[Comments about Q & A's 20 and 65 of H.C. can be found in Posting # 27.] Frequently Asked Question # 20   “Rev. Punt, what was the outcome of your heresy trial?”                 I am and have always been an unabashed FIVE-POINT Calvinist.   The Bible speaks of a definite, particular, number of persons — less than all — who were chosen in Christ unto a certain-to-be-realized eternal salvation before the foundation of the world.         Those who insist on applying human reason or Aristotelian logic to the above description of “the elect” run into an insurmountable problem.  The opposite of election resulting in salvation for some sinners, they say, is non-election resulting in damnation for all the other sinners.  If election is the basis for sovereign grace or salvation then non-election is the basis for damnation.  However the Bible never speaks that way.         Someone has remarked that in this specific matter the Bible is “splendidly illogical.”  According to the Scriptures the opposite of election to salvation is disobedience to the will of God as that has been made known to the person who is ultimately condemned.  The biblical basis for election versus non-election is not amenable to human logic.  We must accept what the Scriptures teach even though they may present truth that is beyond our ability to assimilate.         In 1980 the national synod of the Christian Reformed Church adopted Report 30 and referred it "to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation.”  What the Christian Reformed Church confesses relating to those who are elect and those who are non-elect is to be understood in the light that is shed by Report 30.         The light that is shed by Report 30 is that the Bible teaches that those who will be lost are those and only those who knowingly and persistently to the end of life reject such light as God has given them.  From this we may conclude that all other persons are elect.   Proof that this basic premise of Biblical Universalism* was adopted by Synod 1980 is found Posting # 11 “The Saved/Those Not Saved.”         If this definition of the elect, namely, “that all persons are elect in Christ except those who knowingly and persistently to the end of their life reject such light as God has given to them,” is seriously and consistently applied it has vast implications for our understanding of theology, the message missions, the Kingdom of God and many other practical aspects of the Christian life.   In light of these vast implications it is not surprising the Lethbridge Christian Reformed Church council of Alberta Canada, at the instigation of their pastor, concluded that I in advocating this premise of Biblical Universalism must be guilty of teaching some doctrine that was foreign to them and therefore heretical.         In 1985 a six-page single spaced document, having four sections of charges leveled against my writings, was sent to my church council.   These charges and my written response to them were thoroughly debated at a council meeting.   The council concluded that these charges did not prove that in my book Unconditional Good News (Eerdmans, 1980) and other published articles I had contradicted the Scriptures or creeds.         The Lethbridge Council appealed this conclusion to Classis Chicago South.   The Classis was comprised of the 14 CRC churches in the area.   An advisory committee of Classis prepared the following responses to the Lethbridge charges and distributed them to the churches five weeks before the special evening session of classis. The Kedvale Ave. church was nearly filled with visitors.   After all, even in those days seldom was a minister officially charged with heresy.         The following responses were individually placed on the table for comments and questions. The committee members and every delegate to Classis was free to ask whatever questions they wished.   I was on the hot seat for about two and a half hours.         The following are transcribed from the minutes of the special meeting of Classis Chicago South held March 1, 1985:   “A) Classis finds that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt contradicts the Scripture or the creeds when:   1. He uses the terms “unconditional good news,” or “objective announcement” as a definition of the gospel. Ground: It is possible to use a restricted or narrower definition of the gospel than one finds in the creeds or the Scriptures and still stay within the bounds of the truths expressed in the creeds and the Scriptures.   2. He holds that faith is not essential in establishing us in the state of grace.       Ground: The quotations in point II of the charges do not show that Punt disagrees with the creeds.   Their summary of the creedal teaching Punt affirms (Cf. Response A, Para. 2., p. 5).   3. He affirms that “Believers must regard all others as joined with them in obeying the cultural mandate unless and until those with whom they work reject the revelation God has given. . .” and makes similar statements.       Ground: This position respects the antithesis and only recommends Scriptural tolerance in determining who is on the other side.   “For he that is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).   4. He contends that all who die in infancy are saved, since no one is condemned on the basis of original sin alone.       Ground: The creeds do not address this issue.   All the references ( I,1, 17; II Rej. Of errors, 5, III/IV, Rej. Of Errors 1) state that all (elect and non-elect) are worthy of condemnation on the basis of original sin.   This Punt nowhere denies.   Canons II rejection of errors 5 has as its obverse, “some shall be condemned because of original sin and some are not free from the guilt of original sin.”   But this may apply only to those who are also condemned and punished forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins (I, 15). Furthermore, the isolated unexegeted texts found in charge four do not in any way prove that the position taken by Rev. Punt contradicts Scripture.   The following observation was the concluding section presented by the committee to Classis but was not adopted:   B) That classis finds that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt contradicts the creeds when he affirms that “whoever brings the Word of God must assume that those who are being addressed are ‘elect in Christ,'” but that Punt does not give sufficient attention to the proper sense of the creeds.         When this was placed on the table for discussion and questions I informed Classis that I refused to be judged by the nebulous phrase that the committee called "the proper sense of the creeds." I had subscribed to the creeds "as written."   Classis was obligated to cite those portions of the creed I had violated, if any.   This refusal stymied Classis.         At the request of the chairman of Classis I met separately with the members of the advisory committee during a recess. I agreed to the following paragraph that was subsequently adopted by Classis:   B) Although Classis recognizes, with the Lethbridge consistory, that the assumption underlying the creeds is different than the one of Punt, namely “whoever brings the Word of God must assume that those who are being addressed are “elect in Christ,” Classis declares that the appeal fails to demonstrate that Punt goes beyond the limits set by the Word of God or the creeds.         I had no difficulty agreeing to the preceding statement.   As far back as page 4 of my first book, Unconditional Good News (1980) I acknowledged that I worked with a different assumption than that which was “common to all mainstream historical theological traditions.”   This has always been the basic contention of Biblical Universalism (See Posting # 1.).         Do we have a right to work with a different assumption than that which the authors of the creeds had in mind? I believe we do. In adopting the creeds the church was so careful to include only those things that are clearly taught in the Scriptures that the authors' assumptions found no place in the creeds.   Therefore Classis was unable to find any place where I contradicted the creeds.                   Lethbridge appealed the above decisions of Classis to Synod.   The advisory committee of Synod reviewed the six pages of charges as originally presented by Lethbridge, my reply to them and Classis' summary and disposition of them.   The following recommendation was presented to the full Synod: "That synod not sustain the appeal of the Lethbridge CRC against the decision of Classis Chicago South re the views of Rev. Neal punt. Ground: The appeal does not prove that Classis Chicago South erred when it decided that the views of Rev. Punt do not contradict the Scriptures and the creeds.  Adopted" (Acts of Synod, 1985, p. 790).                   Cordially,    Neal Punt   whenindoubt1@charter.net     *( So Also In Christ , Northland Books, p. 83) — BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience or in gospel presentation. Biblical Universalism is based upon these three biblical facts: a) The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (Posting No. 2). b) We must accept 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 (Posting No. 3).   c) All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (original sin). However, the Scriptures do not teach or imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in Adam APART FROM actual, willful and persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned (Posting No. 4).   Contact the Author, Neal Punt at: whenindoubt1@charter.net © 2000 by Northland Books. Box 63, Allendale MI 49401. Unlimited permission to copy and distribute this document without altering text is hereby granted if this source is acknowledged.