What's Good About the Good News?: The Plan of Salvation in a New Light [Paperback]

Neal Punt (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0945315074 | ISBN-13: 978-0945315070 | Publication Date: August 1988

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. Ever since the fourth century nearly all Christian theology has been structured on proposition A). This book marshals impressive Biblical evidence for proposition B). This insight has vast implications for many aspects of theology.

Editorial Reviews

Review

I read your book 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. F. F. Bruce, letter 2/20/92 with permission to quote.

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.

Here is a book that will challenge keen theologians; but it is so clearly and simply written that it will also warm the hearts of lay readers. That too is very good news. -- Ministry Magazine, March, 1991

From the Publisher

Neal Punt has generated considerable dialogue among knowledgeable theologians with his book Unconditional Good News (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980) by showing that the Bible teaches that: "All persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be lost." This insight suggests biblical 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)?

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 142 pages
• Publisher: Northland Books (August 1988)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0945315074
• ISBN-13: 978-0945315070
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.2 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #920,584 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Needs more rigor, more logical coherence and is not new, February 18, 2000

By 

"kencaproni" (Arizona, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: What's Good About the Good News?: The Plan of Salvation in a New Light (Paperback)

I have studied the issues of atonement for several months looking for a system of thought that is both logical and Biblical. The views I have found fall into three categories: 1) those that see no sacrificial aspect to the death on the cross, 2) those that are logically coherent and 3) those that are logically flawed. The first I dismissed out of hand. The second are worthy of Biblical analysis, and the third are worth considering to gain new ideas. Punt's view seems to fall in the third category along with several other systems of thought. Arminianism and Calvinism fall into the second category. I discovered that the view I have held is also one from the third category.

I applaud efforts to study and clarify this whole issue and hope Punt continues to do so. I think it is important for one in the midst of a study, such as myself, to consider his thoughts. I do agree with Punt that our salvation is not dependent on believing. However, I mean this only in the sense that God provides, as a gift, the faith required to believe.

I believe Punt's major assertion (the "B" view in place of the "A" view) currently lacks logical coherence. Punt's Biblical analysis is also too selective. For example, he does not deal with Romans 9 and similar passages. Punt does not discuss free will or sovereignty in a way that actually reveals his stance for certain. That is one reason I find this book hard to interpret. The important distinction he offers, I believe, is presented further into the book and I had to search a bit to sort out his thinking. The important distinction is this; he accepts God's sovereignty and man's responsibility equally, thus creating the classical enigma. I also gather that he accepts free will, but it is not real clear. By taking this enigma position, I find his view (rather than being new) similar to many others that accept the same basic premise. If one contrasts the systematic logic of the view in this book with, say that of the several writings of the Reformed-Church authors, it is clearly wanting.

A point Punt does not make clear is whether God "elects" all in the complete sense. This would mean God provides objective salvation for "all without exception," and then those who show willful disregard end up losing the objective package and not qualifying for the subjective package. They are, in a sense, "unelected." If this is his view then it is truly different. However, I do not think it is his view based on hints I pick up in the book and the fact he would have to deal with certain scriptures he chose not to include.

Switching, from what Punt calls the "A" view, to the "B" view does not require a distinction between these two views. This is true because he qualifies the universalistic texts. The fact that he takes a view that the elect may be a vast majority makes no difference to the logic nor does that vast majority qualify the "universalistic texts" as universalistic. His distinction of the "A" and "B" views comes across like distinguishing a half-full and half-empty glass. The fact that he considers the glass to be, say 90% full, only has bearing on appearances, not on the subject logic. View "A" declares that all persons are lost except the elect but so does view "B" in reality. Calvinism, for example, can be phrased into either the "A" or "B" mold. This is true because Calvinism accepts that God expressly declares who will be saved and who will be lost. Calvinism also asserts that those who are elect are given a non-lost position at the time of their objective salvation. Thus, if it were the case that 90% of humanity (across all time) are elect in the Calvinistic sense, why is this different than the "B" view? Where the difference can be is if truly all are given some sort of election (which Punt does not seem to suggest) and man is allowed the free-will choice to finally be lost. In this case, though, it is "free will," not "A" vs. "B" that makes the difference.

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Unconditional Bad News for Some, May 23, 2000

By 

Cameron B. Clark (Bristow, Virginia United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: What's Good About the Good News?: The Plan of Salvation in a New Light (Paperback)

Punt's "new insight" was taken from a statement by Princeton Theologian Charles Hodge who interpreted Romans 5:18 as allowing for the salvation of all who die in infancy. Hodge stated in his Systematic Theology: "All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved." According to Punt, "For those who are finally lost the Bible reveals no other cause than their own willful, persistent, unbelief and sin. For those who are saved, it is God alone who graciously, sovereignly, elects and saves them" (pg. 44). Punt believes that salvation is unconditional (by grace), but condemnation is conditional (by works). He rejects the idea as unbiblical that someone is damned solely on the basis of Adamic solidarity and original sin apart from personal sin. Since those who die in infancy haven't committed any personal sin (although they inherit original sin), they are saved. Original sin that deserves hell is distinguished from personal (willful and persistent) sin that guarantees hell. According to Punt, everybody (including infants) deserves hell (an offensive idea to many, including myself - infants deserve hell?), but only those who personally persist in disobeying God's revealed will in either general or special revelation will actually go to hell. Because Punt believes that everybody is elect in Christ except those who persist in willful sin, he also believes it is possible that some are saved without ever hearing the proclamation of the gospel, provided that they do not persistently resist God's will as revealed to them apart from scripture.

As the reviewer from Arizona has stated, there is ambiguity about Punt's view of human freedom as it relates to divine sovereignty. Logically, it seems that Biblical Universalism (BU) must EITHER hold to unconditional election of everybody in Christ, without exception, and then posit that some conditionally fall from that election by willful and persistent sin (just as Adam fell from primal grace when he was free not to), OR hold to unconditional PARTICULAR election in Christ of some and unconditional particular reprobation in Adam of others. Punt rejects both sides to this either/or and argues that BU is "beyond logic" and "splendidly illogical" (see Chapter Seven). To me, this is an evasion. Although Punt makes a distinction between original sin and personal sin, he clearly holds a Calvinistic notion of freedom which rejects the power of contrary choice (pg. 95). So, logically, it appears that God ensures the damnation of some of the human race by not giving them the ability to avoid the sin (original and/or willful sin) that inevitably leads to hell. Punt doesn't want to admit this but prefers to speak about "the mystery of lawlessness" or a "no man's land" that surrounds the camp of those eternally elected. As a moderate Arminian, I'm not convinced that Punt's BU doesn't mean an unconditional bad news for some sinners who weren't given the divine gift of being able to avoid hell.