|
An Appeal of the Decision Made by Classis Holland on May 14, 2009
Contrary to the decision reached by Classis Holland (May 14, 2009) it is evident that in his book, Christ, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (InterVarsity Press, 2004), the Rev. Leonard J. Vander Zee contradicts the Reformed doctrines of “particular atonement” and “preservation of the saints.” He makes the claim that “all” simply means “all” and insists that there are no exceptions to this universal claim. Vander Zee expresses the view he advocates in the following ways:
● Concerning “every man and woman,” Vander Zee says: “God is reconciled to them.” (p. 48)
● “All humanity, all of Adam’s race has been regathered into the one new humanity under the headship of the new Adam.” (p. 48)
● “Christ’s birth, life, baptism, death resurrection and ascension was (sic) accomplished on behalf of everyone, everywhere.” (p. 48)
● “God’s act of salvation in Christ, the second Adam, includes all the first Adam’s descendants.” (p. 49)
● “The reconciliation of all has taken place in Christ….” (p. 49)
● “God’s stupendous act of reconciliation that through his Son involves all humanity and, through his death and resurrection, reconciles all of humanity to himself.” (p. 50)
● “God’s act of atoning work in Christ includes all people.” (p. 50)
● “What God has done in Christ embraces absolutely everyone.” (p. 50)
● “God has accomplished our salvation in Jesus Christ for the whole human race before faith receives it.” (p. 63)
● “…God has acted to save all humanity before human faith.” (p. 64)
Vander Zee allows no exceptions to his universal claim and therefore he draws this conclusion: “While God’s act of salvation in Christ, the second Adam, includes all of the first Adam’s descendants, this does not mean that all will be saved” (p. 49). He reiterates this conclusion in greater detail on the next page: “God, who respects human freedom, apparently allows for the possibility that some of Adam’s sons and daughters who are included in Christ may turn their backs on the truth and reality of what God has done” (p. 50). (OVER)
Classis Holland’s decision faults me because my criticism is “almost entirely confined to one chapter of Vander Zee’s book.” The implication is that my criticism is not a well balanced critique of “Rev. Vander Zee’s complete writing in” his book. This overlooks the fact that Vander Zee presents his universal claim in one chapter (Chap. 4) near the beginning of his book because it is fundamental to everything he says about the sacraments in the remaining chapters of his book.
“I have spent so much time discussing the nature of our reconciliation in Christ because understanding it is fundamental to understanding the sacraments.” (p. 51)
“If, however, reconciliation is accomplished for all people in Jesus Christ as a gift of grace, then sacraments are powerful declarations, alongside the preaching of the gospel, of our new humanity in Christ.” (p. 51)
Classis Holland also says that Vander Zee is “explaining how the benevolent disposition of the Creator toward humankind is seen with sacramental clarity in Jesus.” Classis implies that consequently he is not concerned about the fine points of soteriology.
However, Vander Zee’s universal claim plays a far more important role in his book than merely helping us to understand the significance the sacraments may have for “humankind.” Vander Zee views his universal claim as something that is to be announced “to the whole world” (p.48) because it is “the core gospel message of the church” (p. 49). He describes the extreme importance of his universal claim in these words:
“God’s action in Christ places every man and woman’s relationship to God on a whole new basis.” (p. 48)
“The gospel message given to the church is to announce this new reality that God established in Christ to the whole world.” (p. 48)
“What God has accomplished in Christ for all humanity stands firm as the basis of a full proclamation of the gospel.” (p. 48-49)
“This ultimate act of God in Jesus Christ becomes the core gospel message of the church.” (p. 49)
“What God has done in Christ embraces absolutely everyone. That is the substance of the gospel message.” (p. 50)
Many Old Testament passages as well as the following so-called “universalistic” texts appear to substantiate Vander Zee’s universal claim: John 1:;29; 3:17; 12:32; 12:47; Rom. 3:23,24; 5:18b; 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14; 2 Cor. 5:19; Phil. 2:10,11; Col. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11 (RSV); Heb. 2:9 and 1 John 2:2.
Vander Zee cites some of these texts to establish his claim that “God is reconciled to” all men and women and that “all of Adam’s race, has been regathered into the one new humanity under the headship of Christ” (p.48) with no exceptions. Although I asked it — this question has not been answered: “Is God ‘reconciled to’ all of them (p. 48) and have all ‘been regathered into the one new humanity under the headship of the new Adam’ (p. 48) only to have those who are finally lost to be cast out of the ‘new humanity’ and be unreconciled to God”?
The above so-called “universalistic” texts are an integral part of the entire truth of the Bible. To establish his universal claim Vander Zee extracts the texts he uses from the total message of the Scriptures. He then contends that these extracted passages reveal a truth that God’s written Word intends to convey, namely, “God is reconciled” to “every man and woman” and there are no exceptions.
Such a procedure is illegitimate. These texts are like fish taken out of water. They have no sustainable life when they are taken out of their native environment. This is clearly seen when we apply Vander Zee’s methodology to other universal statements found in the Bible. The result is a distortion of the truth.
Paul says, “Everything is permissible for me” (1 Cor. 6:12). If we extract this text from everything we know God’s Word teaches, including things explicitly forbidden by God, we could conclude that lying, blaspheme and murder were “permissible” for Paul.
“Nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). Extracted from the rest of what the Scriptures teach, this text tells us that God can lie and deny himself.
“There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10) is a theme found throughout the Bible (Ps. 14:3; Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 3:9, 10, 12, 23; 5:12, 18a, etc.). No exceptions are found in the immediate context of these references. Nevertheless the entire Christian church acknowledges that these universal claims have an exception ─ the Lord Jesus Christ. “The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants—EXCEPT for Christ alone” (Canons of Dort, III-IV, 2,
emphasis added). If this exception (found only in the broader context of the Bible) is not kept in mind all these passages would teach that Jesus was not the “sinless one.”
(OVER)
Vander Zee apparently has confused generalizations with true universals. Generalizations are universal declarations that have known exceptions. True universals allow no exceptions.
To insist that the above listed so-called “universal” texts are generalizations and not true universals has been characterized as a form of rationalism. This, it is said, is to impose logical propositions on those universal declarations so that we can deduce a neat, well-balanced, philosophy from them by viewing them as generalizations. Such an accusation is an indictment of the Bible itself.
There can be no stronger universal claim than Hebrews 2:8: God has “put everything under his feet. In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him.” There is not the least hint of any exception to this universal declaration in its immediate context.
The Scriptures tell us that “it is clear” that even Heb. 2:8 may not be “extracted” from the broader context of the entire teaching of God’s Word. “Now when it [the Bible] says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself who put everything under Christ” (1 Cor. 15:27).
We make a serious error if either: we do not accept the truth proclaimed in the Bible’s universal declarations; or, if we overlook the exceptions that must be understood because they are found in the broader context of the Bible. This is not rationalism. It is a matter of honoring God’s written Word in its entirety.
If the so-called “universalistic” texts are true universals having no exceptions, as Vander Zee claims, then the 400 year debate between Arminianism and Calvinism should have been largely conceded to the Arminians. Then much of what is expressed in the Canons of Dort should not have been adopted by our Reformed fathers. Both Vander Zee and Arminianism allow for the possibility that some sinners, for whose salvation Christ died, are nevertheless eternally separated from him. Christ’s sacrifice apparently gained nothing more than a potential or possible “reconciliation” for “everyone, everywhere.”
Dr. B. B. Warfield had good reason for declaring that: “Particularism is the mark of Calvinism. The Calvinist is he who holds with full consciousness that God the Lord, in his saving operations, deals not generally with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are actually saved” (The Plan of Salvation. p. 89).
For many centuries Calvinists have consistently maintained that the so-called “universalistic” texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation for all the elect. This is the basis for the doctrine of “the preservation of the saints.” Vander Zee abandons this “certainty” when in his book he says: “God…apparently allows for the possibility that some of Adam’s sons and daughters who are included in Christ may turn their backs on the truth and reality of what God has done” (p. 50).
Vander Zee claims to hold to the conviction that: “God has accomplished our salvation in Jesus Christ for the whole human race before faith receives it” (p. 63) and that: “The gospel message given to the church is to announce this new reality that God established in Christ to the whole world” (p. 48). If he truly believes this to be the primary purpose of the gospel, these sentiments will (and should) be reflected in his work as Editor in Chief of materials published by the Christian Reformed church.
If Reverend Vander Zee no longer holds to the view that “the reconciliation of all has taken place in Christ” (p. 49), his readers deserve and need a public retraction of this universal claim that he expounds in his book Christ, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Otherwise his readers, including members of the Christian Reformed Church, can legitimately conclude that this perspective presented by Vander Zee in his book is consistent with the Reformed Confessions.
If Rev. Vander Zee continues to advocate the perspective that, “the reconciliation of all has taken place in Christ” (p. 49) and “that some of Adam’s sons and daughters who are included in Christ may turn their backs on the truth and reality of what God has done” (p. 50), then I ask Synod to judge that he thereby contradicts the Reformed doctrines of particular atonement and the preservation of the saints. In such a case I also request that Synod advise the Council of the South Bend Christian Reformed Church to discipline the Reverend Vander Zee for advocating these doctrinal errors.
In His Service,
______________________(Signed)
Neal Punt October 28, 2009
Copy To:
Classis Holland
The Council of the South Bend Christian Reformed
The Reverend Leonard J. Vander Zee
(OVER)
STEPS TAKEN BEFORE SUBMITTING MY APPEAL TO CLASSIS HOLLAND
1. Vander Zee to Punt, June 11, 2007: Vander Zee asks for dialogue about disagreements I have with his book.
2. Punt to Vander Zee, June 15, 2007: Sent objectionable quotes.
3. Punt to Vander Zee, May 1l, 2008: Having heard nothing from Vander Zee I reminded him of his desire to “dialogue” about disagreements. Again sent objectionable quotes.
4. Vander Zee to Punt, May 16, 2008: Vander Zee claims to be in agreement with the creeds. If I do not think so “you are, of course, free to challenge them through the proper channels.”
5. Punt to Officers of Board of Faith Alive Christian Resources, June 4, 2008: Not wishing to use “the proper channels” [Official charges etc.] I asked officers to speak with Vander Zee about objectionable quotes.
6. Officers of Board to Punt, June 23, 2008: Stating reasons for not discussing quotes with Vander Zee.
7. Punt to Officers of FACR board, June 27, 2008: Stating why I believe their reasons for refusing to confront Vander Zee were invalid.
8. Punt to Vander Zee, July 7, 2008: Because both Vander Zee and Faith Alive Christian Resources officers refused to discuss objectionable quotes, I had prepared documentation to send to “proper channels,” that is, Council of the South Bend CRC. Before doing so I would send this complete documentation only to Vander Zee if he would respond to it. Vander Zee accepted this invitation.
9. Punt to Vander Zee, July 14, 2008: Sent complete documentation I had prepared for South Bend Council only to Vander Zee.
10. Vander Zee to Punt, July 28, 2008: Vander Zee’s response to Punt’s complete documentation. Vander Zee rejects all the charges.
11, Punt to Council of South Bend CRC, August 1, 2008: Both Vander Zee and I knew that there would be no meeting of the minds between us. A third party would have to make a judgment about my charges. Therefore I sent my complete documentation and Vander zee’s response to this documentation to South Bend. This also includes my reply to Vander Zee’s response.
12. Council of South Bend to Punt, October 22, 2008; “We do not, however, see grounds for a charge of contradicting the Scriptures or the Reformed confessions and have decided to take no action on the charges.”
13: Punt to Classis Holland, November 10, 2008: Cover letter and complete file of documentation of charges concerning Rev. Vander Zee’s view.
[I can supply documentation for each of these steps if needed. N. Punt]
|
