Posting # 28

Grace Proclaimed Before Confession is Heard

       “Why do I have a purple stole on today?” the pastor asked the children that had gathered at the front of church. “That's right, it's because this is the first Sunday in Lent" (3/5/06).

        "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 then 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 said 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 this Season of Lent means for them!

         I may have been the only person 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 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 (The Conclusions of Utrecht) 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" (See Acts of Synod, 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 to begin this Lenten season by answering the question “Why did he do this?”  by 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 the 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 to1967 the Professor of Missions at Calvin Seminary (Harold Dekker), based on his study of mission principles articulated in the Scriptures, his experience as a missionary and his association with many missionaries attempted to convince the Christian Reformed Church that, as a theology of approach, it is appropriate to assume that 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 him or her “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 “proclaim and to announce” indiscriminately to all persons everywhere. This does not imply that we need not call such unbelievers to repentance, to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and to be “reconciled to God.” Rather, this assumption provides the biblical basis we need for insisting that unbelievers are required to repent, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be reconciled to God.

        The theological structure that the professor provided for saying to unbelieving sinners “Christ died for you” (in the redemptive sense) proved to be inadequate and unconvincing. The controversy “stirred interest and caused unrest in the churches.” 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 said absolutely nothing in response to the very significant practical questions Dekker had raised concerning Reformed witnessing.

       Many members of the church, striving to be faithful 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 is 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 professor had correctly pointed out that as a practical matter the question of saying “Christ died for you” in the redemptive sense can not be limited to those concerning whom we have objective, verifiable evidence that they are 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).

        In simplest terms, we can not 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.”

        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 those who are lost in sin until, on basis of a sound theological perspective and a warm-hearted Reformed cultural atmosphere, we assume that those whom we wish to approach with the gospel are loved by God just as much and in the same way that he 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."

        The so-called “universalistic” texts found throughout the Scriptures provide us with the biblical warrant (See Posting #2, www.evangelicalinclusivism.com ) 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. Such knowledge to the contrary will not be given to us until “the last day.” This provides the theological basis we need for saying in this season of Lent and throughout the year to unbelieving sinners, “Why did Christ suffer all this? He did this to take away your sins.”

Cordially, Neal Punt whenindoubt3@charter.net

Copyright 2006, Northland Books  --  This document may be duplicated for non-profit use if this source is acknowledged.   Feel free duplicate it and send it to missionaries supported by your church asking for their opinion of it.