Featured An Extract From An A.W. Pink Sermon In Australia In 1927

More "taint so" posts denying the obvious. A. W. Pink was a deeply flawed bible student. His idea was to be a bait and switch salesman, tell the unconverted one thing and leave out the rest. The old preach like a Arminian but believe like a Calvinist dodge. Hide the cognitive dissonance of Calvinism by only preaching one of two mutually exclusive points.

 

Most view Pink as being one who taught solid doctrines, so what would you be objecting to ?

 

Thinkl Pink theolog ymuch more bilical than Van!

 

More bash the messenger, and dodge the message posts.

A. W. Pink was a deeply flawed bible student. His idea was to be a bait and switch salesman, tell the unconverted one thing and leave out the rest. The old preach like a Arminian but believe like a Calvinist dodge. Hide the cognitive dissonance of Calvinism by only preaching one of two mutually exclusive points.

Why object to half truths. Because half truths are not truths.

 

That old time preaching has, in the world of those turned over to Reprobate Minds, no hold on the logic that is truly there. Pink made his points and they stuck but today, people thirst but preachers worry over numbers instead of trusting in God.

 

A. W. Pink has been exposed in the first 4 posts of this thread as one who advocates presenting one part of the truth and omitting the rest. This is the path of ear ticklers. Tell people that are responsible when you believe they are unable to respond. Fiddlesticks.

 

Pink preached and taught strong calvinism, so no tickling there!

 

Calvinist preachers are ear ticklers, telling their flock what they want to hear, and hiding the rest. We are to live by the word, not live by selected and misinterpreted parts of the word.

 

What? Of course one can tickle hearers with stuff like that:

Charles Spurgeon, "A Sincere Summary—And a Searching Scrutiny"