Forword by
Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary
>
Several years ago I heard a lecture by the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama, in which he observed that we all need to make a basic decision in our approach to theological questions. Either we assume, he said, a stingy God or a generous God. This was a helpful insight for me. It is not difficult to find passages in both the Bible and the Reformed confessions where it seems like we are being given a picture of a divine stinginess. But there are also many passages where we are provided with wonderful promises of divine generosity. The question for those of us, who take the Scriptures as the infallible Word from God, while also viewing the Reformed confessional documents as reliable guides to the teachings of that Word, is this: how do we square the stingy-sounding passages with the generous-sounding ones?
>
Neal Punt s writings have been a marvelous gift to those of us in the Calvinistic tradition who take our stand on the side of divine generosity. And, truth be told, his treatment of the texts has also been a gift of sorts to those who disagree with him. One theologian who has been severely critical of those of us whom he sees as going too far in the direction of generosity once confided to me that he has learned much from wrestling with the challenges posed by Neal Punt. He helps to keep people like me honest, he confessed.
>
In my own case, Neal Punt hasn t just kept me honest. He has helpfully instructed me in the truth by convincing me that he has the right take on the basics of Reformed theology. I have never been able to embrace the kind of universalism that teaches that all human beings will be saved in the end. That sort of theology is simply impossible for me to square with the biblical message. But I do want to leave a lot of theological room for the mysterious ways of a God who has promised that where sin abounds grace much more abounds. Punt has helped me to stay within the bounds of biblical orthodoxy while relying on the promises of an abundant divine generosity.
>
Reverend Punt has never been one who is content to consign the stinginess-generosity dilemma to the area of tensions and paradoxes. While pointing us to the grace-abounding strains in the Scriptures, he has also struggled mightily some would say indefatigably with all of those texts that might seem on the face of it to be a problem for his view. I will never forget, for example, the sense of profound relief I experienced when I finished reading for the first time his treatment of the Matthew 7: 13-14 passage about the broad road that leads to the destruction versus the narrow path that only a few will find. Not only did his careful exposition convince me that there is a way of fitting this into an overall generosity perspective, but I actually sensed that he had laid out the most plausible interpretation of that passage in its context.
>
In this important book, Neal Punt puts it all together. He summarizes the work of many decades of formulating his case, and he also gives a fair and careful account of the objections that others have lodged against the perspective that he has developed.
>
As I write this I have just read a report of a public poll taken of the younger generation s attitudes toward Christianity. The majority of those questioned view Christianity as a narrow-minded, mean-spirited religion. In this book Neal Punt sets forth the perspective that can correct that perception. I hope that his case for a generous God shapes the minds and hearts of many!
Richard J. Mouw President and Professor of Christian Philosophy Fuller Theological Seminary --Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary< --varied
Steve Parker writes: Back in 1987, I came across an article in Christianity Today written by Neal Punt that radically altered my understanding of salvation. Neal s article, All Are Saved Except introduced his understanding of what he then called biblical universalism. Now, 20 years later, after much dialogue, development, and a heresy trial, Neal Punt writes a definitive explanation of what he now calls evangelical inclusivism. I have travelled with him on this 20 years -- not directly, but in reading all his published books on the topic and his online material. It has been worth the journey!
Punt s starting point is to ask which of the following options is biblical:
A. All people are lost except those the Bible explicitly states are saved.
B. All people are saved except those the Bible explicitly states are lost.
Traditionally, the first of these has been the answer to the question of who is saved. Punt presents a compelling and persuasive argument that the Bible teaches the second.
On the surface, this shift may seem trivial. It is not. There are profound practical implications for our theology and spirituality. The best way of summarising Punt s argument is to reproduce his statement of the argument in the introduction of his book:
Evangelical Inclusivism is based upon these four biblical facts:
1. The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinists have consistently maintained, and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (See Chapter 1).
2. All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (inherited sin). However, the Scriptures neither teach nor imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in Adam apart from actual, willful, persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned (See Chapter 2).
3. We must accept the so-called the so-called "universalistic" texts as written. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (See Chapter 3).
4. Jesus "saved" sinners, once for all, by making the supreme sacrifice 2,000 years ago. We speak of this as "objective" salvation. The Bible means something altogether difference when it says Paul set out to "save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). The Holy Spirit "saves" sinners by using human agents to bring the gospel to them. We refer to this as "subjective" salvation. A great amount of confusion results when this distinction is lost sight of (See Chapter 4).
When Punt s perspective is adopted (and I believe it is absolutely biblical) then we immediately have some answers to some very profound questions that people ask. For example, What happens to children who die at birth? Will they be saved? What about people who never explicitly hear about Jesus Christ and don t have the opportunity to become Christians? Are we saved by grace alone? or are we saved by grace plus works?
The questions go on and on. These and other questions are resolved by adopting Punt s approach.
Personally, I don t like any of the terms for this view that Punt has come up with so far. The latest one is evangelical inclusivism. The problem with the word evangelical is that it has connotations associated with a particular group of Christians. That might be ok for some, but it does come with considerable baggage in my opinion. My preference would be for biblical inclusivism. Whatever the term, Punt s book is essential reading for anyone and everyone who has an interest in who will be saved and lost -- and isn t that all of us?
If you want to develop a theology of salvation which is truly based on grace, then A Theol --Thinking Christian, Australia, April 2, 2008
Dr. F. F. Bruce: I read your book What s Good About the Good News? with great interest. Your position is very much my own. Your exposition of the subject is thoroughly in line with the insight: Admittedly Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to ruin.
I wish your work a wide circulation; it will stimulate much fresh thought on this important subject.
Dr. Henry Stob: This book is stimulating, instructive, and true to the gospel. Neal Punt is to be commended for opening up the Scriptures in a new and exciting way.
Dr. Lewis Smedes: I want to tell you that I admire what you are doing and am thankful for it. You are rescuing us from dogmatic determinism and saving us from presumptuous universalism. Your mission is needed and can only do us much good.
Dr. Lester DeKoster (former editor of The Banner and lifelong student of John Calvin): Pastor Neal Punt has skillfully shifted the focus of a long disputed doctrine in his What s Good About The Good News? He has made what is too often speculative theology into a pastoral admonition applicable to all. Salvation is validated in obedience to the will of God; this is the fruit of election. Disobedience is the deliberate and willful rejection of God s will. Persistent disobedience finds its ultimate consequence in damnation
Except for such as persistently defy God s will, the Bible teaches that Christ s atoning sacrifice is for all. Thus in Punt s hands the old election/reprobation tension is resolved into a positive call for the truly Christian life.
Dr. Edward Wm. Fudge: "Are people lost unless saved, or saved unless lost? Neal Punt offers compelling scriptural evidence for the second statement. This simple (but profound) shift in vision magnifies God's grace, highlights Christ's atonement, encourages evangelism, helps bridge the gap between Calvinists and Arminians and generates an authentic welcoming spirit toward those who do not yet know Christ. Biblical Universalism is a study that will enrich your heart and mind."
Pastor Robert J. Wieland: This Good News premise comes across from Punt s pages like a fresh wind that almost take one s breath away. But the Biblical evidence which he marshals is impressive, and strongly suggests that the apostles turned their world upside down with a Gospel that contained considerably better Good News than our version of it convey today. --varied
