Drift Toward Unbiblical Universalism

J. Tuininga

In a recent issue of Christian Renewal Dr. Ted Plantinga referred to Neal Punt’s book, Unconditional Good News, as one example of doctrinal erosion in the CRC. Rightly so, in my opinion. Punt maintains that all children who die in infancy (including those of unbelieving parents) are saved, and that we must consider the largest part of the human race as being “elect in Christ.”

Sad to say, Punt is not the only one holding these views. The Banner of April25, ’83 contains an article by the late (he died recently) Dr. Richard Wierenga, in which a similar position is defended. But whereas the latter is still somewhat tentative about his conclusions, Dr. S. Woudstra is n ot. In a letter to “Voices” in The Banner of May 23rd he maintains that we can “speak with even greater assurance,” and “must say emphatically” that the children of unbelievers are saved, “and countless others besides.”

What I find most distressing and annoying in the writing of all three of the above-named gentlemen is their lack of solid Biblical evidence, and their propensity to cite texts in isolation from their context and from the overall pattern of the Scriptures. I get the strong impression that the wish becomes the father of the thought, and that Scripture is more or less forced into a preconceived mold. Dr. Wierenga cites numerous texts, but not one of them has any real bearing on the matter at hand. And what he overlooks in the case of Abijah (I Kings 14:13) is that he was a covenant child, and it is quite likely , says Van Gelderen, that the child was influenced by some godly persons at the court of the king. I also find his second “compelling” reason (the possible taunt of Satan that the majority of the human race belongs to him) more speculation than anything else, and completely uncompelling.

Woudstra cites no Biblical evidence at all, but simply says that it would be “inconceivable” that God would not save unbelievers’ children. But it’s always very dangerous for us to try to tell God what we consider to be “inconceivable.”

Much more could be said about this matter, but let me just mention three points that are incontrovertible and that must be firmly kept in mind in this discussion:

1. As pointed out in another letter to “Voices” in The Banner of May 23rd, let’s not overlook the doctrine of original sin. No child is innately good, and none deserves salvation. We are all conceived and born in sin, and therefore subject to all manner of misery, yes, to condemnation itself. In the Canons of Dort we reject the error of those who say “that no one is worthy of condemnation on account of original sin, and that no one shall be condemned because of it” (Chap. II, Rejection of Errors, Paragraph 5), and furthermore we reject those who teach “that it cannot properly be said that original sin in itself suffices to condemn the whole human race or to deserve temporal and eternal punishment” (Chap. III/ IV, Rejection of Errors, Paragraph 1).

All of us are by nature dead in sin, and unless we are made alive in Christ, we will not be saved. So it is not true that those who have not willfully rejected Christ will be saved, but those who have consciously committed their lives to Christ will be saved, plus the children of such believers who are holy by virtue of God’s covenant made with them. Those, and those only, will be saved. In other words, believers and their children will be saved.

It ought also to be clearly kept in mind that in Adam we did all willfully reject God. “In Adam’s fall we sinned all.” All of us did really turn our backs upon God in the Garden of Eden. And that is enough to condemn us all.

2. There is one Name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved. Only one Name. And unless people hear of that Name, they cannot be saved. And that goes for children as well as adults. If there is no gospel, that means there is no covenant of grace. And without the covenant of grace, children who die in infancy cannot be saved. The Spirit works regeneration in the hearts of young and old through the gospel, and unless we are born again, we shall not see the kingdom of heaven. The Bible nowhere tells us that the Spirit regenerates apart from the Word. I agree with Woudstra that the Bible is not silent about unbelievers’ children who die in infancy. The “whole Bible” seems to testify clearly that we have no reason to believe that such children are saved. We may not be more merciful than God. 3. We may not speculate about numbers. We must all strive to enter the kingdom, and the Bible says that those who are saved will be a “multitude that no man can number” (Rev. 7:9). But the Bible says too that the gate is wide and t he way easy that leads to destruction, and many go that way; and that the gate is narrow and the way hard that leads to life, and few there be that find it (Matt. 7:13, 14). It also says that many are called, but few are chosen (Matt. 22:14). And Peter says: If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear? (I Pet. 4:18). God chose the weak and foolish and despised to shame the strong, wise and noble. The whole message of the Bible is that God’s people are a minority, a small flock of sheep among wolves.

Experience corroborates this. The late Dr. Eldersveld once said in a sermon: “The Church is still in a minority on this earth , and a very small minority too . . . . The whole thing is a failure if it is merely a matter of arithmetic. But, of course, then Christ Himself was a failure too.” And in another sermon he said: “Even today Christianity is a minority religion in this world. It has always been. . . . It is altogether obvious that the number of true believers is exceedingly small.” A look at the street on which we live, the town or city in which we reside, and the world which we inhabit will tell us the same thing. A very tiny minority of people ever attend church on Sunday. The large majority ignores God altogether. And yet, if we must believe Punt and Woudstra, most of these people are going to end up in heaven! Wishful thinking—but completely preposterous!

Let’s stick with the plain teaching of the Word of God and not try to be wiser than God.

Banner of Truth MINISTERS CONFERENCE

Arthur Besteman

It seems that hardly a week goes by in which the mailman does not bring to the minister’s desk a brochure announcing another seminar, conference, workshop or institute designed just for him. Some promise to teach the clergyman how to be a better fund raiser; others guarantee that attendance will make him a better administrator. A recent mailing offered a two-hour presentation and discussion on “sacred dance.” Few are concerned with helping the man of the cloth to become a better preacher of the Word. An exception to this is the Ministers’ Conference sponsored by the Banner of Truth.

For over a quarter of a century the Banner of Truth Trust has sponsored conferences for ministers in Great Britain. Five years ago it also began holding ministers conferences in the United States. The conference this year was held on the Knollcrest Campus in Grand Rapids during the fourth week of May.

Many things could be written about the conference. I list five which I consider to be especially significant: 1) The speakers are without exception, men who hold high the Bible, believing it to be the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God. 2) The speakers are men who are committed to the Reformed Faith and who with enthusiasm teach it to others. 3) There is an excitement and zeal for the Reformed Faith among the registrants which is seldom found at events sponsored for clergymen. 4) The lectures and addresses provide spiritual food, enrichment and refreshing for the souls of those who must tend the souls of others. 5) The conference material is directed to the primary task of the minister which is to preach the Word of God.

A partial listing of the speakers and their subjects will help to illustrate the importance which is placed upon equipping the minister to be a better preacher of the Word. Dr. 0. Palmer Robertson of Covenant Theological Seminary spoke on the prophet Zephaniah. Dr. J.I. Packer, of international reputation as a scholar, lectured on the subject of sanctification, while Dr. J .R. deWitt dealt with the necessity of the new birth. A popular and powerful lecturer each year is Rev. Albert Martin who spoke on the subjects of perseverance and repentance.

It is an heartwarming experience to see two hundred twenty-five leaders in the church sit with open Bibles receiving instruction and inspiration from godly scholars.

This year the Banner of Truth Trust advertised its conference in THE BANNER. Consistories who are concerned about enriching the preaching ministry of their pastors can be of great assistance to them by encouraging them to attend the annual Banner of Truth Conference.

ISMS Within the Church

Arthur Besteman

Several months ago the Reverend Donald Houseman addressed a group of ministers and their wives. He reflected upon the deplorable moral and spiritual conditions of our time which he said confront the Christian Reformed Church with a tremendous challenge. To meet this challenge the church must be faithful in sending forth genuine, Biblical, expository preaching with a positive ring of divine authority. The church has not always done this because she is suffering from the destructive effects of certain “isms,” some old, some new. The “isms” as listed by the speaker are the following:

1. UNIVERSALISM in regard to the redemption of lost humanity. 2. NON-CONSTITUTIONALISM in regard to ecclesiastical government. 3. NEO-ANTINOMIANISM in the realm of moral conduct. 4. PRO-CONTEMPORARYISM which calls for conforming to the “times.” 5. PROFESSIONALISM in regard to the clergy’s attitude toward the task and calling of the ministry. 6. HIERARCHICALISM manifested in ecclesiastical managerial activities. 7. ACCOMODATIONISM as seen in compromising with secular thought and practice. 8. UNDENOMINATIONALISM in regard to ecumenical trends. 9. ACTIVISM which has little regard for principle and purpose. 10. REBORN PSEUDO-ARMINIANISM with its emphasis upon the “how-to” of being saved. 11. ANTI-TRADITIONALISM in regard to forms and customs within the church. 12. NON-EXEGETICALISM as manifested in much of preaching today.

The speaker concluded by saying that he considers NON-EXEGETICALISM to be the most devastating since the Sword of the Spirit is the instrument to be used in waging war on all that is false.

Rev. Houseman has given the church something to think about as she seeks to fulfill her calling in the 80’s. May she take seriously the warning which has come to her from a veteran warrior for the Truth.

Church Disorder

Jelle Tuininga

One might not exactly want to call it political intrigue, but it does have such overtones nevertheless. I refer to the way in which some of the leaders and agencies in the CRC go about trying to change policy and direction in the church. It is no longer through proper ecclesiastical channels (to which they pay great lip service when it suits their ends) but by means of a procedure whereby sooner or later the church will be faced with a “fait accompli” and, as a result, will either have to begin discipline procedures or reluctantly accept the status quo. Let me illustrate by means of a few examples.

1. Even though the Synod of 1979 specifically instructed churches “to defer implementation” of the 1978 decision regarding female deacons, some churches chose to ignore this advice (with the concurrence of a Seminary professor), saying Synod had not spoken clearly on the matter . Even when a later Synod spoke with even greater clarity, come consistories still chose to ignore it. A few have even appointed women as “associate” or “auxiliary” elders (with the same tasks and rights as a regular elder) in order to “get around” the advice of Synod. Rev. Haverkamp, editor of De Wachter, has voiced his displeasure with such procedures on more than one occasion.

2. It is a well-known fact that Classis Lake Erie (and some of its churches) have at times chosen to ignore the instructions of Synod with respect to lodge members. Haverkamp has spoken out about this too. 3. Synod of 1982 referred the matter of the “liturgical dance” to a study committee to study the “implications and the feasibility” of implementing such dances. But here again, some of us apparently already know the answer , or at least have already made up our minds about it. A “choreographic dance” was held recently in the church pastored by one of the authors of the original study committee on the dance. And we read in the minutes of the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary that the Committee arranging for appropriate celebration of the retirement of Pres. J. Kromminga reported that “part of the proposed liturgy is to include a segment using the liturgical dance.” So here an official agency of the church “jumps the gun” on Synod. It is an underhanded way of “forcing the issue” in the church.

In this connection it can be said that over the last number of years the standing Liturgical Committee has been responsible for almost forcing its ideas upon a rather reluctant constituency. One example: 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 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.

Conclusion: We have to stop this haphazard way of doing things, and put an end to the dishonest tactics on the part of some of our leaders and agencies in trying to steer the church in a certain direction. Consistory members and also the man in the pew must wake up and not allow themselves to be the unwilling victims of any board, agency or leader. Here too, vigilance is the price of freedom.