Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God’s Mercy. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992.
Clark
Pinnock is a theologian, who, from his childhood upbringing in a liberal
Baptist church in Canada, to his days as a convictional defender of biblical
inerrancy at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, to his increasing
involvement in left-wing political causes, and later reversal of his political
positions (along with an increasing liberalization of his theological views),
has passed through many stages in his theological pilgrimage. Once a five-point
Calvinist and apologist for traditional evangelicalism, by the time of his
death in 2010, he had embraced Arminian soteriology, open theism,
annihilationism, and a view of Scripture that was somewhat less stringent than
traditional inerrancy (without disowning the term “inerrancy”). Though almost
voted out of the Evangelical Theology Society for his heterodox views
(especially, in regard to open theism), he continued to identify himself as an
evangelical. In addition to New Orleans, he taught, in subsequent years, at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, Regent College, and McMaster Divinity College. He
earned his B.A. at the University of Toronto and his Ph.D. in New Testament at
Manchester University under the supervision of F. F. Bruce. [1]
In A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Pinnock explores
the middle-ground between evangelical exclusivism and religious pluralism. Although
most would classify his view as inclusivist, it is hard to pin him down as embracing
entirely any of the leading views on world religions—exclusivist, inclusivist,
or pluralist. He organizes his argument around five main points, each one
occupying a chapter in his book.
Chapter
one presents his foundational point defending an optimistic stance on the ultimate
salvation of a large percent of humanity. From the perspective of Pinnock, this
optimism hinges on an objective reading of Scripture. A fairly extensive review
of passages encompassing both the Old and New Testaments reveals God’s gracious
intent to redeem a broad representation of humanity spanning different
ethnicities and cultures. A central feature of Pinnock’s scriptural argument,
often neglected by exclusivists, is the reference to a number of “pagan saints,”
who, although outside the realm of God’s specific revelation of salvation
through Christ, exhibit a faith response to the revelation they did receive. According
to Pinnock, much of biblical interpretation through the centuries has been
skewed by Augustinian restrictivism, which was not based on an objective reading
of the text, but was, rather, a response to particular historical conditions.
In
chapter two, Pinnock balances his initial thoughts regarding soteriological
optimism with a scriptural defense of a high Christology, including both traditional
trinitarian and incarnational understandings of Jesus. It is at this point
Pinnock most clearly distances himself from the pluralism of theologians such
as Hick and Knitter, insisting that an objective exegesis of Scripture rules
out the view that Jesus is merely one manifestation among many of divine
consciousness. At the same time, he expresses openness to the Vatican II
emphasis on the possibility of people from different cultural and religious
backgrounds relating to the same ontological Jesus through a plurality of
epistemological paths.
In
chapter three, Pinnock discusses what he calls subjective religion. According
to his thesis, religion in general has the capacity for both good and evil. He
posits an ethical criterion for judging the helpfulness or lack thereof of
specific religious traditions and practices. While he never disowns his
assertions on the necessity of Christ as the ultimate basis of salvation, he
sees that world religions, in varying degrees, are used by God as vehicles for
general revelation and prevenient grace. Relying heavily on the “pagan saint”
motif presented in chapter one, he claims that people may relate to God on the
basis of three different covenants: “the cosmic covenant established with Noah
… the old covenant made with Abraham, and … the new covenant ratified by Jesus”
(105). From Pinnock’s perspective, it is through the Noahic covenant that many
(not all!) people respond in faith to the general revelation they receive,
which is at times mediated through and nurtured by the particular religious
tradition in which they are brought up.
In
chapter four, Pinnock suggests that world religions are in a process of
evolution. Behind this process, God is at work bringing all things to an
ultimate eschatological destiny in which the finality of Christ is embraced by
all. Key in Pinnock’s thoughts is the idea that God is not just interested in
the redemption of human individuals, but also in the transformation and
development of human culture. In the meantime, Christians play a key role in
this process by means of honest and humble dialogue with adherents of other
faiths, pointing out their inadequacies, while at the same time remaining open
to learn from their insights. In order to effectively carry out this dialogue,
the opposing pitfalls of relativism and fideism must be avoided.
In the fifth
and final chapter, Pinnock brings to bear the observations made in previous
chapters in an attempt to discern the ultimate fate of the unevangelized. While
disavowing universalism (in the sense that all will eventually be saved), he
presses the point that people are saved by faith itself (or “the direction of
their heart”) rather than the theological content of their faith. Though not
dogmatic on these points, Pinnock also manifests sympathy toward the twin ideas
of annihilationism and the possibility of a postmortem encounter in which
individuals who do not have an adequate opportunity to hear the gospel in this
life are given that opportunity after death. His main answer to the charge that
this view diminishes the urgency of missions is that the main motivation for
missions should not be “individually oriented hellfire insurance” (177), but
rather proclaiming the kingdom of God and the corresponding cultural
transformation it brings.
Within
the text, Pinnock is open about his stated purpose of writing primarily to
conservative evangelicals, hoping to convince them of the weakness of the
strict exclusivist position. In keeping with this, he attempts to give an exegetical
defense from Scripture for the ideas he presents. Though not strictly
inerrantist in his presentation (he says, for instance, on p. 89, “It appears
that the Old Testament did not always capture the divine nature with full
accuracy”), it is not primarily any lack of reverence for the sacred text that
underlies his controversial views, but rather hermeneutical concerns.
Pinnock’s
relatively high view of Scripture and exegetical insight allow him to make some
forceful and convincing arguments against pluralism and universalism. The
evangelical believer seeking help in answering the ideas of Hick and Knitter
will benefit from a careful reading of Pinnock. It is regrettable that this
same incisiveness does not keep him from hermeneutical sloppiness with regard
to other questions.
It is
important, for instance, to carefully divide between God’s lavish grace which
he extends to people of every nation, tribe, people, and tongue and any
hypothetical path to salvation outside of his designated plan of redemption
through faith in Christ. Although, from a human perspective, it might well
appear consonant with the grace and mercy of God to ensure an opportunity for
everyone to either specifically accept or reject the offer of redemption
through Christ, Scripture never guarantees this. Scripture does, however,
proclaim there is none righteous, no not one, and none that seek after God (Rom
3:10–11), and, as such, all are held accountable for rejecting the light they
have received. Whether God sovereignly sees to it that the saving message of
the gospel makes it to all humanity, or just to those he chooses as the
recipients of this message, he is no less just.
Though
Pinnock references a significant amount of Scripture, his treatment of Scripture
is somewhat one-sided. For instance, he mentions Eph 2:12, in which it states
that Gentiles who were formerly separated from Christ had “no hope and were
without God in the world” (90), but avoids its implications for his thesis. The
same is true with regard to Acts 17:30, in which he emphasizes the part about
God “overlooking the times of ignorance,” but not the implications of him now
commanding “all men everywhere to repent” (101–02). He creatively reaches the
conclusion that Deut 4:19 implies God’s permission for the nations to worship
the sun, moon, and stars (101). He waters down the force of Acts 4:12,
suggesting that “no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved” is only to be taken in a
comparative sense and not as an absolute (101). He does not even mention Rom
10:12–17, one of the clearest passages on the necessity of gospel proclamation
for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.
Of all
the ideas Pinnock presents, the one which poses the biggest challenge to the
exclusivist position is that of “pagan saints” and their similarity, in several
aspects, to many unevangelized people today. As this is a theme that is not
often talked about in evangelical circles and the biblical data is somewhat
ambiguous, Pinnock’s hypothesis calls for a careful analysis, taking into
account the full scope of scriptural teaching. While it is true that Old
Testament saints were redeemed on the basis on their faith, and the content of
this faith was less specifically grounded in Christ than is the case with
post-resurrection Christians, this does not mean there was no specific content
to their faith nor that this content was not tied to Christ and his sacrificial
atonement. From the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15 and the acceptable blood
sacrifice of Abel to the law of Moses and the increasingly developed prophecies
of the prophets of Israel, both those Old Testament saints who were born into
the chosen people, as well as those who lived before the calling of Abraham,
responded to the degree of revelation they had received, which, on many
occasions, had specific content that looked forward to the sacrifice of Jesus.
Even
several of the “pagan saints” referenced by Pinnock responded in faith to what
might be classified as a mixture of general and special revelation. In some
cases, this is more explicit, and, in others, there is not enough information
to say for sure what degree of special revelation was received. However, the
New Testament makes clear that all those who attain salvation, including both
those who are members of the ethnic Israel as well as those who are not, do so on
the basis of the death of Christ (Heb 11:40–12:2).
The New
Testament also makes clear that, now that Christ has come, the responsibility
for responding to special revelation is greater than before. Before the
Athenians at Mars Hill, Paul announces in Acts 17:30 that a change in God’s
dealing with the Gentiles has occurred. Those things he previously winked at,
he no longer winks at. He now commands all men everywhere to repent and believe
the gospel—not just a general gospel of God’s goodwill toward those who sincerely
seek after him, but the specific gospel of God’s provision of forgiveness of
sin through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on the cross (see also Rom
10:9–17).
Of the various “pagan saints” mentioned by Pinnock, only one of
them, Cornelius, comes from a post-resurrection timeframe. Ironically enough, though this is one
of the examples that Pinnock relies on most heavily to support his thesis, it
is perhaps the one that most conclusively contradicts it. Contrary to what
Pinnock claims, Acts 11:14 specifically says that Cornelius was saved after
Peter proclaimed the gospel to him, not before. In other words, for him to be
saved, it was necessary for Peter to preach the gospel to him. The clear implication
is that, after the resurrection of Jesus, God will ensure that those who
respond in faith to the revelation they have already received, be it general or
special, will also be the recipients of sufficient special revelation to
specifically repent and embrace the gospel of Jesus.
Short of
further biblical light on this specific question, the model of Cornelius is the
best guide we have of how God will deal with others in a similar situation in
this present dispensation. Stories of modern-day Corneliuses, such as that of
Sadhu Sundar Singh, the episodes narrated by Don Richardson in Eternity in Their Hearts, and
increasingly common reports of partial special revelation received by many
Muslims (and others) by way of dreams and visions tend to confirm this. While
we will not know for sure on this side of heaven who will ultimately be there
with us, nor the precise route they take in order to get there, we have good
reason to believe that all those who respond positively to the revelation they
receive in this dispensation will also have an opportunity to respond specifically
to the gospel of Jesus in this present life. And, if they do not have this
opportunity, it is because they did not respond in faith to the revelation they
had already received.
Admittedly,
the biblical evidence either in favor of or directly against the possibility of
postmortem opportunities to respond to the gospel is scant. First Peter 3:18–20,
the main passage cited by Pinnock in support of this idea, is universally
regarded as one of the most difficult passages in all of the Bible. Taken in
isolation, there are some reasons to speculate a possible postmortem encounter
between Jesus and certain others. However, there is significant question as to
whether the message preached by Jesus is one of judgment or an invitation to
repentance and faith. Additionally, the “spirits” to whom this message is
proclaimed are those from the time of Noah, not those from the
post-resurrection time period. Anything beyond this is pure speculation.
On the
other side of the question, passages such as Heb 9:27 and Luke 16:25–26 appear
to indicate no second chances for repentance after death. While, admittedly,
this idea is not stated as directly as it could be, the overall weight of
biblical evidence seems to militate against postmortem opportunities for
repentance. Ultimately, the answer is in God’s hands. However, this should not
give cause for Christians to in any way attenuate the urgency for evangelism
and missions.
In the
end, it all boils down to the sovereignty of God. Those who respond positively
to revelation, no matter the degree of specificity, are those God sovereignly
draws to himself, and the rhyme and reason of his choices are known to him
alone. Whether or not it is only an Augustinian control belief that leads one
to come to such a conclusion (as Pinnock insinuates), each student of Scripture
is responsible for reading and interpreting what it says on these matters as carefully
and objectively as possible. It is my opinion, on the basis of my attempt at
doing this, that Pinnock is wrong in his opposition to evangelical exclusivism.
[1] Information
compiled from the following online sources: http://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/r-i-p-clark-h-pinnock-03-feb-1937-to-15-aug-2010/; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/43-22.0.html
