Response to Rudy Brinkman

06-10-2025 - Posted by Geert-Jan
Originally posted on June 1, 2005 – by Andre Piet

In the thread ‘The Reformation pales in comparison…’, the administrator of www.bijbelaktueel.nl (R. Brinkman) posted a response to my weblog and the discussions that arose from it on the forum. Below is my reply to several questions and remarks.

While checking the log files, I noticed that quite a few people were coming from this website. And, having become curious, I read Mr. Piet’s “commentary.” After all, what would he, as a fervent reconciler, have to say about it?

I understand what you mean. But just for the record: there is only one Reconciler of All. Namely, the God Who created everything. And He is such a fervent Reconciler’ that He gave His Son to the cross for that very purpose.

Too bad—and indeed arrogant—that the arguments are not addressed. Are they really all known?

Yes. There is not a single argument in your brochure that hasn’t been addressed—once or even several times—on the GoedBericht site. Besides, the main purpose of my weblog was to underline one particular statement you made.

And what’s so “cringe-worthy” about it? Bit of a cheap shot, if I may say so!

I wrote that you sometimes miss the mark in a cringe-worthy way.

Example 1.
The brochure is directed against the view that God is a Savior of all mankind. Since this view is stated in black and white in the Bible, you are forced to alter 1 Tim. 4:10 arbitrarily by rendering it as: the living God is a Savior FOR all mankind. By the end of your piece, you apparently have already forgotten this and casually write (p. 20): “He is a savior… of all mankind. Certainly, entirely true.”
Twisting and turning.

Example 2.
On p. 9 you write:
“The gospel that was proclaimed to the Jewish assembly is even referred to somewhat disparagingly by some as the ‘of the foreskin’ gospel.”

First of all: that gospel is not called “the gospel of the foreskin” but rather “the gospel of the circumcision.”
And secondly: these expressions are anything but disparaging—they come, in fact, appreciatively from Paul’s own pen (Gal. 2:7–9).

Example 3.
When you write about the ISA program, the contradiction jumps off the screen. That you don’t accurately name it (“linear translation”) doesn’t really matter to me. You write that the program is based on “an incorrect method of translation, contrary to all linguistic principles.” But that doesn’t stop you from concluding with: “despite this ‘reservation,’ still an interesting and free program, especially if you’d like to know ‘exactly’ what the original text says.”

Example 4.
You extensively explain that the Bible teaches that people can be lost. But on p. 13, you yourself admit that this is irrelevant to the discussion: “for what I’ve cited here is all quite well known to Christian universalists too…”
In other words, you were fighting a caricature…

By the way, in response to this brochure, which will also be published in print, I have received several “flames” (angry emails). Apparently, you and your associates are rather thin-skinned whenever someone dares to comment on your wonderful “doctrine.”

Over the years, I have received not just several but stacks of angry messages—purely because I proclaim that God is a Savior of all mankind. I do not conclude from that that people are simply thin-skinned, but rather that (as you yourself wrote) this message puts something at stake that even makes the Reformation pale in comparison… it is DYNAMITE!

I’d like to conclude this message. My response is clear, and I think my article was as well. Finally, I’d like to leave you with a reflection. Is there no more judgment? Will everyone be saved?

Once again, that caricature. God judges. People perish. There is a “lake of fire.” Etc. All of that is true.

Just as true as the fact that God never abandons the works of His hands. And that He is the Savior of all mankind. And that, just as in Adam all people are constituted mortal and sinners, so in Christ all people are constituted righteous for life. There’s no escaping it.

My advice: don’t believe just part—but everything that Scripture says.

Would I presume to know better than Darby? Spurgeon? Moody and others? These men were so much greater and have led so many more people to the Lord Jesus for eternity than a small-time IT entrepreneur like myself or a flower grower from Aalsmeer…

With this argument, the brochure also begins—and with it, you’re off to a false start. You base your benchmark on (in your eyes) “great names,” in other words: on fallible men.

Plain and simple: if Darby, Spurgeon, or Moody (or Billy Graham, or Ouweneel, or… etc.) deny that “the living God is the Savior of all mankind,” then they are COMPLETELY mistaken. Period.

They deviate from the all-inclusive Evangel for which the apostle Paul labored and bore reproach. And I assure you: that same fate awaits anyone (IT entrepreneur or flower grower from Aalsmeer) who walks in his footsteps.

My position is that I do not want to offer people false hope or a false sense of assurance; I would rather offer them the grace of Christ in this life than let them possibly enter eternal damnation with their eyes fixed on Heaven. That is a responsibility I do not wish to bear.

The Evangel is the message that makes God happy (“the Evangel of the happy God”)! He will find what was lost. That’s why, at the end of the eons, not one of His creatures may be missing.

“What His love intends to accomplish, His power will not deny Him”—right?
I, for one, would not want to bear the responsibility of denying Him that success and that joy…

Regards,
—André Piet—

 

Delen: