I neither asked for nor
received permission to quote the following letter. Therefore it will
be anonymous.
June 5, 2000
Dear Neal,
In reading your latest posting, I noted that you again
refer to Clark Pinnock and that you are planning a future
posting to offer a summary of a Pinnock presentation.
Please don't give Pinnock positive press. His anti-Calvinism
and, worse yet, his denial that God knows the entire future,
are corruptions of biblical Christianity. Pinnock and his
fellow "openness of God" theologians are among the
most serious dangers to evangelical theology today.
You didn't reply to my earlier entreaty regarding Pinnock.
Apparently I didn't persuade you. However, I know you care
about theological soundness, so I am appealing to you again.
I hope you will prayerfully reconsider whether you should
promote Pinnock to your readers and whether you want to associate
your thinking too closely with his.
Sincerely,
_____________________
The reply (somewhat revised) is:
5/18/2000
Greetings _______________
I appreciate your concern about "promoting"
Clark Pinnock.
At my request Pinnock sent me a manuscript of his presentation
at the Evangelical Theological Society convention (November
1999). In it he takes note of the various ways in which God
makes himself known through General Revelation. When I summarize
Pinnock's lecture I will not hesitate to point out that I
think he works inconsistently from his Arminian perspective.
I am fully aware of
Pinnock's strong attachment to Arminianism. In fact, the "Seven
Couplets" that appear as "Addendum B" in my book
"What's Good . . ." were written by Edward Fudge. Before
publication in my book, Fudge, Pinnock and I made a few editorial
changes in them over a period of three or four months.
It was our hope that
the three of us could agree on the formulation of these couplets
and published them in "Christianity Today" over our three
signitures. They would be presented by a Calvinist, an Arminian
and a person reared in Arminianism (Churches of Christ) and a graduate
of a Reformed Seminary. At the last minute Pinnock decided not to
be part of that venture because he thought the couplets were too
Calvinistic. The Seven Couplets later appeared as "What Calvinism
And Arminianism Have In Common" (Christianity Today, April
27, 1992) by Edward Fudge.
I am also aware of Pinnock's "Openness of God"
views and I do not endorse them. No one has the right to conclude
that I endorse everything Pinnock and others say just because
I quote them favorably on the subject of "Inclusivism."
Pinnock did not "think
of being saved as the normal outcome and being rejected as the exception"
before reading my first book (See Postings # 13, "Beginnings
of Clark Pinnock's Inclusivism"). John Sanders was encouraged
to write about such "inclusivism" by Pinnock. In his book
"Only One Name" (Eerdmans, 1990) Sanders presents three
possibilities, "Restrictivism," "Universalism,"
and "Inclusivism."
Sanders accurately summarizes my view in his book. Of
the three possibilities he judges "Inclusivism"
to be most consistent with Scripture.
If as I contend, on the basis of the so-called "universalistic"
perspectives of the Scriptures, the redemption God has provided
for mankind is "inclusivistic" then it is extremely
important that this be understood and proclaimed. God's name,
his reputation, is at stake. God does all things for his own
name's sake.
Henry Stob has said my book is "instructive and
true to the Gospel" and "it
offers a spacious and impressive portrait of God" according
Neal Plantinga. If this is so, then I am very pleased that
such well-known evangelical theologians as Pinnock, Sanders
and Roger Olson are intrigued by "inclusivism" and
that they find biblical, theological and historical justification
for it. The alternative is to let this generous, gracious,
aspect of God's plan of redemption be exploited for advocating
absolute universalism within the evangelical community by
such persons as Hendrikus Berkhof, Dick Rhem, Jan Bonda and
others.
No one has the right to simply ignore the world embracing
emphasis of God's grace as depicted throughout both the Old
and New Testament.
Cordially, Neal
COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE:
1) The fact that Pinnock felt he could not subscribe to the
Seven Couplets indicates that he an emotional reaction to Calvinism.
No Calvinist or Arminian has any legitimate biblical or theological
reason to object to the truths as formulated in those Seven
Couplets.
2) All members of the Christian Reformed
Church can endorse "inclusivism" as embodied in what I call
"Biblical Universalism." They can rejoice in it and work
out its implications and praise God for it. Synod 1980 has made it
clear that no one is ever sent to Hell solely on the basis of their
sin in Adam, apart from willful, personal and final rejection or indifference
to the revelation God has given of himself to him or her (See Postings
# 2 & 3). From this it necessarily follows that all persons will
be saved except the persons so described.
Back
to Frequently Asked Questions
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.
