A Wideness in God’s Mercy” by Clark H. Pinnock”
Introduction
In this course we explored various world religions through the eyes of our Christian mindset and with a heartfelt effort to understand practices and value systems that were unlike our own. If the premise of our faith is that, “Christ is Lord,” then it only follows that, Christ is Lord over all of Creation. Our scripture supports it, as do the Jews who maintaining God’s role in the creation of mankind. However, we run into several challenges when we wholly believe in our Trinitarian faith and come across another doctrine that does not support or even resemble our Father, Son or Holy Spirit. The focus in this course was to “listen” to what the other religions were saying and finding common ground or similarities on which to establish communication between our Christian faith and another’s.
Various texts in this course discussed inclusive salvation. This paper will focus on Clark Pinnocks, “A Wideness in God’s Mercy.” Pinnock analyzes how it is possible to understand salvation in bountiful terms. If it is the case, that some are predestined for salvation, then there isn’t much hope for those individuals who were not chosen for “the glory of God” (Eph. 1:11). A Wideness in God’s Mercy, makes a case for the offer of salvation that includes all people in all nations. Pinnock divides his argument into five systematic sections that include:
Optimistic Salvation
Christology
Other Religions
Divine Power
Eschatological Hope
The first part of this paper will discuss Pinnock’s five main points in an effort to demonstrate how it is possible to understand salvation in generous terms. The latter end of this paper will discuss whether or not God is interested in saving all sinners.
Optimistic Salvation
Pinnock describes a global reach of salvation as optimistic. His purpose is to “refute the fewness doctrine and replace it with an optimism of salvation based on scripture” (Pinnock 17). Throughout the book, Pinnock follows his findings with specific verses from scripture to support his views: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:16-17). If as Christians we maintain that only a few are called to share an eternity with God, then we create a pessimistic view that only “some of us” are going to be saved.
A minimalist approach to salvation is likely to turn away many believers and unbelievers, if they don’t perceive that they are predestined as described in scripture. If it were the case, that only a few are chosen then, “What criteria is being used to make this determination?” If it is God who chooses those who are saved, “Who affirms that state of grace in this world?” “How would we know, who was in or out?” Besides setting a pessimistic tone to the purpose of the gospel, it would also create a state of “exclusivity” with many standing outside of the mercy of salvation. As Pinnock states: “The question concerns God’s intent. Is God interested in a race or is He interested in saving all of humanity?” (Pinnock 18) “God is patient with you not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).
Pinnock speaks of: “ control belief” where Christians read scripture with a negative tone that results in an erroneous theological belief that “exclusion” is socially desirable contrary to the idea of inclusivity. ”We have been taught that God chooses a few who will be saved and has His sovereign freedom to send most of those outside the church to hell and he is perfectly within his rights to do so. If as a result large numbers perish...God would feel no remorse and certainly deserve no blame” (Pinnock 19). This begs the question: “Does God love sinners too?” (Ibid.) This type of pluralistic theology can lead a believer to extreme views concerning salvation. In other words: Is God interested in saving those who were rejected as predestined candidates? Is salvation for them too or are they the hopeless “unchosen” who will perish without an opportunity to repent?
“The Bible says that there are true believers in the wider world who trust God and walk faithfully before him...Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ until after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world” (Pinnock 22). Basically, Pinnock refutes pessimistic salvation with the optimism that there are believers in God who act according to His commands and are not familiar with Christ. These individuals have not been exposed to the gospel, but are nevertheless saved. “The light shines in the darkness which the darkness did not put out” (Jn 1:5). Additionally, Pinnock argues that God has continually appointed messengers of His word throughout history. If God had only wanted to save specific people then He wouldn’t have referenced a savior when Man fell in the Garden of Eden: “I will put enmity between you [the snake] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen 3:14). It appears as if, God in fact, had a plan to save all of the descendants of Adam and Eve. This is poignant argument for inclusivity, because all of humanity is the offspring of the First Family.
“The election of Abraham is also evidentiary of God’s desire to save the world” (Pinnock 23). The faith of one man opens the door to the salvation of all the nations and generations to come: “This is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations...I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Genesis 17:4-7). The Judaic, Christian and Muslim Patriarch in the Old Testament by the name of Abraham represents the generation yet to come that would be saved through him. “God loves the world and therefore elects a people, prophets and apostles in order to implement his love for the entire human race” (Pinnock 25). In other words, being “chosen” is a matter of representing a much larger scope of people than just the one elected to perform a work for God.
Another contemporary for inclusivity is Christ who continually preached of His Father’s grace and mercy. Christ did not discriminate and did not distinguish between sinner or believer. Jesus’ mindset was consistent with Matthew 9:12-13: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Christ was literally looking for those who needed Him most and likely didn’t know it. Christ seems the strongest point of evidence for optimistic salvation, because He was the Servant Lord. Through Christ’s acts of servitude, He showed others that His Father was interested in the “least” of them. If those who were chosen had already attained glory, then Christ was concerned for those who had not. “For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest" (Luke 9:48).
Pinnock concludes with several warnings concerning optimism salvation. “First, optimism does not entail relativism...God’s generosity does not imply that all religious claims are equally valid. Second, optimism does not entail universalism either...Salvation is not automatically conferred upon people, a decision must be made. Third optimism does not require unitarian Christology....denying the Incarnation undercuts any hope of salvation” (Pinnock 43). Optimism salvation is an affirmation that God is available to the world and other religions. Pinnock’s warnings are significant, because while we remain optimistic, it is not our goal to validate all religious claims by removing the Incarnate Christ. It’s also very important to remember that, everybody can be saved, but it does require a choice.
Christology
Jesus Christ is the final and only point of salvation. “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb 9:28). The striking significance to this is that if Christ’s offer of salvation is not accepted in this life, there will not be a second chance to do so. “There is a finality of Jesus Christ as the decisive manifestation and ground of God’s grace toward sinners” (Pinnock 49). As sinners, we can only be reconciled to the Father through the Son: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). “God is reconciling the world to himself, not through religious experience, not through natural revelation, not through prophets alone, not through all the religions of the world, but through Jesus Christ” (Ibid.) That is the Christian faith in a nutshell. Our faith is grounded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without the full manifestation of the Christ who took the sins of the world upon Himself there would not be any other way to reconcile to the Father.
In the eyes of unbelievers who have never been exposed to God, church or scripture, the idea that salvation through One person alone is not easily accepted. How then do we bypass this narrowness? Pinnock goes back to the Old Testament. “This God with a strange name (Yahweh), a name to distinguish him from other gods is of such a nature and possess such attributes as to put him in sharp contrast to the quarreling, warring deities of the Ancient Near East” (Pinnock 53). Other gods have always existed, and still the God of the Israelites was unique in His deity. This infers that, Yahweh’s work was not limited knowledge for Israel alone, other peoples who worshiped different gods were familiar with the God of the Israelites.
The God of Israel is a type of “precursor” to Jesus Christ, because the Son cannot be understood without the Father. “Uniqueness belongs to God, if Jesus is said to be unique it is because of the special relation to God as Son... The major claim of uniqueness in the bible is the claim made on behalf of Israel’s God and only afterward on behalf of Israel’s Messiah...Not only is the God of Israel unique among deities, the coming Messiah is presented as unique and decisive for all peoples” (Pinnock 54). Here we see Christ as a representative for all peoples and presumably all nations. However, this “representation” is not possible without the sovereignty of the Father who appointed the Christ for this very purpose. “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed” (Dan 7:14).
Christology cannot be adequately assessed without the context of biblical theism. In other words, the Son does not represent “Christianity” without the Father (and the Spirit.) Jesus Christ did not “just appear” out of nowhere. His purpose as Savior was rooted in the Old Testament with the God Yahweh who was unique among other gods before Christ. The “narrowness” factor is not present to exclude unbelievers from salvation, but instead is used as a specific point of reference detailing the origins of the Messiah “Jesus Christ” as Savior of the world to the Creator of mankind. Pinnock makes an excellent observation in this section by reminding Christians that we are not to take substance away from Christology to make it “fit” our own agenda concerning salvation. “It is not our place to change what the original writers intended” (69).
Other Religions
Generally speaking, other religions outside the scope of Christianity are viewed negatively as idolaters, because other religions have gods that are not the Christ we worship. The negativity only increases when secularists define religion as “self-deception and self-delusion” (Pinnock 83). Even conservative Christians “judge Christianity as a true religion and other religions as false” (Ibid.) However, Pinnock takes a “middle” approach which “couples the churches confession of Jesus Christ with genuine openness to the truth and the goodness found in other religions” (Ibid.) In this manner, Pinnock maintains Christianity as the foundation and also incorporates God’s desire to bring salvation to other nations through different religions.
Pinnock defines religion and then divides it into two categories: false and true religion (53). Christ spoke harshly about false religion when he addressed Israel’s religious leaders (Mt 23:1-31.) “Christ was disturbed by the love of ritual and status; such religion was human unbelief and rebellion. Along the finest of impulses lay dark hypocrisy and wickedness” (Pinnock 89). “Satan is the deceiver of the whole world. His conspiracy exploits sin’s potential in the sphere of religion (Rev 20:30). “According to the Hebrews, it is faith or subjective religion which God is most concerned about” (Pinnock 85). For example, Jesus addresses a person individually to address the spiritual needs of that person. Generally, those who belong to a religion will either wholeheartedly pursue their faith and seek their god, while others will carry on with a facade and want to escape God.
In contrast, there were pagan saints who lived godly lives. These people were not accepted as mainstream, but that did not take away from their faith in God. It is here that Pinnock is able to connect “other religions” or non-religions (like pagans and heathens) to the equation. There have always existed men and women who were not completely immersed in the practice of religion, but who chose to live a life of godliness. The examples of similar people in the bible include: “Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rehab, Ruth, Naaman, the Queen of Sheba, the Roman soldier and others” (Pinnock 92). These individuals played “minor roles” in scripture and nevertheless are chosen as the example for salvation. Christ is not interested in grandiose efforts, He honors genuine faith regardless of whether there is a “Christian seal” that affirms that person as “chosen and predestined.” “After all, if saintliness is possible apart from religion, then God’s grace might well occur outside rather than inside the religious sphere when operating in the wider world” (Pinnock 93).
As human beings we naturally seek God. We were made in His image to know Him. “There is a drive to discover the basis of the meaning and worthwhileness of our lives, and to deal with our finitude and death. All persons know God pre-cognitively and most acknowledge him cognitively as well” (Pinnock 102). As humans we are wired to seek truth for ourselves and find purpose to our existence. This self-exploration is not limited to Christians alone, but is true about humans in general. Whether we believe in the same Christ or not, most individuals will seek to find significance in their life and death. Inevitably, this raises a question about a God or gods.
Pinnock warns that “being more positive does not require us to conclude that every religion is a vehicle of salvation or an ordinary way to salvation. After all, religions are part of fallen human culture” (107). However, it is important to recognize God’s work in other religions but that is certainly not an invitation to “deny salvation through Christ” (Pinnock 113). Witnessing God’s presence in other circles of faith or religions should be seen as the “beginning” toward a faith of salvation in Jesus Christ. It could be the case that Christ’s work in a Muslim for example, results in a conversion to Christianity, but that isn’t necessarily an absolute. It is possible for an unbeliever to repent and remain within the context of their current religion.
Divine Power
All religions are subject to change according to God’s purpose. Religions are not static entities, but rather viable changing organisms that are unlikely to remain the same as we know them today. It makes sense that God will bring in the Kingdom and become sovereign over everything (including all religions) in the world. “It also follows that God has designs for other religions just as he has designs on everything else. God is not going to leave out anything as important as religions from the work of transforming all things” (Pinnock 116). “He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" (Rev 21:5). Religions seemingly represent a nesting phenomenon that will not come to full fruition until God is ready to complete His design. While religions around the world with varying gods do not resemble what Christ has revealed to us does not mean that those individuals are marked with an eternity in hell. Different doesn’t mean hopeless.
Jesus Christ said that, “the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (Mt 24:14). In other words, it sounds like every man will have had an opportunity to hear the gospel regardless of what religion he belongs to. If the end of times is contingent on this premise, then it follows that God is interested in evangelizing the world at large before moving on to His divine plan of eternity. “The Gospel cannot be preached to all nations without encountering other religions. Therefore, the church cannot escape a confrontation with the world religions - nor is it the will of God that we should escape it. There is no alternative to this encounter unless we are not serious about reaching the nations” (Pinnock 118).
“Religions represent powers that Jesus Christ is challenging in the coming of the kingdom of God. If he gospel is true, if Jesus is Lord, the future of rebellious gods and powers is in doubt. He has been given a name higher than theirs” (Pinnock 120). In other words, we’re not just seeking political and social change by “confronting” other religions, the fundamental result is the impact that Christ will have on religions too. If all spirits are subject to Christ, then it only follows that Christ is the authority of all religions in the world. If this is true, then those currently standing in a role of leadership in other religions, is subject to Christ. It’s a simple argument: if Christ is Lord over all creation, then everything in it is His to govern. And if this is the case, then why not convert everybody to Christianity today since God has the power to do so? I think this is where the agency of free will and the mysteries of God’s eternal purpose come in. Technically, God can do anything He wants, but I imagine that the different religions were put there for a reason that may not make sense to us yet. “Revelation sees movement toward the future and recognizes that before the end of time we will not be able to see everything clearly. Jesus is the prolepsis of the end of history, but until then we will not know what all that means” (Pinnock 147).
Eschatological Hope
“People will come from the east and west from the north and south and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Lk 13:29). This verse is filled with hope and optimism that salvation will come from “all the ends” of the Earth. Pinnock speaks of those currently hostile to the gospel who will repent upon the return of Christ: “The people who put Jesus to death will weep on account of him at his coming” (Rev 1:7). This could mean that the people weep, not selfishly for themselves, but for what they did to Jesus by nailing him to the cross” (153). How is it possible that those who do not know Christ would not repent when they witness His supernatural glory in all of its majesty when he returns? How is it possible to not believe when He is visually manifested?! Jesus is also an optimist. Jesus makes a poignant statement concerning fate when he states: “The man who tells his brother that he is doomed to hell is in danger of hell himself” (Matt 5:22). In other words, nobody really knows who will be saved and who won’t. It is best to maintain a positive outlook on salvation and encourage unbelievers that there is hope in spite of the obstacles that present themselves.
If God desires that the whole world be saved, how is that going to be possible? There will likely be people who did not hear the gospel or those who are saved but don’t know Christ, how is that feasible? According to Pinnock: “The faith principle is the basis of universal accessibility. According to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology. Since God has not left anyone without witness, people are judged on the basis of the light they have received and how they have responded to that light. Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information” (Pinnock 158). Succinctly stated, it is the faith in our hearts that God will look to and determine whether we are saved or not. Presumably, this application of faith will supersede religions, knowledge and geography. And rightfully so.
Pinnock warns: “It is important to realize that heaven is not a bribe or extrinsic reward. It is not like receiving a million dollars for being good, or for returning the right answer to god’s appeal. Heaven is an intrinsic kind of reward - an intrinsic reward offers consequences homogenous with the actions being rewarded; it is extrinsic when it differs in kind from them. In essence, to desire heaven, which is life in the presence of absolute goodness, implies a love of goodness” (171). In other words, the reward is the reward itself. To be in the presence of absolute majesty, with a Savior that is all goodness seems like the ultimate reward where eternity is concerned.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Pinnock sets forth an evidentiary argument for the “Wideness of God’s Mercy” while maintaining the absolute integrity of the gospel of Christ. Pinnock addresses, biases, erroneous theology and fear which contribute to the a negative view of salvation where only few are chosen in this grace instead of many. Even without Pinnock’s systematic approach to the subject of inclusive salvation, the visual of Christ hanging on a cross reveals the character of an obedient Son and a loving God who set the eschatological sacrifice in motion to “save everybody who might believe” (John 3:16). Pinnock even addresses those individuals who do not know Christ, but serve and live a godly life without realizing that it is God working in the midst of their lives. The book concluded with a poignant statement relating to God’s Lordship and overall plan over other religions. If Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings (Rev 17:14), then His dominion is not limited to Christianity but to all religions in this world.
My Theologia Religionum
Through this course I have maintained that there are “unknowing Christians” in other religions. There are individuals who have the fruit of the Spirit visible through their actions and lifestyles without realizing that God is at work in their lives. Christianity is a heart for Jesus Christ, that lives the greatest commandment of all “to love one another.” These individuals are found in the midst of Indigenous Religions, Hindus, Buddhists and other Eastern religions. The mark of Christ is not an external one defined by our association with a specific religion, but rather a life that lives for goodness instead of darkness.
The conclusion of this course reaffirmed my position as an inclusivist. I also associate my eschatological position with universalism. Universalism as defined by Fisher (11): “Acceptance that the truth may be found in all religions.” The idea that salvation is only for “Christians” sets up boundaries that make Christ’s graceful sacrifice inaccessible to all. This is the equivalent of saying, “This is my God, but He can’t be yours, because you simply weren’t chosen to share in His presence.” This position is contrary to the intent of the Grand Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19).
Sanders discusses this restrictive position and points out the implication that God “cannot save those he would like to save” (61). How is that possible? Does that mean that our sin is greater than the very atonement offered through Christ? Doesn’t this take away from the absolute power of the cross? Sanders states that, “Restrictivism seems to be saying that God does not truly love all people since it teaches that he has not provided an opportunity for all people to benefit from the redeeming work of His Son (Ibid.) As a Christian who has experienced God, this rejection of those who were “not elected” for salvation, seems contrary to the God of grace who “sent His only begotten Son” to save humanity (John 3:16). If Christ is the incarnate image of the Father, doesn’t it follow that God is similarly compassionate and loving like Jesus Christ?
Sanders also discusses the role of Christ in salvation that supports an inclusivist/universal accessibility. “Is it truly necessary to know Christ in order to be saved?” In other words, “Restrictivism confuses the ontological necessity of Christ for salvation with our human epistemological necessity of knowing about it” (Sanders 62). Would God really make “conscious awareness of Christ” a contingency for salvation? I would imagine that as Christians who know and practice “Christianity” would say, “yes.” However, I’m inclined to believe that we were elected to represent the Christ that we do know and bring knowledge of Him to others through our actions, versus limiting accessibility of salvation to this “knowledge of Christ.”
It makes complete sense to me that we are “all are damned to hell” for being sinners, but it doesn’t make sense that there isn’t a uniform manner to make amends for everybody. The restrictivist approach is basically saying that “we must be chosen to make amends.” “What kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him, but not enough to save him? The kind of God that does not truly desire to see all people redeemed” (Sanders 68). Once again, this idea seems contrary to the Spirit of John 3:16, “God desires that none should perish, but that all should have everlasting life.” It almost seems to me that this restrictionist approach is simply another human tendency that separates us from Christ-likeness to want to segregate and be superior to “those who are damned.”
Restrictionist add other burdens like absolute damnation for not being elect. “Some restrictivists pose yet more troubling problem by arguing both that the unevangelized are justly condemned for rejecting the light of general revelation and that even a total acceptance of that revelation would still be insufficient for salvation” (Sanders 69). Sander gives a practical example of this, “This is like my telling my daughter that I am angry with her for not washing the dishes and then acknowledging that I would still be angry with her if she had washed them. By this logic, the unevangelized are truly damned if they do and damned if they don’t” (Ibid.) And in the spirit of this absolute damnation, I have to wonder if this is how unbelievers today view the accessibility of salvation? Is the Church damning unbelievers by restricting access to the grace of Christ’s atonement? Grace by definition means, “The free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God” (Merriam-Webster Online.) Isn’t that what salvation is?
If God truly doesn’t care about the whole world, then why redeem it at the end of the times? “If for God a billion rational creatures are as dust in the balance; and if a billion perish, God suffers no loss,” (Sanders 72) then why sacrifice His only begotten Son for a chosen few? The idea that God does not want everybody to be saved implies favoritism. Does God really like Christians more than anybody else? According to Matthew 5:45: “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” By these standards it sounds that we are all treated equally. Then why not uphold the same standard for salvation? What would God lose by offering salvation to everybody? It seems that His greatest loss was the death of His righteous Son who was able to reconcile mankind with the Father. Wouldn’t God want to honor Christ’s sacrifice by saving as many as possible?
Even in other religions who don’t know the benevolent Christ who gave up His own life to offer salvation, desire to live in eternal unity with their idea of a greater being or order:
Hinduism: “Everyone will attain God-consciousness and be liberated. Some receive their meal early in the morning, others at noon, still others not until the evening. But none will go hungry. Without any exception, all living beings will eventually know their own true nature to be timeless awareness” (Novak 45).
Confucius: “To find the central clue to our moral being which unites us to the universal order, that indeed is the highest human attainment” (Novak 119).
Islam: “If the unbeliever knew of the extent of the Lord’s mercy, even he would not despair of Paradise” (Novak 314).
Is it the case that other religions know a more compassionate God than our own if eternity with their god is equally offered among them?
Conclusion
In conclusion, I left this semester with a greater appreciation of my own religion and Christ’s eschatological plan for all religions. The course offered diverse texts on the matter of salvation, but it was Pinnock’s conclusion that “God had a plan for all religions” that put my mind at ease and refocused my energy to God’s will to evangelize instead of defending the notion of inclusivism. Regardless of biases out there, the ultimate purpose for all of these religions and gods is up to Christ. Christ knows who has a heart for Him and believes in Him. As those who are “chosen,” we are here to represent those who don’t know that they are also set apart for God. I know for certain that I am not “predestined” in my own right, but rather that God set a purpose in my life that would bring His word to others who were also predestined, but just didn’t know it yet.
References
Bible Gateway Online: www.biblegatewayonline. Internet website. Available as of December 13, 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com. Internet website. Available as of December 13, 2009.
Pinnock, Clark H. “A Wideness in God’s Mercy.” Zondervan; Grand Rapids, (1992).
Sanders, John. “No Other Name.” Eardmans; Grand Rapids, (1992).
Fisher, Mary P. “Living Religions.” Pearson; Upper Saddle River, (2008).
Novak, Philip. “The World’s Wisdom.” Harper; San Francisco, (1994).
http://oppao.net/n-ona/
http://oppao.net/navi/
http://oppao.net/new-d2/
http://oppao.net/fd3/
http://oppao.net/soap2/
http://oppao.net/bg2/
http://oppao.net/host2/
http://oppao.net/lesson2/
http://oppao.net/op2/
http://oppao.net/fl3/
http://oppao.net/bb2/
http://oppao.net/s-este/
http://oppao.net/rd2/
http://oppao.net/kawa/
http://oppao.net/n-club2/
http://s-auc.net/
Posted by: オテモヤン | January 25, 2010 at 11:56 PM