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.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
An Extract From An A.W. Pink Sermon In Australia In 1927
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
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.
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.
Van, no matter how many times you repeat falsehoods --they still remain falsehoods.
What you need to do, to establish the least bit of credibility, is to do what I advised already.
Go to the first four posts of this thread and make rebuttals to your heart's content line by line.
But simply throwing out nastiness is not being factual, specific or nice.
What you need to do, to establish the least bit of credibility, is to do what I advised already.
Go to the first four posts of this thread and make rebuttals to your heart's content line by line.
But simply throwing out nastiness is not being factual, specific or nice.
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.
What? Of course one can tickle hearers with stuff like that:
Charles Spurgeon, "A Sincere Summary—And a Searching Scrutiny"