Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Frogman, Apr 24, 2003.
I agree with Bro. Pink.
Here's another quote from A.W. Pink that strikes at the very heart of Arminianism and rips it out:
"How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of a maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellow men are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity: is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying his best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being."
Now why don't they preach that way in the modern churches... Afraid someone might be offended?... Good maybe that's what they need... In the realm of "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God"... I like Pink
Isaiah 56: His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte
Very sad that a quotation with absolutely no Scriptural reference or support somehow rips out the heart of Arminianism. You must place rhetoric in quite a high regard.
I am sorry, Scott, that every post that hits hard at the credibility of Arminianism is not a 1000 page tome with 50 Scripture references.
Look, if you want a formal debate without the rhetoric, chocked full of Scripture references as has been talked about before, then let's set it up - you and me, mano a mano. Are you up to it?
According to this article (written from a Calvinist perspective); you and AW Pink are Hyper Calvinists.
Pink was more cordial than either Isaiah or Jeremiah.
According to this article (written from a Calvinist perspective); you and AW Pink are Hyper Calvinists.
Jacob. </font>[/QUOTE]I have read that article and I believe that is only a label given by those who do not understand the Sovereignty of God. I have no quarrel with Phil Johnson, but I do not agree fully with his assessment. If that makes me hyper-calvinist then I guess you are right. It seems to me he complains in that article that everytime reformed evangelism makes headway, hyper-calvinism undermines it. What we must realize is that it is neither reformed nor calvinistic, nor is it hyper-calvinistic; but it is the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. If proclaiming the Gospel of the Son of God and permitting the Spirit to move those who are elect, and NOT begging and pleading during the entirety of the sermon that men may believe, then you are correct. But even Spurgeon, celebrated as the Prince of Preachers was noted as saying that he never stepped into the pulpit hoping that someone would make a choice for Christ; but that the Holy Spirit would move upon them and then they would repent and believe and then they would know the power of God and not the emotionalism of man.
We forget that Christ has the keys of hell and of Death; we forget that it is Christ that opens and no man can shut and shuts and no man can open. If remembering these make me hyper-calvinist then I cannot deny it nor do I wish to.
Arthur Pink's early writings reflected the highest of high-Calvinist opinion. Some have suggested that Pink was flirting with (or even embraced) a kind of hyper-Calvinism. Certain hyper-Calvinist tendencies certainly marred some of his earlier works. For example, Pink's well-known and mostly helpful book on the sovereignty of God originally included material (later edited out of the Banner of Truth edition) denying that God loves all His creatures—particularly the reprobate. According to Pink, God's hatred for non-elect sinners allows for no disposition toward them that can properly be called "love."
Pink's denial of the love of God toward the reprobate set him at odds with Calvin, Flavel, Charnock, Manton, and most of the Puritans. But in Pink's later ministry, he encountered a virulent strain of hyper-Calvinism, promoted by the "Gospel Standard" churches in England. The Gospel Standard articles of faith deny that it is the duty of every sinner to repent and believe in Christ.
In the article below, Pink argues against the "Gospel Standard" error, pointing out that if God commands all sinners to repent and believe in Christ, then faith is their duty and unbelief is a sin. In support of this position Pink cites many writers who, ironically, would have differed with Pink on the love of God for the non-elect. (One is tempted to point out that if the more mature Pink had simply reexamined his own position on God's love in the same way he urged his readers to evaluate the "duty-faith" controversy—by Scripture, not bare "reason"; and by considering the wisdom of our Puritan forebears—Pink himself might have abandoned his insistence that God's demeanor toward the reprobate must be utterly devoid of any kind of love.) Notice also that Pink, quoting Calvin, affirms an important truth denied by many later Twentieth-Century hyper-Calvinists: that divine mercy is offered to all, indiscriminately, in the gospel.
Here is a link to an interesting article, although I don't think it'll really please anyone here.
Hope everyone will take a moment or two to read it anyway.
ARMINIANISM v CALVINISM
You are correct enda, I did not care much for the work. Here is why, the author, in his zeal to defeat Pink's position aligns himself with the Arminian position he began with denying as truth. Note the words I have placed in bold. I think that Arminians are too quick to assume that 'limited atonement' means an elite group which calvinists attempt to identify or define. The 'elect' of God is just that, they are numbered by Him, they are known by Him and they are called and regenerated by Him. None other, most especially the depraved will of man is able to perform that work which is in the regenerated heart.
I do not think A.W. Pink would state anything but this. It is error to attack writings such as this as heresy simply because he states that God only loves the 'saints.' Is this eternally not true?
The author asks what condition were 'believers' in when the scriptures such as John 3 were spoken; these were in the eternal view of God, justified in Christ; it is impossible to see it in any other way. This is a doctrine that is conducive to the preaching of the Gospel, and not to its being hidden or refused to any hearer. What we refuse is to 'make by the power of man' believers. We desire only they who are moved by the Spirit, all others would be unregenerated except and until the Lord would be pleased to move upon them.
I am reading it
Would someone show me the scripture to support this? Thanks. Again this shows a hasty effort to refute a truth of Scripture.
Not attacking you enda, just refuting the article.
[ April 25, 2003, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]
Nowhere do those who agree with Pink, nor did Pink deny the need of preaching the Gospel, I know I do not deny this need. If you will look at the scriptures given as reference speaking of Phillip, Paul, etc. you will note that in all cases of presenting the Gospel this is what is done, that when men became moved to ask what must they do, then the preacher(s) give instruction. We have conditioned men to think it is by the act of the preacher opening the altar to man that they have the opportunity to repent. Not so, this is false and contrary to Scripture.
Thanks for reading the article and for the good points you have made so far. As you know it's a long article and I appreciate that you're taking time to deal with it.
I was hoping you would respond in the way that you have. I havn't read all the article myself, I just read some sections of it.
There was one particular part which I did find interesting and this is why I posted the link.
I'm not sure I would disagree with what is being said here.
What do you think about this, I thought the reference to Christ in the synagogue was quite good (last line). Also Job 36:5.
I've never read any of Arthur Pink's books, although this particular book has been recommended to me by a friend.
I really appreciate your depth of knowledge on the doctrines of grace, I would consider myself a five point calvinist but I've only been saved three years and wouldn't have the same depth of knowledge that you would have.
I hope you don't think that I posted this article to attack either yourself or Calvinism. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on some of the points that were made.
He is apparently referring to eternal Hell (Gehenna) while Pink was using the common reference to Hades as the same as eternal Hell.
With the exception of denying Limited Atonement, this position sounds a lot like what many Calvinists here, as well as gty.org have been arguing. (the discaliming of "hyper-Calvinism, yet still rejecting Arminianism). I guess he must be an Amyraldian.
Let me know when.
Here is a link to the Sovereignty of God on-line
You can use the back buttons provided to other works of Pink; as well as Gill and others. Thanks for your kind words. Here is a quote from Mr. Pink that I think is often overlooked by many in our day, myself included:
A.W. Pink: 1889-1952
"To be strong in grace, is to be weak in sin. It is vitally essential to remember that we need to have our strength and courage renewed daily. Be strong in the Lord: seek His strength at the beginning of each day-"they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength" (Isa 40:31). God does not impart strength to us wholesale: He will not give me strength Monday morning to last through the week. No, there has to be the renewing of our strength, and that strength has to be drawn from the Lord by the actings of faith, appropriating from His "fullness." The enemies we have to contend with cannot be overcome by human wisdom and might. Unless we go forth to the conflict continually looking to Christ for all needed supplies of grace, deriving all our vitality from Him, we are sure to be defeated.".
(From "The Christian's Armour")
I understand that Mr. Pink was a man, just as I am; and in this capacity we are unable to understand the Doctrines of Grace to a satisfactory depth. But my heart rejoices in these Doctrines yet in the flesh I tremble before the Lord. I will look at your last post and answer, I believe the excerpt you provided is just after where I quit reading last night. But I have every intention of completing the work and offering my critique, for what it is worth. The author of the review is certainly entitled to his view but this does not disenfranchise my own.
I was raised Arminian and I find it difficult to have the confidence in God under that teaching that He will save the lost; instead I found that the teaching always displaced God and instead substituted works of man. By this I mean the common saying that 'if we don't go_______they won't be saved' this statement is incorrect. I learned this when I had a strong burden to enter into the mission field and the burdened land on my heart was Bhutan, in studying this nation I learned that brethren from Northern India are evangelizing this closed country and that the word of God is not bound. This is not to say that some day I will not be in Bhutan; but it is proof enough for me that my presence is not necessary for the salvation of any. I can say that because I have also read e-mails to a mission Board on-line from brethren in India requesting that men be sent that are able to establish and organize 'Baptist' churches. This is in line with John 21 and the command given to Peter. We must realize that God is able to save those who are His in His way and then follows baptism and then the teaching of all that Jesus commanded. Too many make the commission to be as though their only concern is the salvation of men; while this is a major concern, this is the work of God, the work of the church is to send men out who are called of God to these various places for the feeding of the flock. (Acts 19; and 20 will also show this I believe).
At any rate, thanks for your kind words and I ask your prayers for an humble heart in myself that submission to His will would always be my purpose.
I will respond to this and to the reference in Job as well as to Christ in the Synagogue.
The above excerpt seems to me to be ultimately holding the view that God would not be able to sustain the condemnation of the lost sinner for an eternity, for at some point He must recognize His great love for even these and thus would release them from their eternal separation from Himself. It views the 'judicial anger' and the 'hatred' of God toward sin as one and the same. The former is thus that the object of the judicial anger is the resurrected body of the lost person; the second is truthful concerning the response of God toward sin; it is not that the hatred is against the man; the same would be felt of all men were it not for the atonement (covering) of Christ. The difficulty IMHO is such that we as men cannot understand, or rightly separate condemnation justly so rewarded from emotional feelings of hatred. This is not the case with God. For those who I have come into contact who are seemingly hardened in their sins are welcoming the idea of spending eternity in the lake of fire if it means this world is their 'peach'. Those men who ultimately are consigned to this condemnation then would rightly 'deserve' the just anger of God as well as His hatred. They have no interest in a moral life, this would make an end to their drunkeness, adulteries, and whatsoever sin they are indulged in. And then we as the creature try to pawn off on God the injustice of condemning such men who happily live in open rebellion against Him. This is where the injustice is found. Again, IMHO. We can hope the Gospel message by the Spirit of Holiness will overtake these persons, but we have no right to usher them into the body of the Lord expecting that such a move will effectually deliver them. And we have no right to excuse them and to blame God because they are bound in their sinful natures.
I will answer Job 36.5 in another post as well as the scenario of Jesus in the synagogue. I decided to do this to keep each post as short and readable as possible.
Here is another article I thought we may read and discuss together:
Whatever you guys think. If this is improper pertaining to the purposes and format of the C/A forum please inform me; just thought perhaps this might be interesting.