• 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!

Arthur W. Pink, HyperCalvinist

ParticularWife

Active Member
I'm not a fan of Leighton Flowers' ministry, but he has made a couple of points that my low Calvinist friends have not effectively responded to. One is that many of the beliefs they present as 'HyperCalvinist' are found in major Calvinist theologians (including John Calvin) they never dare to call hyper-Calvinists.
Arthur W. Pink emphasized that the gospel should be preached selectively, primarily to those who exhibit signs of being under conviction of sin. He believed that offering the gospel indiscriminately would misrepresent God's sovereign election. The Sovereignty of God clearly implies that God does not love everyone, but is Sovereign over everything.
HyperCalvinism either only applies to tiny, non-Evangelical groups that nobody can even name, or it's just Calvinism taken to places that make you uncomfortable.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
"Ultimately, if you affirm that every aspect of salvation is accomplished entirely by Christ alone because of God’s sovereign grace alone and experienced solely through the gift of faith, you will probably at some point in your life be labeled a hyper-calvinist. At first this charge might cause you grief because you might have and probably have heard a lot of bad stuff concerning “hyper-calvinism.” You might have heard that there are “mean old hypers” that don’t believe in preaching the gospel at all. It is true there have been some people in history who have made this mistake. There are others who have turned God’s grace into a cause for lasciviousness as well as some who have stated that men are saved to glorification but not necessarily the experience of salvation in time. These are ugly errors that should draw the charge of false doctrine, but not necessarily hyper-calvinism. Almost all of the authors I admire: John Gill, J.C. Philpot, William Gadsby, William Huntington, Augustus Toplady, Gilbert Beebe and Silas Durand to name a few are considered by most to have been hyper-calvinists, but none as far as I’m concerned stood by the errors previously mentioned. These men were honorable Gospel stewards and deserve our respect, and to be numbered amongst them is in my mind to be considered an honor. So while I specifically don’t approve of the label, “hyper-calvinist,” as I personally do not believe that the doctrines of grace have any business being named after a man, I am honored to be known as such. That is my confession, and I call upon all who agree with the doctrines briefly described in this paper to make this confession as well."

- excerpt from "Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist", by Brandan Kraft, link to article: Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist - Brandan Kraft
 

ParticularWife

Active Member
"Ultimately, if you affirm that every aspect of salvation is accomplished entirely by Christ alone because of God’s sovereign grace alone and experienced solely through the gift of faith, you will probably at some point in your life be labeled a hyper-calvinist. At first this charge might cause you grief because you might have and probably have heard a lot of bad stuff concerning “hyper-calvinism.” You might have heard that there are “mean old hypers” that don’t believe in preaching the gospel at all. It is true there have been some people in history who have made this mistake. There are others who have turned God’s grace into a cause for lasciviousness as well as some who have stated that men are saved to glorification but not necessarily the experience of salvation in time. These are ugly errors that should draw the charge of false doctrine, but not necessarily hyper-calvinism. Almost all of the authors I admire: John Gill, J.C. Philpot, William Gadsby, William Huntington, Augustus Toplady, Gilbert Beebe and Silas Durand to name a few are considered by most to have been hyper-calvinists, but none as far as I’m concerned stood by the errors previously mentioned. These men were honorable Gospel stewards and deserve our respect, and to be numbered amongst them is in my mind to be considered an honor. So while I specifically don’t approve of the label, “hyper-calvinist,” as I personally do not believe that the doctrines of grace have any business being named after a man, I am honored to be known as such. That is my confession, and I call upon all who agree with the doctrines briefly described in this paper to make this confession as well."

- excerpt from "Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist", by Brandan Kraft, link to article: Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist - Brandan Kraft
It never really bothered me because I grew up in it. I never had the prior that lead people to hand wring about it. Frankly, I think it's mostly a psychological aversion to rejecting the liberal culture today, which insists everyone is an autonomous being with independent goodness. The purpose of human life is to glorify God.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
It never really bothered me because I grew up in it.

I was born and raised in the Pelaganism of the Church of Christ. The Lord graciously spent about 30 years moving me from the Church of Christ and other false gospels(reading The Sovereignty of God in the late 1990s was a big part of that) until He graciously placed me under the hearing of the gospel of Christ in mid-2021.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Ultimately, if you affirm that every aspect of salvation is accomplished entirely by Christ alone because of God’s sovereign grace alone and experienced solely through the gift of faith, you will probably at some point in your life be labeled a hyper-calvinist. At first this charge might cause you grief because you might have and probably have heard a lot of bad stuff concerning “hyper-calvinism.” You might have heard that there are “mean old hypers” that don’t believe in preaching the gospel at all. It is true there have been some people in history who have made this mistake. There are others who have turned God’s grace into a cause for lasciviousness as well as some who have stated that men are saved to glorification but not necessarily the experience of salvation in time. These are ugly errors that should draw the charge of false doctrine, but not necessarily hyper-calvinism. Almost all of the authors I admire: John Gill, J.C. Philpot, William Gadsby, William Huntington, Augustus Toplady, Gilbert Beebe and Silas Durand to name a few are considered by most to have been hyper-calvinists, but none as far as I’m concerned stood by the errors previously mentioned. These men were honorable Gospel stewards and deserve our respect, and to be numbered amongst them is in my mind to be considered an honor. So while I specifically don’t approve of the label, “hyper-calvinist,” as I personally do not believe that the doctrines of grace have any business being named after a man, I am honored to be known as such. That is my confession, and I call upon all who agree with the doctrines briefly described in this paper to make this confession as well."

- excerpt from "Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist", by Brandan Kraft, link to article: Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist - Brandan Kraft
Apparently I am as well … I do like Gill and I’m now studying Beebe.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
HyperCalvinism either only applies to tiny, non-Evangelical groups that nobody can even name, or it's just Calvinism taken to places that make you uncomfortable.
First of all, just to clear things up from your response on another thread, even Ken's article linked above has eternal justification listed as a "normal" tendency of those labeled hyper-Calvinist.
One is that many of the beliefs they present as 'HyperCalvinist' are found in major Calvinist theologians (including John Calvin) they never dare to call hyper-Calvinists.
Calvin is tough to evaluate because he did indeed have a very strong view of the predestination of everything, and said so. But he also said some things about John 3:16 for example that go directly against the tendency of some modern, strong Calvinists who start messing with the meaning of "all" and "world". Calvin did not seem to do that. He also said some things regarding the atonement that causes people to speculate on whether he really held to a "limited" atonement.

The best example of a strong high-Calvinist that I know of is John Owen. After all, he wrote the definitive work defending limited atonement and not only is his work excellent but the argument he used, could easily be dovetailed into the concept of some level of actual justification occurring at the time of the cross or maybe even before that. So why do I like him so much and why doesn't his level of Calvinism make me uncomfortable?

Because he also said that whenever the attributes of Christ and the gospel is preached it is usually accompanied by an "invitation". And the offer was real and actual. He taught that a man, on his own, by his own powers of reason, can attend to the means of salvation, the hearing of the word, the sacraments, and preaching, and make it much more likely that the Holy Spirit will save him. He said that he had a warrant to declare that anyone who hears the gospel and comes to Christ will be received by Christ and saved. He also said that Christ cannot do anything for you if you will not believe.

I can give you specific references to all the things listed above if you want. Does that answer your question about why I don't consider even high-Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists?

I don't know much about Pink.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
even Ken's article linked above has eternal justification listed as a "normal" tendency of those labeled hyper-Calvinist.

I know believers of the gospel of Christ(those labeled hyper-Calvinists, for the purpose of this thread) who hold to the various commonly accepted ideas on the timing of the justification of God's elect - from eternity, at the cross, at the point of God-given faith.

Unfortunately, a few of them go to an extreme and think that if one does not accept their particular viewpoint on the timing of justification, then he is not saved. Personally, while I hold to justification from eternity, I find merit in all three positions and, when pressed on the issue, will state that I think all three positions are correct and that one's particular position on the issue of the timing of justification is not salvific; it is not necessary to even take a position on the issue, as it is quite sufficient to simply understand and believe that God justifies the ungodly(Romans 4:5).
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of Leighton Flowers' ministry, but he has made a couple of points that my low Calvinist friends have not effectively responded to.
Flowers puzzles me because he claims that he was once a Calvinist and seems to indicate that this was at a time when he was at a teaching level. Yet he sometimes displays a level of ignorance of the various differences within Calvinism that makes you wonder if that was really the case. As you noticed in your OP above, he makes charges that he could not possibly not know the answer to if he ever had any understanding of Calvinism.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I know believers of the gospel of Christ(those labeled hyper-Calvinists, for the purpose of this thread) who hold to the various commonly accepted ideas on the timing of the justification of God's elect - from eternity, at the cross, at the point of God-given faith.

Unfortunately, a few of them go to an extreme and think that if one does not accept their particular viewpoint on the timing of justification, then he is not saved. Personally, while I hold to justification from eternity, I find merit in all three positions and, when pressed on the issue, will state that I think all three positions are correct and that one's particular position on the issue of the timing of justification is not salvific; it is not necessary to even take a position on the issue, as it is quite sufficient to simply understand and believe that God justifies the ungodly(Romans 4:5).
Very true Ken. @ParticularWife had brought up a point in another active thread and I was thinking of that article you linked but couldn't find it so when I saw it on this thread I had to mention it. I should have linked the reference back to the other thread since you were not involved in that discussion and I apologize for that.
 

ParticularWife

Active Member
Unfortunately, a few of them go to an extreme and think that if one does not accept their particular viewpoint on the timing of justification, then he is not saved.
This is not even hyperCalvinism, it's justification by soteriology. We are not saved by having the correct formula of Bavinck, and thankfully so, or Paul would be out of luck!
Flowers puzzles me because he claims that he was once a Calvinist and seems to indicate that this was at a time when he was at a teaching level.
Flowers public ministry (and I will only say this because it's a public ministry, I must emphasize I know nothing about him personally and have never interacted with him) is highly emotional, eclectic, and not very charitable. I don't know enough about him to say what he does or should know based on his background, but since he knows James White I don't know how he can still get so much wrong. I know some people don't always agree with White, but he does present a pretty clear, historical view of Calvinistic theology that most Reformed could assent to.
My biggest problem with Flowers is not that he disagrees with Calvinists or that his arguments are poor, it's that he is clearly hostile to Calvinism in precisely the way he characterizes Calvinists being to others.
His debate performance last year was, in my opinion, very poor. I knew many students in Moscow, feral Presbyterians, could argue Arminianism better than he did.
 

ParticularWife

Active Member
Because he also said that whenever the attributes of Christ and the gospel is preached it is usually accompanied by an "invitation". And the offer was real and actual.
God’s purpose is to glorify Himself through the election of some to eternal life in Christ and the passing over of others. This eternal decree, established before creation and the fall, ordains salvation for the elect and reprobation for the rest. Scripture supports this truth: He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world... to the praise of the glory of his grace (Ephesians 1:4-6), and Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated... that the purpose of God according to election might stand (Romans 9:11-22).

The concept of a “well-meant offer” is incompatible with this doctrine. The idea that God desires the salvation of all creates dissonance in His will. If God decreed the reprobation of some, He cannot sincerely will their salvation without contradicting His nature. Such a view undermines the distinctiveness of election, suggesting a universal salvific desire not supported by Scripture: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (John 6:37), and I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me (John 17:9).

John Robbins observed that claiming God sincerely desires what He has eternally determined not to accomplish portrays Him as changeable, contrary to with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning (James 1:17). The gospel call is universal in proclamation but specific in effectiveness, fulfilling its purpose only in the elect through the Holy Spirit’s work (Who hath saved us... according to his own purpose and grace, 2 Timothy 1:9-10).

The gospel is not a general invitation but a means to gather the chosen to their inheritance, to the glory of God. The particularity of God’s redemptive plan shows that His grace is directed solely to the elect. While Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, it is efficacious only for those chosen by God. This truth, rooted in Scripture, upholds the mystery of predestination and the sovereignty of divine grace.

Abraham Booth, in The Reign of Grace (1771), affirmed that Christ’s death was sufficient to save all but intended only for the elect. Booth rejected the notion of a mere potential atonement or one dependent on human cooperation. He argued that a “well-meant offer” contradicts the purpose of Christ’s death: if Christ died only for the elect, how could salvation be sincerely offered to the non-elect? Such an offer misrepresents the design of Christ’s atonement and diminishes God’s sovereignty.

This distinction between the external call of the gospel (the general proclamation) and the internal, effectual call of the Holy Spirit is vital. The external call does not express a desire for all to be saved but serves as the appointed means for gathering the elect. The saving purpose of God remains fixed, glorifying Him through the salvation of His chosen people.

References and Further Reading
 
Last edited:

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
Because he also said that whenever the attributes of Christ and the gospel is preached it is usually accompanied by an "invitation". And the offer was real and actual. He taught that a man, on his own, by his own powers of reason, can attend to the means of salvation, the hearing of the word, the sacraments, and preaching, and make it much more likely that the Holy Spirit will save him. He said that he had a warrant to declare that anyone who hears the gospel and comes to Christ will be received by Christ and saved. He also said that Christ cannot do anything for you if you will not believe.

"Obj. 5. The doctrine of election represents God as insincere.
He invites all man to participate in the blessings of the gospel
;
and yet, if this doctrine is true, the blessings of the gospel are not designed for all.

"If God's word teaches the doctrine of election, and if it contains commands or invitations to all men to seek salvation through Christ, it is highly presumptuous in us to charge God with insincerity, because we cannot reconcile the two things with each other. We ought to remember that we are worms of the dust, and that it is criminal arrogance in us to judge and condemn the infinite God. But, in truth, there is no ground whatever for this charge of insincerity.

"God requires all men to believe in Christ; and this is their duty, however unwilling they may be to perform it. The fact that they are unwilling, and that God knows they will remain unwilling, unless he change their hearts, abates nothing from the sincerity of the requirement. God proves his sincerity, by holding them to the obligation, and condemning their unbelief.

"He promises salvation to all who believe in Christ; and he proves his sincerity, by fulfilling his promise in every instance. The bestowment of special grace, changing the hearts of men, and bringing them to believe in Christ, is, in no respect, inconsistent with any requirement or promise that God has made.

"While men regard the call of the gospel as an invitation
which they may receive or reject at pleasure,
it accords with their state of mind to institute the inquiry,
whether God is sincere in offering this invitation:

"but when they regard it as a solemn requirement of duty,
for which God will certainly hold them accountable,
they will find no occasion for calling his sincerity in question."


"Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition, is defective. It has been always found, that men will not come to Christ for life. The gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of men must be changed; and this change the will itself cannot effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God work in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.

"God knows the force of opposition which his grace will encounter in each heart, and the amount of spiritual influence necessary to overcome it. He gives or withholds that influence at his pleasure. He has his own rule of acting in this matter--a rule infinitely wise and good. With full knowledge how his rule will affect every particular case, he perseveres in acting according to it, however men may cavil: and the rule which infinite wisdom adopts must be the best; nor can it be any objection to it, that infinite wisdom knows perfectly its final result."

This eternal decree, established before creation and the fall, ordains salvation for the elect and reprobation for the rest.

"Obj. 7. The doctrine of election, by teaching that God has reprobated a part of the human race to hopeless misery, represents him as an unamiable being.

"Sinful men are indeed reprobated, not by the election of grace,
but by the justice of God (Note: Because of their sin, not because they were not Elected)
but their reprobation is not hopeless, so long as the gospel of salvation sounds in their ears.

"But the only hope on which they are authorized to lay hold, springs from the electing love of God. Instead of covering men's prospects with the blackness of darkness, the doctrine of election sends a ray of hope, the only possible ray, to enlighten the gloom.

"The justice of God will hereafter doom the finally impenitent, as it has already doomed the fallen angels, to hopeless misery. The unamiable feature, which the objection we are considering finds in the divine character, is the justice so horrible to the workers of iniquity.

"The election of grace, if it wholly annihilated the justice of God, would receive the praises of unconverted men; but it cannot do this. The infinite benevolence of God cannot do this. If men will pronounce the character of God unamiable, because he is just, and dooms sinful beings to hopeless misery, they prove thereby that they do not love the God whom the Scriptures reveal, and by whom they are to be judged. Their quarrel with the doctrine of election is, in truth, a quarrel with the justice of God, from which that election has not delivered them."

God’s purpose is to glorify Himself through the election of some to eternal life in Christ and the passing over of others.

"Besides God's Will of Purpose, we have seen that he has a Will of Precept. According to the latter, he commands all men everywhere to repent; he requires all to believe in Jesus Christ; and it is his will that all men should honor the Son. To all who obey his will in these particulars, he gives the promise of eternal life. The precept and the promise are both included in the revealed will of God.

"It is the revealed Will of God that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and that every creature who hears should believe, and that all who believe shall receive life everlasting. The revealed will is the rule of our faith, duty, and hope; and by it those who preach the gospel, and those who hear it, are authorised and bound to regulate every thought and action. In it, Christ is exhibited as the Saviour of the world;[75] the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;[76] and sinners, without exception, are invited and commanded to believe in Christ.

"As the gospel is preached to all men without distinction, and all are called upon to come to Christ for life; and nothing but man's rejection of the gospel prevents the extension of its blessing to all who hear it; it accords with the design of God's revealed word, to speak of the offices and work of Christ, according to men's obligations respecting them.

"It must be remembered, however, that the gospel promises its blessings to those only who obey it; and, as the promise, not the precept, is the proper measure of the benefits which it secures, its benefits are limited to particular persons, even when the limitation in its extent does not appear in the language employed.

"Christ is called the Saviour of the world,[77] the propitiation[78] for the sins of the whole world; and the free gift through him is said to come on all men unto justification of life.[79] These, and other like expressions of Scripture, represent the facts as they would be, on the supposition that all men did their duty. But notwithstanding these general expressions, the revealed will of God secures blessings only to the obedient, and is therefore narrower in its limit than the purpose or secret will of God, which not only provides all needed grace for the obedient, but also, for all the elect, the grace necessary to render them obedient.

"The remarks which have been made may suffice to show that redemption is not universal, in any view which can properly be taken of it. It is particular in its consummation, and in its purpose; and it is equally so in the revelation of it, which is made in the gospel. The general terms "all men," "the whole world," &c. which the Scriptures employ in speaking of its extent, cannot be understood to secure its benefits to the impenitent and unbelieving. According to God's secret will, or will of purpose, redemption is secured by the death of Christ to all the elect; according to his revealed will, it is secured to those only who believe."

Excerpts from:
Manual of Theology

JL DAGG, DD

"The Doctrine which is according to Godliness" -1 Tim vi. 3

See informative article :

 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Would you want to learn theology from this man? I'll tell you who it was in a later post. All of these points are from his biography, the author of which actually admired him.

  • As a young man, he enrolled in Moody Bible Institute for summer school, but dropped out without even finishing that class. “Perhaps it was his strong individualistic spirit that made it difficult for him to submit to any human authority” (p. 25).
  • “He came to the conviction that God is the primary teacher and that man really needs no one else to teach him” (p. 28).
  • “He wrestled with God’s will for his life, and…faced recurring depths of despair and a nervous breakdown” (p. 41).
  • He pastored for two years, then quit the church (p. 44).
  • In 1919 he suffered from deep depression. He tried to go to the church to preach but could not even make it out of bed (p. 49).
  • “He was not a sociable person. He did not seem to enjoy being with and fellowshipping with people” (p. 58).
  • He split a church in Australia over his view of predestination (p. 78).
  • He and his wife moved to England, and on a ship with 500 people he couldn’t find any Christians he could fellowship with, and evidently did not win anyone to Christ (p. 86).
  • “Doors remained shut and he was more convinced than ever that apostasy and darkness had surely settled over Christendom” (p. 96).
  • He was “admonishing people to withdraw from their local churches” (p. 111).
  • “Twice in 1938 he informed readers that he would not receive visitors who called at his home” (p. 112).
  • Living in England at the end of his life, he showed little love for the lost or saved, refusing to go to any church for the last 14 years of his life (Cf. pp. 111-112).
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The concept of a “well-meant offer” is incompatible with this doctrine. The idea that God desires the salvation of all creates dissonance in His will. If God decreed the reprobation of some, He cannot sincerely will their salvation without contradicting His nature. Such a view undermines the distinctiveness of election, suggesting a universal salvific desire not supported by Scripture: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (John 6:37), and I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me (John 17:9).
It's not that there is dissonance in His will. We know God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, even though he brings it about. We know God blamed those who betrayed and killed Jesus even though they were accomplishing his overall will and plan. We know Joseph's brothers meant evil when they sold Joseph but it was God's will that he end up in Egypt. God really would have gathered Israel under his wings. And God really will save any and all who come to him by faith.
The gospel call is universal in proclamation but specific in effectiveness, fulfilling its purpose only in the elect through the Holy Spirit’s work (Who hath saved us... according to his own purpose and grace, 2 Timothy 1:9-10).
What are you saying here? Simply that everyone who hears will not be saved, and that no one will be saved except directly by the drawing of the Holy Spirit. That is standard Christian teaching.
The gospel is not a general invitation but a means to gather the chosen to their inheritance, to the glory of God. The particularity of God’s redemptive plan shows that His grace is directed solely to the elect. While Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, it is efficacious only for those chosen by God. This truth, rooted in Scripture, upholds the mystery of predestination and the sovereignty of divine grace.
Here's where I think you are in error. The general call is real and the direct promise is that anyone who responds will be saved. While it is true that those who respond are the elect, there is no warrant or reason to speculate on who they are because the only way to tell who is elect is by their response and because the invitation is real and to all. And the idea that the atonement is sufficient for all but efficacious only for the elect while a true statement is really weird when used as a backward logic like extreme determinists do. There is no practical difference between saying that and when a fundamentalist says Christ's death won't do you any good if you don't come to him by faith. The only real difference is that you mis diagnose the problem. The problem is that people won't come - not that there was anything lacking in the atonement for them. This is a huge problem.
The external call does not express a desire for all to be saved but serves as the appointed means for gathering the elect.

Abraham Booth, in The Reign of Grace (1771), affirmed that Christ’s death was sufficient to save all but intended only for the elect. Booth rejected the notion of a mere potential atonement or one dependent on human cooperation. He argued that a “well-meant offer” contradicts the purpose of Christ’s death: if Christ died only for the elect, how could salvation be sincerely offered to the non-elect? Such an offer misrepresents the design of Christ’s atonement and diminishes God’s sovereignty.
Once again, I grant you that from God's point of view, if he knows all things, there has to be a sense in which he had those who would really be saved in mind at the atonement. I think that is beyond our comprehension. What is not beyond our comprehension is that if you come he will save you. There are certain things in scripture that give us glimpses into the mind of God. There are other things that we are told to do as a command or a duty. Speculating too much and developing a philosophy that causes us to be confused about our response and duty is not the sign of good theology but a huge mistake.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Would you want to learn theology from this man? I'll tell you who it was in a later post. All of these points are from his biography, the author of which actually admired him.

  • As a young man, he enrolled in Moody Bible Institute for summer school, but dropped out without even finishing that class. “Perhaps it was his strong individualistic spirit that made it difficult for him to submit to any human authority” (p. 25).
  • “He came to the conviction that God is the primary teacher and that man really needs no one else to teach him” (p. 28).
  • “He wrestled with God’s will for his life, and…faced recurring depths of despair and a nervous breakdown” (p. 41).
  • He pastored for two years, then quit the church (p. 44).
  • In 1919 he suffered from deep depression. He tried to go to the church to preach but could not even make it out of bed (p. 49).
  • “He was not a sociable person. He did not seem to enjoy being with and fellowshipping with people” (p. 58).
  • He split a church in Australia over his view of predestination (p. 78).
  • He and his wife moved to England, and on a ship with 500 people he couldn’t find any Christians he could fellowship with, and evidently did not win anyone to Christ (p. 86).
  • “Doors remained shut and he was more convinced than ever that apostasy and darkness had surely settled over Christendom” (p. 96).
  • He was “admonishing people to withdraw from their local churches” (p. 111).
  • “Twice in 1938 he informed readers that he would not receive visitors who called at his home” (p. 112).
  • Living in England at the end of his life, he showed little love for the lost or saved, refusing to go to any church for the last 14 years of his life (Cf. pp. 111-112).
In case you haven't guessed, this was Arthur Pink, from his biography by Richard P. Belcher, Arthur W. Pink—Born to Write (Richberry Press, 2013). Thus, IMO, Arthur Pink was a terrible, disobedient Christian, and no one should learn theology from him. Period. End of story.
 

ParticularWife

Active Member
In case you haven't guessed, this was Arthur Pink, from his biography by Richard P. Belcher, Arthur W. Pink—Born to Write (Richberry Press, 2013). Thus, IMO, Arthur Pink was a terrible, disobedient Christian, and no one should learn theology from him. Period. End of story.
People have their difficulties, and he was right about quite a bit. End of story.

BTW, Augustine was at one point gnostic whore-monger who remained a morbidly obese mommy's boy until he died. Martin Luther was extremely hostile to some people, and used obscene and abusive language. Let's not even talk about Peter, the repudiator and Judaizer.

I'm not saying anything goes for Christians, especially in terms of church discipline, but I bet I could find all sorts of things you've done wrong and even more which people who disagree with you would consider wrong.
 
Last edited:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
People have their difficulties, and he was right about quite a bit. End of story.,
This is not just about someone who has "difficulties." I have been discipling a man for two years who had "difficulties"--jail, immorality, drugs, etc. But he loves the Lord now with all his heart, and follows Jesus. I'd trust him before I'd listen to Pink.

Would you trust a pastor who was drunk all the time to pastor you? No? But apparently you trust a terrible Christian to teach you, someone who didn't go to church, wouldn't fellowship with other Christians, and taught people to leave their churches and not go anywhere. (He thought all churches were apostate.) Don't answer now. Read the biography and then come back and we'll talk.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm not a fan of Leighton Flowers' ministry, but he has made a couple of points that my low Calvinist friends have not effectively responded to. One is that many of the beliefs they present as 'HyperCalvinist' are found in major Calvinist theologians (including John Calvin) they never dare to call hyper-Calvinists.
Arthur W. Pink emphasized that the gospel should be preached selectively, primarily to those who exhibit signs of being under conviction of sin. He believed that offering the gospel indiscriminately would misrepresent God's sovereign election. The Sovereignty of God clearly implies that God does not love everyone, but is Sovereign over everything.
HyperCalvinism either only applies to tiny, non-Evangelical groups that nobody can even name, or it's just Calvinism taken to places that make you uncomfortable.
I think you should read the biography of A.W. Pink by Iain Murray. Pink resigned from two pastorates in Australia in the 1920s because they objected to him calling on sinners indiscriminately to repent. Here is an extract from the A.W. Pink Archive:

"Pink was adamant that the gospel was all about Christ. It was relevant to the sinner, but it was not about sinners. Instead, the gospel was a proclamation of a universal truth about what Christ had done, not something to be simply extended, or offered, to sinners to decide if true. There was, Pink was convinced, an authoritative element to the gospel which meant it had to be proclaimed in an authoritative fashion. It was to be presented in a way where sinners were still implored to trust on Christ, but with a commanding aspect which emphasised both God’s right as sovereign Creator to command sinners to repent and the sinners obligation to do so. This is evident through Pink’s own articulation of what the Gospel is, as given in a few lines after the original quote in Sovereignty:

“The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sinners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be saved. In the Gospel, God simply announces the terms upon which men may be saved (namely, repentance and faith) and, indiscriminately, all are commanded to fulfill them.”10)
This understanding of both the gospel as an authoritative proclamation as well as man’s duty to repent and turn to Christ was to permeate Pink’s theological framework in regards to evangelism throughout his life.11) However, Pink was never to position this understanding in a way which stifled evangelism, but rather he desired to root evangelism to its proper doctrinal bearings, and believed that evangelism was a fundamental duty of all christians. This conviction was to lead him to struggle with his pastorate at Belvoir Street Particular Baptist Church, in Sydney, between 1925-1927, a church which would rightly be identified as having hyper-calvinistic tendencies. Writing to a sympathetic congregant after his resignation, Pink states:

“Having discovered that their views of human responsibility were very defective & that they were altogether lac[k]ing in evangelistic zeal, I sought by the Lord’s help to remedy this. Seeking grace to be “as wise as a serpent & harmless as a dove,” I proceeded slowly & gently. From April to Oct. 1926 I averaged one sermon out of 5 to the unsaved, the last you heard & endorsed … : on Bartimaeus. The deacons took me to task for this sermon. At the next church-meeting, very soon after, the Secretary denounced it as a “free-will” sermon.”12)
Indeed, Pink desired individuals to have a correct understanding of God’s Sovereignty, but in a way which compelled them to evangelism. In his third address on Election at Ashfield Tabernacle, Pink, after outlining that sinners can only come to Christ if drawn by God, aptly challenges his listeners to take mission and evangelism seriously by stating:

“Now the question arises again, why are we to preach the gospel to every creature?—if God has only elected a certain number to be saved? The reason is, because God commands us to do so. Well, but, you say, it does not seem reasonable to me That has got nothing to do with it; your business is to obey God and not to argue with Him. God commands us to preach the gospel to every creature and it means what it says—every creature and it is solemn thing. Every Christian in this room tonight has yet to answer to Christ why he has not done everything in his power to send that gospel to every creature! Yes, I believe in missions—probably stronger than most of you do, and if I preached to you on missions perhaps I would hit you harder than you have been hit yet. The great majority of Gods people who profess to believe in missions, are just playing at them—I make so bold as to say of our evangelical denominations today that we are just playing at missions and that is all.
End of quote. Pink was certainly a strong Calvinist, but he was no Hyper. The same applies to Calvin. I shall be very surprised if you can find a excerpt from his works where Calvin decries the open proclamation of the Gospel in preaching.
 
Top