Posting 10  GRACE PROCLAIMED BEFORE CONFESSION IS HEARD 

              “Why do I have a purple stole on today?” the pastor asked of the children gathered at the front church. “That's right, it's because this is the first Sunday in Lent."

              "During Lent we think of the suffering of Jesus. Jesus took a big step down—all the way from heaven to earth.” With each step the pastor took downward from the pulpit area, he mentioned another step in Jesus' suffering: “He suffered; he died; he entered the grave.”

              “Why did he do this?” The pastor answered his own question simply, yet with eloquence and with great conviction: “He did this to take away your sins! Perhaps you can remember this when you walk down steps sometime.”

              What a masterful way to get the children to think about what the season of Lent means for them!

              I may have been the only person in church that morning who recalled a time when talking so positively about what God had done even for covenant children (children of believers) was frowned upon. What if there were some non-elect children among those gathered in the front of the church that morning? May we say to all of them indiscriminately: “He did this to take away your sins!"?

              “Children of the covenant are to be considered as members of the body of Christ,” the confession of the church said, “—until the contrary should become evident from their doctrine and conduct as they grow up.” This assumption was officially challenged, forcing the Christian Reformed Church to reply to the question: “What if some of these children are not elect?”

              The church replied that this assumption was ". . . not a judgment about the nature of the child, it indicates the approach the church should take in leading them to the Lord" (Acts of Synod of Christian Reformed Church, 1962, pp. 107–109). Evidently, “in leading certain persons to the Lord,” it is legitimate to communicate the good news to them on the basis of an assumption before a word of confession or repentance comes from their lips. How appropriate it was to begin this Lenten season by addressing the question, “Why did he do this?” and saying to all the children of the church, “He did this to take away your sins!”

              In the church I attend, “The Children's Moment” is a seminal statement of the message that is to be proclaimed in the sermon. How fitting and spiritually strengthening it was on that first Sunday of Lent to be reminded that everything Christ suffered (as that suffering was movingly portrayed based on Matt. 27:45, 46), he suffered “to take away our sins.” The entire message was based upon the assumption that all who heard this message, both members and visitors, like the children who had gathered in the front of the church, were among those for whom Christ died.

              From 1962 to 1967, the professor of missions at Calvin Seminary used his study of the mission principles articulated in the Scriptures, his experience as a missionary, and his association with many missionaries as the basis to attempt to convince the Christian Reformed Church that, as a theology of approach, it is appropriate to assume the sinner whom we wish to “lead to the Lord” is an elect child of God for whom Christ died. In certain settings we may say to persons whom we know very little about, “Christ died for you.”

              If we have no biblical basis for saying to unbelieving sinners, “God loves you and sent his Son to take away your sins,” then we do not have “good news” to announce and declare “without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people” (Canons of Dort, II, 5). This does not mean there is no need to call these sinners to repentance, to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and to “be reconciled to God.” Rather, the assumption that these people are among those for whom Christ died provides the basis we need for insisting that they must  repent, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and be reconciled to God.

              The biblical basis that the Calvin Seminary professor provided for saying to all people indiscriminately, “Christ died for you” (in the redemptive sense) proved to be inadequate and unconvincing. The controversy “stirred interest and caused unrest in the churches” (Synod 1967). So much so that the committee appointed to consider this matter proposed that the church should be urged not to use the expressions “God loves you” and “Christ died for you” in outreach ministries.

                Synod 1967 of the Christian Reformed Church said absolutely nothing in response to the very significant practical questions the Calvin professor of missions had raised concerning Reformed witnessing. The church dropped the subject like the proverbial “hot potato.”

              Many members of the church, striving to be faithful Reformed witnesses to “the good news,” wrote letters to the study committee reacting negatively to the possible restriction of the use of these phrases. Among these letters, there was a communication that was adopted unanimously by the Japan Mission Conference of the Christian Reformed Church. It said:

       “The proposed proscription of the use of the sentence

        ‘Christ died for you' in the proclamation of the gospel

         seriously straitjackets the kerugmatic situation. As

         missionaries we feel that . . . it is one of the beauties of

         the Gospel and one of the joys of preaching to be able

         to preach to individual sinners and assure them that

         Christ gave Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of particular

         individuals . . . Proscription of this phrase would truncate

         our evangelistic preaching. We need to say this in our

         preaching so that sinners as individuals feel individually

         drawn to the Loving Savior and make an individual

         commitment of repentance and faith” (Acts of Synod,

         1967, p. 493).

              The Calvin professor had correctly pointed out that as a practical matter the question of saying “Christ died for you” in the redemptive sense cannot be limited to those for whom we have objective, verifiable evidence that they are indeed numbered among God's elect. We never have such proof concerning anyone because we can not judge the human heart. “The choice is not between saying to believers or to unbelievers, ‘God loves you' and ‘Christ died for you.' The choice is rather between saying these things to any audience or to no audience at all” (Acts of Synod, 1967, p. 510).

              If we do not feel free to say “Christ died for you,” we find ourselves in the awkward situation of inviting, asking, and even demanding of others that they believe something we do not feel free to declare to them. When the Scriptures say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31), this is a call to the one true faith in which all believers are joined together. An ingredient of that faith is a trust or confidence that “not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God and have been granted salvation” (Heid. Cat., Q & A 21).

              It is not enough for the sinner to know that “Christ died for sinners.” The trust element in true faith includes the conviction that “Not only others but I too, have had my sins forgiven” and “have been made forever right with God.” In simplest terms, we cannot expect an unbelieving sinner to believe Christ died for him or her, if we have no biblical basis for saying to him or her, “Christ died for you.”

              The sad and costly effect of hesitating to proclaim grace “. . . before confession is heard” is lamented by the Dutch theologian B. Holwerda:

       I believe in the forgiveness of sins, because God promises

       me that God acquits me before I believe. And Paul is

       correct that God justifies the ungodly. My faith is never first,

       the promise is first. Otherwise my faith becomes a shadow

       in the air, and my faith has nothing to grasp. The promise of        forgiveness—that is, God’s acquittal — goes before faith . . .

       If I had to begin with faith, what could my faith hang on to?

       But his word of acquittal is there first.” (B. Holwerda, De

       Dingen die ons van God geschonken sign [N.V. Goes,

       Netherlands; Oosterbaan and LeCointre, 1954], P. 161;

       my translation, Neal Punt).

              In this study we find that we have biblical warrant for viewing all persons as children of God, those for whom Christ died, until and unless we have knowledge to the contrary. By "biblical warrant" I mean that the Bible permits, authorizes, and even requires us to view all persons as children of God. That is, we are to love, respect, and relate to each of them as if he or she is a person for whom Christ died.

              This biblical warrant is not a judgment about the nature of the person addressed. The person may, in fact, not be one of God's elect—a person for whom Christ died. This warrant indicates the approach we should take in leading them to the Lord. Paul says, "So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view" (2 Cor. 5:16–21). We have the right and the duty to assume they are children of God, a new creation, unless and until we have knowledge to the contrary.

              We will not have such "knowledge to the contrary" concerning any particular person or group of persons until the last day, no matter how evil they appear to be. Early in his life the apostle Paul certainly appeared to be "outside of Christ" even though he belonged to Christ from the day of his birth (Gal. 1:13–15). Even if a person is confronted by Jesus himself and rejects Jesus and the words he speaks, we would have no right to judge that person to be among the non-elect (John 12:47, 48).

               If we say, “We don’t know whether he or she is or is not one of God’s elect,” then what “good news” are we asking that person to accept? Do we truly intend to say to such a person “If you do something (believe) then Christ will die for you?”

              We will not be as effective as we can and should be until in our Reformed witnessing we feel free to say to unbelieving sinners, “Christ died for you.” More importantly, we will not enthusiastically want to communicate “the good news” to sinners until, on the basis of a sound theological perspective and a warm-hearted Reformed cultural atmosphere, we assume that he or she is loved by God just as much and in the same way that God loves us. This is ". . . not a judgment about the nature of the” unbeliever, but “it indicates the approach the church should take in leading them to the Lord" (Acts of Synod, 1962, pp. 107–109).

              The so-called “universalistic” texts found throughout the Scriptures provide us with the biblical warrant for viewing and relating to all persons as children of God, unless and until we have explicit knowledge to the contrary concerning specific persons or groups of persons. The passages that establish the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism (see Posting 1) provide the biblical basis we need for saying to the masses during the season of Lent and throughout the year, “Why did Christ suffer all this? He did this to take away your sins.”