that is inher ent in the premise with which he begins.

Punt’s Appeal to Calvin – Finally, a word is in order about Punt’s appeal to Calvin in his letter to the editor. He writes: “Rev. Vander Ploeg‘s observations about the kind of preaching found in the New Testament appear to be completely at variance with the observations made by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book III, iii, 2).”

Punt does not say in what respect I appear to be at variance with Calvin. The situation is as follows : As to preaching the gospel, Punt says: “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). Moreover he would have us preach, “Christ died for you.”

Over against this kind of preaching, my review gave examples of the preaching of John the Baptist, Christ, Paul. and Peter, in none of which do we find the method that Punt advocates. Neither can I find this in the passage from Calvin‘s Institutes to which Punt appeals. To be sure, I am in one hundred percent agreement with Calvin that the preaching of repentance must go hand in hand with the preaching of the gospel and that repentance is the fruit of faith. However, I find nothing in Calvin to the effect that we are to tell all men that they are elect and that Christ died for them. To reconcile such preaching with the teaching and theology of John Calvin would seem to me to be a hopeless task.

J.V.P.

RESTORING CONFIDENCE

There appears to be uneasiness and lack of confidence in our Christian Reformed church–world . There is questioning of the nature of our church agencies and the propriety of their management. Also about the quality of the pulpit–work of some of our younger ministers, which could be caused by insufficient training in sermon–construction and presentation (a matter for the consideration of consistories in Censura Morum). There also is concern about candidates’ stand on the authority of the inspired Scriptures; whether the “new Hermeneutic” with its implied questioning of the historicity of Genesis, and the disputing of the reported earthquake is favored, and their views of women in office.

Concern has been expressed in private discussion, in The Outlook of the Reformed Fellowship, and by many disturbed “voices” in The Banner. Some students left our seminary for others they thought better (some on pastoral advice).

This writer shares this uneasiness, and sees the need of overcoming it, for it pertains to the vitals of sound church–life .

Will those in church-offices take serious notice of this evident lack of confidence? Will the Board of Trustees and synod, delegated by consistories and classes, investigate, act when and where necessary, and keep the general membership informed by responsible publicity? Will Synod 1981 seek to restore confidence by appropriate measures, and have therein the loyal support of our membership on all lower levels?

It might also improve interrelationships of our CRC members with consistories, pastors, Calvin College and Seminary and church-publications, leading to a better Communion of Saints, the Fellowship of Confidence in the sphere of Christian love.

Paul De Koekkoek

REFORMATION BY SILENCE OR PUBLICITY

Dear Editor,

If I have criticized you earlier, now I would like to commend you for bringing out names and facts so that we know not generalities, but what is at stake. Keep putting your fingers on sore sports.

J. H. Binnema Telkwa, B.C., Canada

Dear Rev. P. DeJong,

May I make a few remarks regarding the exchange between Rev. Binnema and yourself in the January issue of Outlook?

With Binnema, I too am concerned about “sound information.” Misrepresentations and insinuations are not only not helpful, they are sinful. We must always seek to be fair and honest, also in what we write.

There is more to be said, however. One problem is the “frustration” that you mention. One senses and knows that there is something wrong, but how do we get at the bottom of it, and how do we go about correcting it? The fact that Calvin College & Seminary are so far removed from a large part of the church is a complicating factor. Who really knows what is going on in Grand Rapids? Some of the things that should be known by the whole church are never reported on in the church papers. Executive committees and boards try to insure that nothing “wrong” gets out. At the very present an issue is being dealt with “secretly,” more or less. And this is often done with an appeal to Matthew 18. But such an appeal misses the point. Matthew 18 deals with private sins; but matters which are taught in the college and semi. nary are anything but private—that’s for “public consumption.” What a professor says in class he should be able and willing to defend publicly before the church. These professors are, after all, appointed by and responsible to, the church. So let’s quit appealing to Matthew 18 when it doesn’t apply.

As to what is wrong, the whole church ought to know about Verhey. And that matter has never really been definitively dealt with by the church. It’s still somewhat of an “open case.” Synod never spoke clearly on the issue. And everyone knows that some of our professors are at least very sympathetic to his views.

But now I want to become more concrete yet. The last (Aug. ’80) issue of the RES Theological Forum dealt with the problem of creation vs. evolution. Dr. Egbert Schuurman of the Netherlands presented the main paper, and a number of participants responded. One of these respondents was Dr. Sierd Woudstra of Calvin College. He makes clear in his response that he holds to a radical, unReformed view of Scripture. He says among other things that “many Christian scientists” now agree that “many species of animals had become extinct long before anything like a human being appeared on earth, and that the human race is far older than even the most flexible reading of the Bible would seem to allow for.” Well, that’s still somewhat debatable, I would guess. But what does one make of this: “I venture to say that one who holds that the universe is a few billion years old and that also the human race is of fairly high antiquity (30,000 years? 500,000 years?) must in principle concede the hermeneutical validity of the view of those who honestly question whether today one can still maintain an actual Garden of Eden, etc. etc. That in turn has immediate consequences for the approach to the whole of Scripture.” (That last statement deserves an Amen!, J.T.) He then goes on to say that “the bridge of the traditional conservative reading of the biblical passages on creation, notably Genesis 1 & 2, is perilously creaking under the combined weight of what Christian scientists believe their studies tell them about the origin of the world and the human race.”

Well. that’s language difficult to misunderstand. And that is precisely the issue under discussion at present in the seminary. Was there a garden of Eden? Were Adam & Eve really “our first parents” as the Catechism says?

Meanwhile we have Report 44 which says that “the contention that these chapters [Gen. 1–11, J .T.] do not present events that really happened is certainly in conflict with our Reformed Confessions and in conflict with Scripture itself.” This Report further states that “neither scientific knowledge nor theological expertise may function as prerequisites for a right understanding of Scripture.” It further “warns against the use of any method of biblical interpretation which excludes or calls into question . . . the event–character of biblical history.” What happened to that Report and its Guidelines? Does it function at all in the life of the church?

I’m not quite done yet. Prof. Hendrikus Berkhof of the Netherlands has written a book entitled Het Christelijk Geloof. It was first written in 1973, and now is translated into English by Dr . Sierd Woudstra under the title Christian Faith. In this volume Berkhof propounds a view of Scripture which is far removed from anything Reformed. The Bible is basically a human response to God‘s revelation. Men wrote what they thought God said to them, but often they were mistaken in their views. The point right now is that Dr. Woudstra introduces Berkhofs theological approach as “essentially correct”!! (I refer t he reader to the November and December ’80 issues of Trowel & Sword in which Rev. Deenick of Australia gives his evaluation of the book.)

Enough said. Woudstra is a professor of religion and theology at Calvin College. A similar view is now under discussion at the Seminary_ These are the schools of the church. What are Binnema, we and others going to do about this? In his little booklet, Reformation Today. Dr. K. Runia says:

It is also our du ty to raise our voice in protest against all that is contrary to Scripture in our Church, on both the local and supralocal level. . . . The church is a community or, as Paul said, a ‘body’ and we share the responsibility for what is going on in our denomination. When there is unbiblical teaching in our church, in magazines or in Sunday school material; when from the pulpits or the seminaries we hear things which are contrary to Scripture and to the subordinate standards; then we may not be silen t, but have to raise our voice in protest. . . . Surely it is time for us to realize that silence means co-responsibility.

J. Tuininga

Lethbridge, Alberta