DRIFT TOWARD UNBIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM (August, 1983)

Letter To The Editor,

Doctrinal erosion occurs, according to Dr. Theodore Plantinga, when one disregards or takes lightly the commitment they have to the creedal stand of the church. In Christian Renewal, he cites my book “Unconditional Good News,” as “a sign of such erosion.” He has done this without offering one iota of proof. In the August issue of Outlook, the Rev. Jelle Tuininga parrots the opinion of Plantinga.

Before granting publication rights to my book, I, at some expense and much trouble. sent a copy of the complete manuscript to 82 persons to test its creedal soundness. Not one of them said I was in conflict with the creeds, even though I specifically asked each of them this very question. In the three years since the appearance of my book no one has demonstrated to the satisfaction of my consistory, or any other adjudicatory body, that I have violated the creeds.

I believe I have acted very responsib ly. As I state in the Preface to my book, I do not believe I have contradicted the creeds of our church.

On June 6, 1983 I asked Dr. Plantinga for proof. I indicated that if no proof was forthcoming I would be forced to conclude that what he had written was something very similar to simple name calling. Jelle Tuininga joins him in this, and, up to this time, I have received no evidence that I have disregarded or taken the creeds lightly.

Cordially,

Neal Punt

REPLY TO PUNT:

I don’t think Punt wants to be convinced, but I’ll give it one more try.

a) The Canons of Dort (Rejection of Errors) teach that because of original sin man is worthy of condemnation and will be condemned because of it (see references in Aug. Outlook, p. 13). Punt denies this, and so is in conflict with the creeds.

b) The Bible and the creeds teach that all men are by nature dead in sin, and unless they hear the gospel and are made alive in Christ, they will perish eternally (Eph. 2; Canons I, I, III/IV, I, 3; H.C. Q. & A. 20, etc.). Punt denies this by saying that we must regard all men as elect in Christ, and that only those who by a willful deed reject Christ are lost. Thus be is in conflict with the creeds. Besides, in Adam all did willfully reject God.

c) The Bible teaches that the secret things (like election & reprobation) belong to God, and the things that are revealed belong to us and our children. We may not and don’t have to speculate about who are elect and who are not. We simply go by the plain, clear teaching of the Bible that ALL men are by nature lost and condemned, and that unless they hear the gospel and sincerely repent they are lost. No ifs, but’s or maybe’s. Punt’s hypotheses are pure speculation, and we don’t need any of them. The Conclusion to the Canons exhorts us “to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures.” Punt should heed that exhortation.

In conclusion, a quotation from the late Dr. Eldersveld:

Yes, there have been many converts, but they represent only a very small fraction of mankind. The true Church of Jesus Christ has never been anything but a small minority in this world. The gospel antagonizes far more people than it wins.

That is quite contrary to Punt’s universalistic tendencies.

J. Tuininga

CHURCH DISORDER August, 1983)

August 25, 1983

Dear Editor,

Please allow me to comment on Rev. Tuininga’s description of the work of the Liturgical Committee (August 1983). Rev. Tuininga accuses the Committee of “almost forcing its ideas upon a rather reluctant constituency,” of “bamboozling” Synod, and of “dishonest tactics.” Strong language indeed!

It may be helpful to your readers to understand how the Liturgical Committee typically operates. The Committee works in response to the Mandate of Synod 1964 “to review all our liturgical literature . . . and to recommend such revisions or substitutions as the result of this review might recommend.” For the most recent form, for example (“Ordination of Ministers”), one member wrote the original draft and this was rewritten and edited by the Committee. It was then submitted to Synod 1982 and returned by the Advisory Committee for further work. After more editing it was re-submitted to Synod 1983, which approved it for a three–year trial period in the churches. During this time churches will submit comments (both for and against) to the Committee; these comments will be studied by the Committee for the final editing. In 1986 the form will be re-submitted to a new Advisory Committee and to Synod for final approval.

Maybe the Queen’s English in Canada has changed since I lived there. and “forcing its ideas” means something else today than it used to. In my understanding of that phrase I would hardly call the Committee’s procedure “forcing its ideas . . . upon a constituency.”

Rev. Tuininga’s “one example” also misses the mark. He writes: “The Synod of 1979 rejected the new proposed Intercessory Prayer at the conclusion of the new Marriage Form because ‘it lacks clarity of thought and a simplicity of expression’ and ‘is not easily understood by the average listener.’ Two years later, in 1981, the Liturgical Committee came with the same prayer, word for word, and Synod allowed itself to be ‘bamboozled’ into accepting it, even though it is no more understandable now than it was then.”

Such was not really the case. The Liturgical Committee submitted a new prayer as part of the Marriage Form (Acts of Synod 1981, pp. 28 and 310–11), thus carrying out Synod’s request. In addition, the original prayer was added to the “New Collection of Prayers” (which are all intended for voluntary use), since the Committee had received several requests that the prayer be maintained and be made readily available. The Committee Report indicates that the prayer is included in the “Collection of Prayers” (Acts, p. 312); I fail to see any “bamboozling” here. And I regret that Rev. Tuininga resorted to half–truths in his reporting.

I trust that this more complete report of the work of the Liturgical Committee will help your readers to form a mo re accurate picture of the committee’s work and its aim of promoting meaningful worship.

Sincerely,

Harry Boonstra

REPLY TO BOONSTRA

1. Regarding the wedding prayer, Boonstra simply confirms what I said: A prayer which was considered unacceptable in 1979 was judged acceptable in 1981 , on the recommendation of the Liturgical Committee. Neither this prayer nor many of the prayers in the “New Collection of Prayers” found and find much favor with the ordinary man in the pew.

2 . Indeed, there is often a rather long procedure in the adoption of new Forms and liturgies. But anyone who has his car to the ground in our congregations will soon find out that the average man in the pew is more than a little tired of all the new Forms and Liturgies that have been adopted in recent years. He simply doesn’t see the need for them, and finds them all rather confusing. Synods like to accommodate and compromise in many respects, but that doesn’t mean that the average congregation and/or member is of the same opinion. The reason there is often no more response to the proposed new forms is that many consistories have no intention of using them anyway.

Synod made a mistake in 1964 in adopting the proposal of the Liturgical Committee rather than that of its own Advisory Committee in giving such a sweeping mandate to a new Committee. And since then it has been hamstrung by its own mandate. But I still believe that to a significant degree the Liturgical Committee (often with synod’s passive approval) is more or less forcing its ideas upon a rather reluctant constituency. That has been my experience and, I’m sure, that of many others.

J. Tuininga