What in the world is Pink talking about???

Thanks for the list. I now have a list of false teachers to definitely avoid!

 

Robert,you're getting to be rather predictable.

 

To this portion of your post, you will get a hearty AMEN from this "nut" from the "peanut gallery".....

 

or am I not seeing fully what those holding to such see as being derived from the biblical texts regarding God and man and salvation?

 

I'm not sure that Calvinism disagrees with non-Calvinism apart from how things are worded.

In the beginning, all humans were created without sin and with the intention of eternal spiritual life.

When the Bible speaks of some being fit for damnation, I don't see it saying they were created, as in the creation sense of being made, for destruction. It says they are FIT for destruction, doesn't it?
Then sin entered in, not of God, but by the choice of humans.
God then sent a sacrifice fit for the salvation of all, but faith is a gift. He then chose who would receive that gift.

Unless one wants to claim that Ephesians is false and faith is not a gift, one must conclude that since not all have faith, not all received the gift of faith, meaning God doesn't grant that gift to all. You can't be saved without belief and you can't believe without faith, yet faith comes from God alone. It is very clearly stated that it is not of man.

I don't see "respector of persons" as having any bearing on your argument. When Christ came to earth, he treated the rich and the poor, the sick and the well, with equality. Look at the people given the gift of faith. There are murderers and prostitutes, there are intellectuals and politicians. In the context Paul speaks of, he gives his personal opinion that among those in the church, one shouldn't be given preference over another, we're all the same in God's eyes. All sons and daughters of the promise, all brothers and sisters in Christ. Humans have a tendency to look on certain people as "better" than others. That's a short, obvious thought...if the mayor of your city and a prostitute fresh from prison both walked into your church, it is human nature to greet the mayor with much respect and feel proud that he is visiting your church. People may also greet and show kindness to the prostitute, but I can guarantee that inside, most feel as if they're doing the prostitute a favor by making an outward display of acceptance and patting themselves on the back for it. We're warned against that sort of mindset in Scripture.

 

Understanding the ruminations of A.W. Pink

Here is what he said:

Now all will acknowledge that from the foundation of the world God certainly foreknew and foresaw who would and who would not receive Christ as their Saviour, therefore in giving being and birth to those He knew would reject Christ, He necessarily created them unto damnation. All that can be said in reply to this is, No, while God did foreknow these would reject Christ, yet He did not decree that they should. But this is a begging of the real question at issue. God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific purpose why He created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures, He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If then He foresaw that in creating a certain person that that person would despise and reject the Saviour, yet knowing this beforehand He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again; faith is God's gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Without faith there is no salvation--"He that believeth not shall be damned"-hence if there were some of Adam's descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith, it must be because He ordained that they should be damned.

Lets take it a bit at a time and compare to actual scripture:

Now all will acknowledge Sophistry, claiming something is true based on general acceptance of the view. The first of many logical fallacies.

from the foundation of the world God this is a gloss, what he actually means is before the foundation of the world, which is consistent with Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peter 1:20. What scripture actually says is Christ was known as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world, hence He was chosen before the foundation of the world, and that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

God certainly foreknew and foresaw The Greek words translated foreknew and foreknowledge refer to knowledge obtained or formulated in the past and being used in the present. The words have absolutely nothing to do with foreseeing anything other than what God determined to bring about.

who would and who would not receive Christ as their Saviour, This would be true if God had chosen "us" as individuals before the foundation of the world, but not necessarily true if God chose us corporately before the foundation of the world, because when God chose His Redeemer, He corporately chose those His Redeemer would redeem, hence, He chose us in Him....

therefore in giving being and birth to those He knew would reject Christ, When God creates us individually, if He had predetermined we would not receive mercy, then we were damned from eternity for eternity and nothing we do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones.

He necessarily created them unto damnation. Yes that is true if Calvinism is true.

All that can be said in reply to this is, No, while God did foreknow these would reject Christ, yet He did not decree that they should. Here we see the typical word game dance, God decreed who would receive mercy and decreed that the fall would result in everyone who does not receive mercy goes to damnation, but did not decree that they should.

But this is a begging of the real question at issue. God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific purpose why He created this and that individual, This statement is true, but it is no mystery, God created mankind for His glory.

and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures, He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Yet another logical necessity of the premise that God chose us individually before the foundation of the world.

If then He foresaw that in creating a certain person that that person would despise and reject the Saviour, yet knowing this beforehand He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Yet another logical necessity of the underlying false premise that God chose us individually before the foundation of the world.

Again; faith is God's gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Now Pink is building his layer cake, first the false premise, and now the effort to alter biblical truth to provide a mechanism whereby only the supposedly previously chosen folks can trust in Jesus, i.e the gift of irresistible grace. Never mind that Paul tells us that our faith in Christ provides our access to God's grace. Skip that verse and dozens more.

Without faith there is no salvation--"He that believeth not shall be damned"-hence if there were some of Adam's descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith, it must be because He ordained that they should be damned. Yet another logical necessity of the false premise, if God chose us individually before the foundation of the world, we were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing we do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones.

 

Who knows? It all depends on how Pink defines decreed versus ordained. Trying to nail down Calvinists on word definitions is like trying to catch a smoke ring with a butterfly net.

 

Try thinking of it this way.

You are driving to church and you run out of gas because you didn't have enough money to put gas in it.

God knew it was going to happen.
You were told it was going to happen.

It's still your fault.

God ordained (nothing can happen if it isn't, it basically means permitted) but didn't decree it. There is a difference between God allowing natural consequences and God causing the event the allowed the consequences.

It would be pretty cool if yeah, God came in and rescued us all the time from everything bad.
He doesn't.
It doesn't mean he should.
Not anymore than he *should* do anything else.

It's not right of us to decide what divine acts are fair, saying what is okay for God to do and not do, then draw our theology from that. We have to base it simply on what is, without trying to limit ourselves to a god that fits without the tiny frame of experiential reference we have going on in our minds.

 

I haven't been able to figure out why God's election based on foreseen faith is necessary at all. Looks like the person elected themselves.

 

This is where the humanistic view of fairness comes into play. Adam and Eve sinned, causing the fall and thus making all humans unable to be in the presence of God. Dead.
Nope, doesn't sound fair to me either, but it is what it is. God gave them a choice, they screwed up, now their sin affects everyone else. Totally stinks, I agree. It's another thing to blame God though. Instead of letting everyone remain dead, He gave the gift of Christ's death and resurrection and then in His mercy, chose to gift some people with faith.
We can all scream how unfair God is, but again, it's Scripture. God says faith is a gift that comes from God. Scripture says that God chooses who He gives faith to. I didn't write it. Pink didn't write it. My neighbor didn't write it. No matter how unfair we think it is, it remains what it is.

Sovereignty means power over all things. ALL things. If we put our conditions of fairness out there and say we have control over who He is merciful enough to give the gift of faith to when He said that is His choice, aren't we denying God's sovereignty?

We're not told to question doctrine. That is never stated in Romans 9, but it does imply that it is out of order for the created to question the Creator about why some vessels were made for honor or dishonor, since He alone has the choice.

I agree. God is loving. God is just. Perhaps what we all need to work on is seeing love and justice from a more spiritual view.
Or just really think about what man's honest view of justice is.
In man's view of justice, if you break a law, you break a law. You don't ask the judge to love you and not give you a free pass because you grew up and became old enough to be held legally responsible for your crimes. You can say "but I saw you give so and so no time" and you don't know the whole story, but you saw it in court records and find it unfair that He looked at your case and said "nope, you're going to go ahead and pay for what you did."

God's way seems much more loving. He takes pity on who he takes pity for his own reasons, which no, we don't understand but are told to have faith that God is just and told that we will one day see clearly and understand.

We just gotta believe that.

I find life very unfair sometimes. In my mind, there are times when I question why I should have to follow Christian concepts when I don't want to or when someone else is at fault and I don't feel as if I am. Why should I humble myself before someone who did me wrong and love them? I really hate that sometimes, although being right with God ends up being worth it. Still, sometimes I still hold a grudge that I had to do it and there's still a thing or two out there that makes me really angry and I still get upset that I had to do what the Bible said.

So...gotta remind myself often that one day I'll get it. That God makes all things work out right in the end. ALL THINGS. Even the things we don't understand, the things we feel are vastly unfair. God's word has to stand above our own personal feelings. You can look around the world and see what happens when people don't value God's word, His law, above their own thoughts and feelings. How many times do you hear people say "God made me this way and God is love, so it must be okay," even when it directly defies God's word? A LOT. Tons. It's the rallying cry of people who want have it both ways...their and God's so they come up with some convoluted definition of what God *really* meant when what He said was plain as day.

Just go with God, that's it, and have faith that one day we'll understand the why of it all.

 

remember that when discussing biblical Election...

God does this on an individual basis for the NT saints, elected on a corporate basis, national, in OT..

And one must decide on this question...

Does the Bible support the basis of the election being based upon our faith in Jesus, or by the Will of God Himself determing it?

 

Or in other words does God elect some to go to heaven and some to go to hell, OR does God allow all men to elect themselves (choose) to either go to heaven by having faith in Jesus or to go to hell because they will not believe in Jesus.

Just asking for any and all to answer. Where is it written that God went from electing on a corporate/national basis to an individual basis.
To our knowledge from the word of God, Abram was the only one elected at the time of his calling and he became the nation of election however that did not include the children of his oldest son but the children of his only begotten. ref. Heb.11:17 for only begotten.

How do we know that the ones spoken of in Rom. 8:29 "he did foreknow" are not the children of those spoken of in Amos 3:1,2 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

Compare these, "he did foreknow" with the passage from Amos and with this stated in 1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Just who were these people in Corinth whose fathers were under the cloud and passed through the sea?

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

 

We might (rightly) make the argument that the totality of Scripture is at the very least a prime example of God's electing capacity. Over and again, starting with the very first pages, God demonstrates that He elects whom He choses, even when those elections fly in the face of other rules, laws, traditions, etc. From the multiple times when He skipped the first born son to elect another child to be the one recieving the covenant blessing to the NT examples of selection for disciples, including Saul/Paul. Election may be THE underlying doctrine that brings together the entirety of the scriptures and gives us a theme to understand them (and that contra "dispensations" or "covenants" neither of which does a very good job of laying an outline to the complete Word).

 

Just curious, was/is there a systematic/biblcal theology that was written on this concept/premise?
Was thinking along the lines of say Walter Kaiser and the promise of God contained in the OT towards His people?

same fashion, that divine election of His people being a central theme of Bible?

 

I know of one in the works, but it is not ready for publication yet. I've studied through that good doctor's work. It is very well done and will likely alter the state of biblical theology once published. It deals with and eliminates many of the fatal flaws in both dispensationalist and covenantalist views, neither of which adequately work to anchor the whole of Scripture under one theme.