|
|
Finessing the Gospel: News too Good to be TrueA Critique of Neal Punt's New Universalism |
Theological book reader's tip of the month: Always be skeptical of books promising to shed "new light" on historical Biblical truths. Especially when the "new insights" promise to make you feel better about disturbing truths.
Rev. Neal Punt's "new insight" premise that Divine Election is far more universal than the Church thought it was for the past millennium is now more than 20 years old, but the continued success of his bestsellers on the subject show this assault on historic Calvinism's perspective on saving grace is increasingly securing new ground.
Punt's premise that all men have always been Elect (with the lost being sad exceptions to the universal rule) was first set forth in his 1980 book, Unconditional Good News (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.). It was fleshed out in his 1988 follow-up What's Good about the Good News: New Light on the Plan of Salvation (Northland Books, paperback). A nominal Calvinist (Punt is a minister in the Christian Reformed Church), the author's expressed purpose is to bring theological antagonists (Calvinists & Arminians) together on common ground where the troublesome historic interpretations of Divine Election can be amalgamated. Sadly, as is usually the case with common-ground heroics, the truth is compromised.
Those uncomfortable with troublesome truths, of course, find such efforts to be "fresh wind." A Ministry Magazine reviewer, for example, wrote in March, 1991, "This Good News premise comes across from Punt's pages like a fresh wind that almost takes one's breath away. But the Biblical evidence that he marshals is impressive, and strongly suggests that the apostles turned their world upside down with a Gospel that contained considerably better Good News that our versions of it convey today."
Punt claims that the over-all message of the Bible is either: A) ALL PERSONS ARE OUTSIDE OF CHRIST EXCEPT THOSE WHO THE BIBLE EXPRESSLY DECLARES WILL BE SAVED; or, B) ALL PERSONS ARE ELECT IN CHRIST EXCEPT THOSE WHO THE BIBLE EXPRESSLY DECLARES WILL BE FINALLY LOST. He acknowledges that ever since the fourth century nearly all Christian theology has been structured on Proposition A. His books claim to marshal "impressive Biblical evidence" for Proposition B, an "insight" that has vast implications for many aspects of theology.
His publishers claim Punt has given us answers to "questions that have divided Christians for centuries such as: Are the millions of people who never heard the gospel during their lifetime eternally lost? Is there a biblical basis for believing that all who die in infancy are saved? Can we bridge the gap between Arminianism and Calvinism or must this 400-year verbal battle continue until death unites us? Is the gospel bad news (you are lost) accompanied with a good suggestion (believe and be saved)?"
Says Punt, "As a Christian Reformed pastor I was schooled in the Calvinist tradition. I am not satisfied with the treatment of the so-called "universalistic" texts by Calvinists. I made an extensive comparison of the classical exegesis of these texts by Christian scholars over hundreds of years. I have been amazed at the number of knowledgeable Arminians and Calvinists (denominational leaders, professors, authors, pastors and others) who have responded to my first book by admitting that they have never been comfortable with the interpretation of these passages provided by their respective theological traditions. This discomfort works to the great advantage of the Absolute Universalists (those who teach that all persons will eventually be saved)."
To fully appreciate the critique by a fellow Christian Reformed minister which follows, we provide the reader with this excerpt from Chapter 1 of What's Good About the Good News?: The Plan of Salvation in a New Light (copyright © 1988, all rights reserved).
Most Christians readily admit that they have always understood the teaching of the Bible to be that all persons are outside of Christ except those who the Bible explicitly tells us will be saved. Premise A) has been deeply implanted in our mind. It can very easily be demonstrated that all mainstream theology has been done on the basis of assumption A) above. Those acquainted with the history of theology recognize premise A) in Pelagianism, Augustinianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism and in other theological traditions.
As far back as the third century theologians have worked with perspective A). Our understanding of the over-all message of the Bible has been shaped by the assumption that lies beneath every one of the traditions mentioned above. We do not have the luxury of saying we will not adopt either A) or B). In spite of all denials it is impossible to read, interpret, or proclaim the gospel without working with one view or the other.
Without realizing it we necessarily work with one or the other. It makes little difference whether we concentrate on the vase or the faces in our silhouette or if we simply smile as they endlessly switch back and forth. We may not, however, treat God's message in such a casual way. We must decide what Biblical basis we have for continuing with A) or B) and what the practical effects of our selection will be.
The Bible speaks of two men-two "Adams." One at the dawn of history, the other "in the fullness of time." Through the disobedience of the first Adam condemnation and death came into this world. The obedience of the second Adam (Jesus Christ) brought salvation and life.
We can either so concentrate our attention on the disobedience of Adam that we see all persons involved in his condemnation and death over against a background of those who the Bible expressly tells us will come to salvation and life; or, we give Christ the place of pre-eminence and view all persons in him over against the dark shadow of those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost.
Translation: Accept the Bible's view that all men since Adam are by nature lost and you have not given Christ pre-eminence. May we be forgiven if we do not slip on that red herring. Neither are we willing to view this issue merely as a tragic 400-year-old "verbal battle" that will end only when we all get to heaven and see how silly we were to be divided over such trivia.
We are pleased to offer the following response by the Rev. John M. Moes, an international mission pastor-evangelist from Seattle and a denominational colleague of Punt, arguing for the historic interpretation concerning God's electing and saving grace. [Click on links below.]
Garry J. Moes, Graybrook Institute
AN OPEN LETTER TO NEAL PUNT, PART I
AN OPEN LETTER TO NEAL PUNT, PART II
OR