Ignorance, How Sad

Having been a reader for 40 years, I still enjoy our church papers.

The Banner of December 21 and the first Outlook of the new year give me a pain. So much energy wasted! (I refer to “Classis Calls Conference on Women” and “An Evening With Women’s Liberation,” January OUTLOOK).

When I put all the people mentioned on a time basis and miles traveled, I see a great danger that the issue of debate has become a point of pressure, not principle, as it should be. I say, how sad.

First, I speak to both groups with regard to the foolish waste of time, for which God also holds us responsible.

If the professors don‘t have anything more important to do, why not donate some time to a more worthy cause? If they are employed by someone and have time to waste, why not have the board reduce the faculty number, thereby increasing the work load? (Idleness is the Devil’s workshop).

As for the women, they already made themselves unworthy of the office. Paul writes that love is a first requirement, anyone who has anger within himself or herself is not fit to serve so worthy an office. Furthermore, what is contained in the heart is in danger of coming out of the mouth. (The Bible also refers to this.)

Finally that submissiveness which is also part of their confession, they have made themselves unworthy and disqualified for the office. (Not members in good standing.)

Cornie Vos Oskaloosa, Iowa

Response To Rev. Jacob Binnema (March Issue)

Like Rev . Binnema I am Reformed, and even “Gereformeerd” by birth. I enjoyed his lines of verse, alt hough I’m not quite ready to say, “I want out.” ButI do want to stress that I am not the one behind the wheel, if I may continue the use of my analogy. I suspect Rev. Binnema and I are closer together than he seems to think.

The issue that comes through in his letter is “newness” in theology. If there is to be newness, as I believe there should be, it is not because God has added to His Word or revelation but because theology must seek ever better formulations, some of which draw on philosophy. I believe we must a£firm the possibility of theology making genuine progress through its con· tact with philosophy and the sciences. In other words, we can learn from the modern world-even from such thinkers as Marx and Freud–provided we bear in mind that what we learn from a secular thinker is not necessarily what he would Like to teach us. What it all boils down to, then, is that we need a fuller awareness of contemporary thought in our theological education. Only through such an awareness will we be able to meet the challenge of liberation theology, for example.

This is not to say, of course, that I em· brace with open arms all that calls itself contemporary in the philosophical world. For example, I do not believe the Reformed community is well-served by the growing orientation toward analytic philosophy, which is the philosophical movement that has become dominant in the Anglo-American philosophical world in the twentieth century. I believe that this philosophy does not enable us to get a proper grasp and comprehension of the intellectual challenges and opportunities that confront us today. In this sense it is a narrow philosophy. It certainly represents one dimension of current thinking, but it is not educational in the best sense.

Yet this philosophy is not without merit. I believe its chief merit is the work done in apologetics. Nicholas Wolterstorff has recently reminded us that “apologetics must always be person–specific. It must always be contextual. An apologetic satis· factory for all comers is impossible” (Reformed Journal, April 1981, p. 24). Now, various thinkers in the contemporary world are analytic philosophers. For such I can prescribe no better apologetic medicine than to read some of the writings of Alvin Plantinga. However, for the major· ity of unbelieving intellectuals a different type of apologetic would be needed. The challenge of Freud and Marx and other such enormously influential thinkers must also be met in our apologetic writings. Thus there is a great deal of work that remains to be done if the Reformed community is to address the contemporary world in an effective manner.

Theodore Plantinga

Unconditional Good News

Dear Editor:

Calvin Coolidge said he was a man of few words, “. . . because you never have to defend what you have not said.” Evidently Coolidge never and the honor of entering a public discussion with the Rev. Jelle Tuininga.

Consider how Tuininga lays the basis for his charge that I am “in conflict” with our creeds. (Outlook, 1/82). He valiantly defends the following statements, intentionally leaving the impression that I deny or compromise them:

1) “The human race [is] lost apart from Christ.” 2) “No one is saved except through Jesus Christ.” 3) “All men fell in Adam unto condemnation.” 4) “Dead is dead, and no man comes alive unless the Spirit of Christ makes him alive.” 5) “That means there is condemnation to those apart from Christ.” 6) “Man is responsible for his own condemnation, children included.” 7) “In faith we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.” 8) “Even though unbelievers can do so-called ‘civic good,’ this is not owing to any goodness in them, but solely to God’s revelation which impinges on them.” 9) “There is no neutrality.”

If I deny or compromise any of the above statements I would indeed be “in conflict” with our creeds as Tuininga charges.

I hereby challenge Rev. Tuininga to cite. in a just and fair manner, so much as one reference in which I, either directly or by good and necessary deduction, deny or compromise any one of the above ninE statements. If he fails to meet this challenge. all the readers of Outlook may know how carelessly he has dealt with truth in this matter.

I would be delighted to respond to Rev. Tuininga’s other arguments, including the urgency for gospel proclamation, if the Editor can spare some more space in Outlook for me to do so.

Cordially,

Neal Punt

Reply

1. Punt states in his Banner article (Jan. 12, 81) that “we do not read that anyone will suffer eternal wrath because of original sin in Adam, apart from actual, personal . . . sin.” (Cf. also his book, pp. 24, 26). I consider that to be in conflict with The Canons of Dort, Chap. II, Reg. of Errors, Para. 5, where the fathers of Dort reject the error of those who say “that no one shall be condemned because of it” (namely , original sin). Cf. also Chap. III/IV , Rej. of Errors, Para. 1.

It is worth noting that the Study Committee dealing with Boer’s gravamen did not draw the conclusion about the salvation of infants that Punt draws, but went out of its way to disassociate itself from it, referring, a. o., to the Canons cited above. (I was a delegate to synod that year, and remember this distinctly.)

2. Punt considers it an unwarranted assumption to say that all persons are outside of Christ except those what the Bible declares will be saved. He wants to start with the assumption that all are elect in Christ. I repeat (in the words of Spykman): “Our starting point must be . . . the . . . human condition of universal reprobation resulting from mankind‘s fall into sin . . . . We are to begin not with limited election but with the human predicament of unlimited reprobation. . .” Or, to say it with David Dunbar in the Journal of ETS, Sept. 81: “My fundamental problem with this book is whether the assumption that ‘all are elect in Christ,’ as Punt wishes to understand the phrase, is really a Biblical assumption, or whether the traditional Christian understanding that ‘all are lost except those who trust in Christ’ does not more accurately reflect Biblical teaching. I am inclined to think that the weight rests with the latter case.”

1. Since God condemns men on the basis of original sin, and since regeneration does not take place apart from the Word and Spirit of God, and since many who die in infancy have no contact with the Word at all, it would seem to be a “good and necessary deduction” that such infants are lost. This is contrary to Punt’s position, and that is why I stressed points 1) through 6) of Punt’s response. One can’t have it both ways. Infants of believing parents are holy in Christ, received unto grace in Christ without their knowledge. That’s why we don’t doubt their salvation. In no way can this be said of infants of unbelievers and heathens. 2. Punt says the gospel is the “announcement of an objective state of affairs” and that faith is not essential to salvation (cf. pp. 107, 108 of his book). With Murray I say once again, “in faith we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.” Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). I consider Punt to be in conflict with Q. and A. 20, 32, 60 and 65 of the Heid. Catechism, and with the Canons, Chap. II, Rej. of Errors, Para. 4, where the Synod rejects the error of those who teach “that the new covenant of grace . . . does not herein consist that we by faith . . . are justified before God and saved.”

5. I hear Punt saying (cf. quotation on p. 130 of book, in my art. above) that unless there is open rejection of God‘s revelation by them, we must consider all men to be partners in fulfilling the cultural mandate, and we can only press the claim of Christ “on the assumption that all persons are in Christ.” I disagree with both points. Without a new heart decent people like Esau and Hiram etc. are not really joined with us. And if they already are in Christ, there is no need to call them to obedience to him.

J. Tuininga

(This concludes this exchange –Editorial Committee)