here are periods in church history in which one can discern the occurrence of a theological megashift. Sometimes such sea-changes happen in the academic world first, as with the rise of liberalism, from, say, Schleiermacher in the first three decades of the nineteenth century; sometimes they take place "on the ground", as with the rise of Pentecostalism at the beginning of this century. And one is tempted to conclude that either too much thinking- or too little- has given rise to some of these very serious departures from biblical orthodoxy. Whichever is the case, the effects upon the wider Church of such megashifts are rarely anticipated, with the (often glaring) errors current in any particular sea-change slowly gaining wider acceptance until orthodoxy itself is first threatened and then destroyed. The process is often as follows: first, the toleration by orthodoxy of error; then, the conceding to error of a position of equality with orthodoxy; and finally, the surrender of orthodoxy to error.
    Much energy has been spent in recent times on combating the torrent of heresies from the charismatic camp, and quite rightly so. It is vital, for example, that Christians know that a movement such as the Toronto Blessing has its roots in the activities of still more obvious heretics in the Word Faith camp.  However, while our attention has largely been drawn to events on the ground, an academic megashift has also been taking place. This article will attempt to outline what has been happening, taking a brief look at three recent works by an influential proponent of the new evangelicalism and attempting to identify the nature of the  megashift.
    As indicated above, the first stage of theological defection is often the toleration of error. As far as professing evangelicalism is concerned, this stage has already come and gone. Whereas some half a century ago evangelicalism was relatively robust, now error has been tolerated in the camp and allowed a place alongside biblical orthodoxy. We appear, therefore, to be at the next stage, i.e. a period in which a new model evangelicalism is vying with orthodoxy for supremacy within the camp. And it is the contention of this article that, unless there is a drawing-back from the course that seems to have been plotted, the final stage, i.e. that of the devastation of orthodoxy, must inevitably follow.

Tracking the Error: The Evangelical Megashift Goes Public
    The evangelical world's awareness of the sea-change that was already underway was sharpened by the publication in the l9th February 1990 issue of Christianity Today of an article by Robert Brow entitled "The Evangelical Megashift". Brow, then recently retired from his ministry as rector of St. James' Anglican Church on the campus of Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario in Canada, suggested that the new thinking had been in existence for some time. And his starting-point in explaining the new model evangelicalism was the notion of the family-room, rather than the (presumably passe) old model concept of the law court. In other words, the forensic understanding of salvation was to be jettisoned, and with it the Reformation itself, in favour of a cosier view altogether. Thus, certain key terms would have to be given new meanings: hell would not be populated by those sent by a wrathful God by judicial sentence- instead, it should become the logical consequence of free human choice to turn away from God; faith would no longer be the gift of God by which believers are justified- rather, it has to do with "a constant looking in the right direction"; judgment would have less to do with the problem of human sinfulness and more to do with defending the freedom and peace of God's people; wrath would cease to mean the settled anger of a holy God against human rebellion- instead, what is meant is "the bad consequences God assigns, as any loving parent might, to destructive or wrongful behaviour"; sin would no longer be rebellion meriting punishment, but becomes a human defect which requires discipline and correction; the church  would not be the covenant community of the redeemed outside which there is no salvation, but rather one of the instruments of the love of God" (what are the others in respect of the unsaved?); and finally, the work of Christ on the cross would not be a judicial payment. but the visible expression in a space-time body of his eternal nature as Son" (so what did the cross actually achieve?).  Following Brow's exploration of the megashift there were responses from Don Carson (negative), Clark Pinnock (positive), David Wells (negative), Robert Webber (positive) and Donald Bloesch (predominantly negative, but seeking to preserve the best insights from each side). Of the two favourable responses, the most significant in view of his more recent work was that of Clark Pinnock, to whom we now turn.

Theologian of the Megashift: Clark Pinnock
    Clark Pinnock is a theologian of world renown. He can also be said to be the representative theologian of the new evangelicalism. It is significant that he is included in an important recent book- the Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed.Walter A.Elwell, published in 1993 by Baker Books; significant, because our generation seems content to permit a breadth within the definition of what is "evangelical" which would not previously have been the case. Thus, whilst there has always been tension in the camp between, say, Lutherans and Reformed, Calvinists and Arminians, pietists and scholastics, Pentecostalists and cessationists, etc., certain positions have long been regarded as incompatible with evangelicalism. The present writer, therefore, while holding strongly to a confessional Reformed position and regarding it as the best available systematisation of the biblical data, would not wish to cast doubt upon the salvation of brethren whom he might regard as mistaken. Nevertheless, the term "evangelical" cannot be made so elastic that it loses shape altogether. Historically, for example, the Arians, Pelagians, Socinians, Unitarians and liberals were rejected as denying one or other of the central tenets of the faith; and the Roman Catholicscame under similar condemnation. However, ours is an age in which it appears to be permissible to allow all manner of modifications of the term "evangelical". We have heard of the term "liberal evangelicals", which appears to be a contradiction in terms, and now, following the rise of the charismatic movement within the Roman church almost thirty years ago, we even encounter the designation "evangelical Catholics". So how much further can we go?  Is the term "evangelical" simply an adjective which modifies a noun, i.e. which modifies the substantive essence to which the individual owes true allegiance? There is little doubt that Schleiermacher, working from within a Pietist tradition which had become evacuated of doctrine, regarded himself as orthodox and evangelical; yet he effectively redefined every essential doctrine and evangelicals refuted his arguments even while liberalism assaulted and eventually captured the citadel of the faith. It is not, therefore, possible to promote oneself as a Schleiermacheran evangelical! Yet this form of theological gymnastics is what many who call themselves evangelical are performing in our day; and it is the contention of this article that Clark Pinnock is representative of a growing number of theologians who claim the name "evangelical", but who have so subverted it that they are in reality engaged in the construction of a different theological edifice altogether. We now attempt an analysis of this new evangelicalism as represented by Pinnock.

Background
In trying to understand what has brought Pinnock to his current position of preeminence within the new evangelicalism it is necessary to search for clues in his own spiritual odyssey. And here we may identify three important factors¹: firstly, his abandonment of Calvinism in 1970 in favour of (initially) neo-Arminianism, secondly, his defection from allegiance to biblical inerrancy in the mid-seventies² and thirdly, his acknowledgement of the role of Pentecostalism which has grown from the framework of his own experience thirty years ago to his current endorsement of and participation in the Toronto Blessing movement³. Of these developments, some would say that Pinnock's move away from strict inerrancy has been of central importance, with all the subsequent "additional damaging concessions"⁴ predicted by Harold Lindsell flowing from this liberalisation of his earlier position.
    Three recent works in particular illuminate the current state of Pinnock's thinking. These are: A Wideness in God's Mercy, pub.Zondervan 1992; The Openness of God, co-authored with Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger, pub.IVP/Paternoster 1994; and Flame of Love, pub. IVP 1996. In addition, Pinnock's involvement in the Toronto Blessing raises a further series of questions as to his orthodoxy above and beyond those issuing from his published writings.

A Wideness In God's Mercy Or In Pinnock's Theology?
    The starting point of A Wideness in God's Mercy is the suggestion that it is time that evangelicals rethought the matter of the eternal destiny of the unevangelised⁵. Although he rejects the universalism of the liberal Bishop John Robinson (of Honest to God fame), the pluralism of John Hick (in The Myth of God Incarnate), and the inclusivism of the Roman Catholic Karl Rahner, his insistence that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone does not represent the traditional evangelical understanding. Instead, Pinnock sees general revelation and the illumination of Christ the Logos as offering the possibility of salvation by the light which they afford. In plain terms, Pinnock advocates the notion of "pagan saints", i.e. that some will be saved without hearing the gospel, and that others will have receive a post-mortem opportunity to receive salvation. By widening the scope of God's saving activity beyond what Scripture allows, Pinnock abandons evangelical exclusivism with regard to salvation, i.e. the biblical understanding that only those who respond to the gospel within the covenant dealings of God with His people are saved. So we must ask how different in reality Pinnock's view is from the "anonymous Christianity" of Rahner and Vatican II. In Pinnock, the Christian may not know he is such and may never have heard the saving truth of the gospel! At a stroke the missionary enterprise is rendered unnecessary and the door is left wide open for the inclusion of non-Christians in the believing community. Pinnock, the theologian of the new evangelicalism, merely pays lip-service to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ: he has re-made the scope of  salvation in the image of Roman Catholic inclusivism. He has succeeded in building one more bridge back to Rome. 

The Openness Of God Or Of New Evangelicalism?
      Following A Wideness in God's Mercy, Pinnock continued to innovate (or apostatise). His contribution to The Openness of God is a chapter entitled Systematic Theology⁶ in which he argues for a view of God known as free will theism. By this Pinnock means the notion that God does not foreknow, still less foreordain everything which comes to pass. As Robert Strimple has pointed out⁷ Pinnock therefore rejects the whole spectrum of views of God- from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism, Calvinism and even Arminianism. In Strimple's analysis, what Pinnock and his co-writers are proposing is actually Socinianism- a heresy which arose just after the time of the Reformation and which not only denied God's foreordination and foreknowledge of all things (Calvinism), but also the Arminian teaching that God only foreknows what will come to pass (after all, the Calvinists were at least consistent in teaching that God foreknows all things because He has foreordained them: the Arminians on the other hand were caught on the horns of an impossible dilemma). The Socinians therefore made God subject to the free decisions of men, insisting that He neither foreordains nor foreknows anything. Thus, however Pinnock may wish to dress up his new model theism, his view is a very close approximation to the old Socinian error which plagued orthodoxy (and which Spurgeon clearly identified as contributing to the eventual slide into liberalism⁸). In repristinating the Socinian error, Pinnock builds a bridge to a new liberalism which is incompatible with biblical orthodoxy.

Flame Of Love: A Theology Of The Spirit- But Which Spirit?
      Pinnock, having embraced Romanism with one arm and Socinianism with the other, has now turned his attention to the burning issue of the mid-nineties: the Holy Spirit. His recently-published book Flame of Love has appeared in the wake of the advent of the Toronto Blessing- and following Pinnock's own endorsement of the movement⁹.  Even on this level, then, his book is suspect from the outset, for, as has been amply documented, the Toronto movement and its various offshoots all have their roots in the involvement of Wimberite Vineyard pastors with obvious false teachers in the Word Faith camp, such as Benny Hinn, Rodney HowardBrowne and Kenneth Copeland. Yet Pinnock is able to commend the movement and one of its most notorious apologetic works, The Father's Blessing (published in Britain as Keep the Fire), by John Arnott (pastor of what was the Toronto Airport Vineyard church). Given the heresy of this movement, we should hardly expect Pinnock's new book to be orthodox either! And indeed it isn't.  Pinnock's view of the Spirit's operation reflects his concern that God should be released from the restrictions of traditional theologising. Thus he says that "God wishes to bring humanity into unity in Jesus Christ"¹⁰ and it is proper to "approach other faiths as possible sources of truth"¹¹ However, when he maintains that "Scripture should be read in the context of the church and its traditions'¹² we discern once again the spectre of Rome. And sure enough, Pinnock argues, as he must, that it is "time to call off the schism"¹³ i.e. it is right to dismantle the Reformation. With a new model papacy, non-Catholics could be welcomed home. Ecumenism, apparently in a moribund state, thus has new life breathed into it in this extraordinary work.
    Tragically, Pinnock has not written a book about the Holy Spirit, any more than he has described the true God of the Bible. Instead, this charismatic Socinian/Pelagian has thrown overboard the Scriptures and shown new evangelicals the way back to Rome. If others tread this path, apostasy will quicken, and the possibility of a confederate church under the dominion of Rome will come into view. It is a path which leads away from truth (authority for Pinnock is "ultimately charismatic"¹⁴) and towards the Church of Antichrist.
    Finally, this writer does not recognise the Jesus Christ Whom Pinnock describes. The Lord Who has borne my sins on the cross of Calvary and Whose righteousness has been credited to me is not the same person as the Christ Who was taken on a "representative journey' by the Spirit in order to alter the human situation, leaving men freely to choose salvation. I am not saved by Christ's 'representative journey'¹⁵ but by faith in His work in propitiating the wrath of God against my sinfulness and living on my behalf the righteous life which I could never live. In short, I do not need a representative, but a substitute, for otherwise I am still in my sins.
    All of Pinnock's departures from biblical orthodoxy in constructing the new evangelicalism are serious. But, when all is said and done, we see perhaps most clearly of all that it is the gospel that is at stake and thus also the very mission of the church. We should, therefore, see Pinnock for the false teacher which he is; the time has come for the gloves to come off in the fight against heresy in the evangelical camp.

Footnotes:
1. Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, p.429
2. The Bible in the Balance, pub.Zondervan, pp.36-43 3. Flame of Love, p.250/ Strange Fire, E.Wright, pub.Evangelical Press, p.40
4. The Bible in the Balance, p.43
5. I am indebted to Hywel Jones' comprehensive and timely rebuttal of Pinnock in Only One Way, pub.Day One
6. The Openness of God, pp.101-125
7. The Coming Evangelical Crisis, ed.J.Armstrong, pub.Moody, p.139
8. The 'Down Grade' Controversy, C.H.Spurgeon, pub.Pilgrim
9. Flame of Love, p.250
10. ibid., p.217
11. ibid., p.217
12. ibid., pp.234-5
13. ibid., p.237
l4 .ibid., p.232
l5 .ibid.; p.95