Post-Mortem Evangelism: A Response To R.R. Cook -- By: Tony Gray

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 46:1 (NA 1995)
Article: Post-Mortem Evangelism: A Response To R.R. Cook
Author: Tony Gray


Post-Mortem Evangelism:
A Response To R.R. Cook

Tony Gray

Summary

Robert Cook has recently presented an examination of the notion of post-mortem evangelism as found in the writings of Clark Pinnock, an examination which declared Pinnock’s position to be internally consistent. This article questions both Pinnock’s position and Cook’s analysis, on the grounds that it appears impossible to make sense of what it means for a sinner to choose hell. It is also suggested that this is part of a larger failure on the part of theodicy to understand the radical nature of evil.

I. Introduction

In a recent article,1 Robert Cook evaluated the post-mortem evangelism position held by Clark Pinnock together with his rejection of universalism, and found Pinnock’s position rationally consistent. Such a view, however innovative and on the fringes of evangelicalism, can have its attractions. The idea that those who have not heard the gospel in this life will in fact get a chance in the next, can be emotionally and spiritually encouraging. However, as attractive as it may be, a major problem remains—that is, the question of choice.

This paper is not intended to deal with the exegesis of the biblical texts which are used to support the doctrine of post-mortem evangelism. As Cook suggests, such intriguing work must be left to other scholars. Rather the following discussion is concerned with the internal consistency of Cook’s paper. It sets out to show that Cook’s analysis of Pinnock’s position overlooks a point of vital consideration,

a point that strikes not only at the heart of Pinnock’s concept of post-mortem evangelism, but also at the heart of similar attempts to understand the fall and the nature of sin.

II. The Problem Of Choice

The major problem with Cook’s paper, and the problem that he claims to put to rest, is that of the sinner’s choice of hell. Cook presents this dilemma in the following way:

Given the maximum opportunity for turning to God that post-mortem evangelism would offer, and given the self-evident auto-destructive folly of rejecting a salvation that leads to fullness of life and joy for evermore, why conceivably would any sensible creature choose hell? (p.397)

This was the problem that Hick realised, and played off against.2 God would not have to twist anyone’s arm to get them into heaven, for, in the end, no-one in their right minds would choose anything but! As Robinson put it, In the End, God.

In describing the situati...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()