Clark Pinnock--An Influential Force in Evangelicalism

If you don't know Clark Pinnock--that's OK. Most people do not.

And yet, he was an influential character in Evangelicalism. But was he a force for good?

Read this and you decide.

Falsifying Scientific Arrogance

The place had that old smell of a large building that existed one-hundred years too long. As I entered the bedraggled auditorium the metal frames and vaulted ceiling silently spoke of a bygone age when 'God' was not a dirty word and science was less hostile to Christianity.

I was late. The lunch meal took too long. But it was enjoyable. Being tardy didn't especially matter as the lecture started about fifteen minutes late while people trickled in. Finding a seat in a sea of uncomfortable 70ish chairs, I sat in the middle left side with a good line-of-sight of the speaker-to-be. The speaker, Mr. Stenger (of the infamous book, God: the Failed Hypothesis), was introduced as a professor of philosophy and a practicing physicist of many, many years. As I adjusted my paper, pen and books, the aged professor plodded purposefully to the podium. He introduced his thesis with relative clarity and somewhat proper philosophical considerations--definitions, deductions and whatnots.

After a surprisingly short 35 minute presentation, he had given the highlights of his thesis that the God hypothesis is a failure, useless and patently absurd. It was time for Q&A. I quickly scanned my notes, knowing that only one question would be practically allowed, I thought, what is the best question to ask?

The atheist club coordinators took a practical approach to the Q&A time by handing the mic to those in the front row and continued to worm their way to the back. Only one question was clearly Christian, asking an important question of what constituted "independent verification." Other questions were more of a benign nature or reinforcing the professor's thesis. I listened intently. What should I ask?

One gentleman--a scientist--challenged the lecturer's premise that the God-question could even be answered by science. But the point was not pushed. Another more excitable speaker--in the row right before me, what am I going to ask?--reiterated the old atheist canard about God not existing because evil exists.

Ah, yes, my notes from his book. Here, the hole in the book as large as the universe. The mic was handed to me: "Yes, thank you. Sir, you wrote in your book, and I quote..."

"I can't hear you," the professor replied. The acoustics were bad. So I summarized:

"You wrote that there was no consensus among philosophers of science on what actually constitutes real science as over and against pseudo or non-science, correct?"

"Yes..."

"You also wrote that the methodology that will be used to disprove the God-hypothesis is the approach by the philosopher, Popper. It is known as 'falsification'--using tests to try to disprove a given hypothesis."

"Yes, but..." and the disgruntled professor tried to run rough-shod over my question. Perhaps he thought I had asked my question. Or knew where I was going with it...

"Excuse me, sir, I have not properly asked my question yet."

"Go ahead."

"You wrote that the falsification method cannot 'sufficiently'--your words--account for the difference between science and non-science. If this is true and you believe this, then how can the falsification method be used to falsify the God-hypothesis when the method itself is not 'sufficient' to distinguish between hypotheses, between science (truth) and non-science (falsity)?"

"!!! Here now, science has done great things for us...!!"

He was none too happy.

SDG

History Evangelicals Won't Like

Many conservative Christians would like to go "back to the old days." You know: when America was an explicitly Christian nation. When many state constitutions explicitly identified with Protestant Christianity. When Congress held national days of prayer and fasting. And laws were simpler. Marriage was upheld. The Bible fearlessly taught.

Remember? When the Sabbath laws were actually enforced. Blasphemy laws were upheld. And state-sponsored churches existed.

It was a time, you may recall in your Christian history books, when the vast majority of Americans baptized infants. The Congregationalists of New England, Presbyterians of the Middle & Southern areas, Anglicans of the South and all the Germans, Dutch and French in between all baptized infants according to their respective creeds.

Education and religion were intimately tied back then as well. Most children were catechized (question and answer), especially through the New England Primer school book, many of which included Mather's catechism and/or the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Ministers ran or taught in many of the schools. Weekly lectures (bible studies) were common as well as morning and evening worship on Sunday.

Perhaps you recollect that 60-80% of the churches by 1787 were Calvinistic. Remember what Calvinism is? Refresh your memory by looking up the 39 Articles of the Anglican church or the Westminster Shorter Catechism (that one in the New England Primer) or any of the creeds of the various groups: man is totally depraved such that he never even seeks after God, his will being totally bound by sin; God is the only author of salvation, saving his foreordained people.

Naturally, many Evangelicals were not taught that the Geneva Bible (with Calvinistic notes) was mostly used in the early days and not the KJV. Popular writers included Whitefield, Edwards and Mather--all Calvinists. Many political leaders (especially at the local levels) were Calvinists as well: Witherspoon, Patrick Henry, John Jay and Roger Sherman for instance.

Or, perhaps, when such facts make it back to the Evangelical think-tanks, churches and leaders, they might want to reconsider.

SDG

No Surprise: Evangelicals Deny Solus Christus

Christ alone.
Solus Christus.

That was the watchword of our Protestant forefathers almost five-hundred years ago. Twice as long as the existence of the American government.

It meant that only Christ was the Savior of the world. That Christ alone could and does save sinners. This was just a short-hand and positive way for the classical Protestants to deny that there was any other person or way to heaven: neither our works, someone else's works, philosophy, good intentions, sociology, politics, sports... "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs,
but of God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16).

Now 57% of Evangelicals polled (amongst 35,000 adults) deny that proposition. But then they've been denying it for years, decades even.

For instance, reflecting on what I was taught as a teen-ager:

1. Pagans who never hear the Gospel can live by the "light of nature" and enter heaven.
2. Infants who die enter heaven by virtue of their supposed innocence.
3. Jews in the OT had to obey the Ten Commandments as grounds for eternal life.

I suppose other readers could come up with more well-established "exceptions". These are exceptions that classical Protestant creeds did not accept. No one enters heaven because they are innocent; and no one can earn their way to heaven through their own creative religious ways ("light of nature") or even through God's own Ten Commandments (Gal. 2:15ff.).

With these exceptions (and the pointed lack of historical and biblical training in many churches) it is no wonder many Evangelicals accept other ways to heaven: they already did. We are just following our leaders: Billy Graham & Joel Osteen.

For that matter, why not join the mainline churches--they've denied the exclusive and singular way to heaven for a few generations. The word "Evangelical" is becoming more and more meaningless--stretched beyond recognition. Eventually, many Evangelical churches will unrecognizable from those mainline churches.

Then maybe many will wake up surprised, ready to hear the true Gospel that should have never been a surprise to begin with.

SDG

Pizza with the Atheist Club

In typical college fashion, the pizzeria was crammed with people, food and loud music. I wormed my way to the back wall toward a booth with three young students. Surveying the young men arrayed in the small booth—one with his nose in a textbook, the other with a lopsided grin and the third with stereotypical long hair—I greeted each with a firm handshake.

Placing my pizza on the table, I started the meeting with proper appreciation: “I am glad you agreed to meet with me.”

“No prob man. We don’t do this with just anyone ya’ know,” drawled the grinner. “Our club v.p. here told us you were someone worth talking with---intelligent.”

“Well, I don’t claim mastery of logic or philosophy, but I have enough of a background that I was able to challenge your vice president here.” I grinned in reply.

Instead of reaching for the philosophical jugular, I decided to ask some personal questions: was he raised Christian? Did he have anything personal against Christianity? In short, he was raised a nominal Roman Catholic, yet had no related personal problems. He actually thanked me for asking him, as it was common for cross-examiners to assume the worse.

I then asked about their philosophical views: they were typical atheists (materialistic empiricists disagreeing over morals). However, they had one twist: they were mostly atheists—they were not willing to absolutely rule out the existence of God (as the older atheists would, ala Bertrand Russell).

Ignoring this idiosyncrasy, I spoke with the long-haired student for the next twenty-five minutes about his empiricist approach to morality. As with most empiricist, he was gung-ho for the morality bell-curve; that behavior in the curve was normal. Pointing out that using the bell-curve for the last fifty years on a global scale would lean “normal” morality toward totalitarianism, he replied that being an American he could not accept that. “Then you’ve changed the bell-curve referent,” I reminded him. He was silent. Then I noted that he did not have a large enough sample-size for human behavior over the last 10,000 years. This he conceded. After asking why the extremes of the curve should be ignored (like megalomaniac dictators), he partly conceded. Feeling the pressure he quietly replied: “Even if we cannot establish morality objectively, we can still live it intuitively as we all have human nature.”

“Do we?” I asked. “Materialism cannot speak of a human nature other than observable behavior—the bell-curve. Why does a dictator have to follow a hypothetical curve? What you have is pure subjectivism: every man doing what is right in his own eyes.”

He thoughtfully chewed on his pizza. He was none too happy.

But the day was not over yet.

SDG

The Other Side of Christmas

Even the pagans know a little about the Incarnation. Songs are sung about it this time of year. Christmas cartoons and musicals allude to it. The nativity, showing Mary, Joseph and the Baby Jesus, implies such a condescending act by God.

But even if unbelievers can mechanically explain the Incarnation, the proper understanding of it and the implications thereof completely elude them. Like watching a play without a background and underlying plot, many unbelievers observe the nativity with a vague sense of something missing. "What's the big deal?" they ask.


Unfortunately, this question is asked because the message of Christmas is disappearing--not only due to the obvious chaos of narcissistic materialism, but also because of the increasing silence of the Church herself. To the extent that the proper background of the Incarnation is poorly explained, grasped or believed by the American Evangelical church, to that extent she is silent and unhelpful. She becomes a mime, acting out a story without a context.


And what is that context? Sin.


Not only was the Coming of the God-man a marvelous act of a Sovereign King dwelling among infinitely lesser beings, it was more. It was the merciful and forgiving act of a maligned Judge. A Judge and Ruler who was given no grounds for mercy. A Judge, Ruler and Avenger who did,
would and will cast the final sentence against unbelieving rebellion: eternal damnation.


This is not a popular message. Unbelief would rather watch the miming of the church than hear the thundering of the Law. It would embrace the psuedo-gospel of "God-loves-everyone-hoping-to-send-them-all-to- heaven" instead of hearing that God actually intends on sending insurgents to their rightful
place.


Yet, this other side of Christmas is crucial. And it makes sense. Human judges will dispense justice according to the rule of law. How much more will the Great All-Seeing Judge of the Universe dispense justice? And so, Adam was judged, as were all mankind, you and me included. But that is not what unbelievers want to hear during this season of joy.


However, it is exactly what they need to hear. And it is what we need to hear as well. The Incarnation is intelligible only in a Christian framework that takes sin seriously and rebellion as deserving of death. There was nothing in mankind to bring amnesty from God the judge. There was everything in mankind to repel Him. This is the reason why the coming of the Son of God is amazing: we deserved eternal damnation instead of life.


With the truth of the other side of Christmas, the Church can stop miming and start singing aloud with joy the clear message of why the Messiah became a man. And then the world will know what the "big deal" is all about.

Atheists Taking Notes

This summer during bring-out-the-tables-and-grab-more-members drive at the local colleges, I wandered through the labyrinth of chaos: banks luring students, clubs attracting members, and fast food restaurants claiming the dream job. And then as I turned my head to fight off the beating sun, my eye caught the following:

THE BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE

“Matthew 12:31 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Speak into this video and verbally denounce the Spirit: secure your place in hell!”

If there was ever a time to preach Christ, this was it! Casually approaching the bench, I prayed a quick prayer to the Spirit, and innocently asked the black-clad individual behind the table why he used this verse.

He stared at me for a few seconds. “We are using this verse to show the absurdity of Christians who take the Bible literally.”

Wanting to avoid a quibble over details—to reach deeper issues—I responded, “Not all Christians have such a naïve approach to the Bible. I could point out the larger context or other Bible verses, but you do not take the Bible as your standard of reality anyway.”

I paused and plunged onward: “The bigger question is: What do you believe? Where are you coming from?”

“I’m an atheist and I’m an empiricist,” he cautiously replied.

“Interesting, so truth is only that which is verified by the senses…how do you find justice or love in a test tube?” I asked.

Thus the debate began—or rather, the one-sided critique of empiricism. Trying to “answer a fool according to his folly,” I focused on the hopelessness and philosophical suicide incipient in atheism. Near the end of the conversation, I pointed out how he shuffled between pragmatism and empiricism in finding truth-claims. The internal contradiction was becoming clear to the atheist. Before saying a word, he reached down to grab a notepad and pen.

With a level of comfortable rapport already established, my curiosity piqued: “Excuse me, what are you doing?”

Scribbling on the notepad, he looked up at me with mild surprise, "Oh, you were pointing out some inconsistencies in my thinking: I'm taking notes."

soli deo gloria!

Get Into My Head

The heat was palpable. Feeling the sun beat upon my head, I quickly surveyed my surrounding in the middle of the campus. Trees dotted the landscape, but concrete structures dominated the scenery. All the pathways encouraged the reflection of sun, increasing the heat about me, distracting me as I struggled to listen:

“But I cannot accept a God who would send people to hell just because they don’t agree
with him,” she persisted. Sitting on the curb near the center of the square, she stared at me intently, trying to grasp an ethereal idea as foreign to her as living the life of an earthworm.

“I understand your point, but I think it is misdirected,” I cautiously replied. Handling the Bible in my hand, seeking out the book of Romans while attempting eye contact, I fumbled when another loud riding-lawn mower passed by in the background—the third in so many minutes.

As a dutiful soldier, I marched on: “Try to get into my head; try to understand where Christianity is coming from. We believe that all mankind fell in Adam: when he sinned we all sinned. So everyone is born a sinner, acting out their rebellious nature. When a Christian says that those who reject Christ are going to hell, we say that because they deserve hell.”

“OK,” she slowly replied.

“It is like our own culture: if someone were a murderer or a traitor, they would be punished. There is no talk of ‘fairness’ and the like: they get what they deserve: death. So all mankind, as Romans 1:18ff. states, already deserve death. God, their Judge, is under no obligation to save anyone.”

Knowing the importance of the Word, I proceeded to read that section of Romans, slowly and deliberately, adding short explanatory statements as needed.

“Interesting: men are without excuse. So God sends missionaries to tell the unbelievers about the possibility of salvation in Christ; He does not just let them be,” she mused out loud.

“Yes—so you see from the Christian worldview, it is not merely men not “agreeing” with God, it is rebellious terrorists rejecting the rule of Law and the Law’s Judge.”

A new look entered her eyes: thoughtfulness. “That makes sense. Let me think about that…you certainly have a different approach than simply smashing my head in with the Bible. You tried to understand my position as well.”

I allowed her into my world, my head. Now I pray the Spirit to enter her heart.

My Head Hurts...

While at the Pro-life rally Saturday afternoon, a pleasant middle-aged woman approached my wife.

"Would you like a prayer card, ma'am?" she politely asked.
"Is that a picture of Mary??" my wife cautiously replied.
"Why, yes it is."
"I am sorry, but we pray only to Jesus our Mediator. We don't need Mary for that," Jody graciously commented.

Thus the cordial debate began. I am certainly impressed that the lady was not timid. Many people in this world are not interested in conversations about God and religion-whether short or prolonged. In this case, the Roman Catholic was not only interested she was persistent. Although most amiable, she was certainly not open minded by any stretch of the imagination. She would pause to breath and then reassert her devotion to Mary, giving us little space to speak at times. And like a pit-bull, no matter how much our counter-points bludgeoned her view, she would not let go.

"Why would Mary have to be perfect to give birth to Christ?" we asked.
"To give birth to a perfect human, she had to be perfect" she answered in a matter-of-fact manner
"Then was her mother perfect?" we quickly countered.
"No, that does not follow. She was divine so she had to be perfect."
"!!??-divine you say?"
"Yes," she innocently responded.
"You realize that in normal language 'divine' means 'deity' or 'god'?" we incredulously asked.
"Well, she is part of Christ. She gave part of herself-her soul-to Christ."
"So, you believe in four gods?" we persisted.
"Look," she sighed, "for Christ to be perfect and live a life of perfection for us to follow, she had to be perfect"
"So she participated in deity with Christ?"
"She is divine; she is perfect and gave part of herself for Christ's humanity. Christ himself while on the cross presented Mary to the church as our Mother" she doggedly persisted.

Persistence indeed! We could never get her to explain what she meant by Mary being "divine". Nor could we get her to see her need of Christ as her only savior since she insisted that Mary was our mediator with Christ. In fact, Christ must always heed his mother! Did not Christ honor her? Naturally, we pointed out that Christ honored his father too, but it did not follow that Joseph was our mediator.

We were certainly running in circles near the end: she denied the sole authority of the Bible; she denied the sole sufficiency of Christ's atonement; she denied the need for faith alone without works for salvation. This is not inductive speculation on our part, we asked here pointedly these very issues throughout our ten-minute discussion.

Now, dear reader, note the denials carefully: the word "sole" or "alone" are the key words. She admitted the need of Christ and the Bible and faith but none of them were alone. She was adamant that good works would bring her to heaven. She had no confidence that she was going to heaven; so, she explained, she had to try harder to obey God lest she fall short of full justification.

Quite sad. Although we felt as though we were beating our heads against a wall, we persisted because we pitied her. She has no hope save herself and she admitted that was not enough. Christ was only a godly example (she repeated several times) and Mary was her divine
mediator.

My wife and I planted a seed. It seemed like much work at the time, but we know our duty to God and love for the lost: dig, plant and leave the increase to God.

Even if your head hurts.

SDG

[from Providence Points e-Newsletter, Jan. 22, 2006, or comment here for a subscription).