What in the world is Pink talking about???

Pink makes a transitional statement after the first sentence.

 

Don't worry you are the only one that sees constant contradiction in beliefs of the heresy of Calvinism. It's a convoluted, mixed-up theology that utilizes constant double talk and word games to try and justify itself.

 

Pink is presenting an argument that is summed up in his last line: that if we agree that God creates all, and purposes only some to receive faith and thereby be saved, that He purposes the rest to not be saved.

The first part of the quote that seems to contradict the second, is actually a summation of the "popular" responses to the question. Pink then goes on to address "the real question." Not easy to read, but try thinking about it in those terms.

 

For the record: I'm no scholar. I've still got LOTS to learn.

 

I'll throw my opinion of this into the mix:

This is not Pink speaking his opinion. He is posing a question.

This shows that what he said in the first part of the quote is simply raising a question, one that's been brought up a number of times by people throughout the years when they wonder why God lets people be born if He truly knows everything and knows who will (spiritually) live or die. People wonder why a loving God would do such a thing.

In this next part, he's giving his opinion, which sounds as if he's saying that while yes, God knows everything, sin is still the responsibility of man.

This next part is asking a question again:

I assume the answer comes after he completes that thought.
That thought will (if I understand Pink) simply be that yes, God allows people to be born with full knowledge that they will remain damned.

He's simply saying that it doesn't mean God is some evil monster to do this, because he created humans pure. They chose to sin. Therefore, it's not God's "fault" that they are damned, the person still chose to sin and God is not an evil monster for not choosing to give the gift of faith to every single person who chooses to sin.

Saying that a god who picks and chooses those who will give faith to is not the God of the Bible tends to be the argument of those who do not believe God chooses who He will save. They believe that the gift of eternal life comes by faith, and that all have an equal chance to have faith.

Those that believe God does choose out those He gives faith to tend to make the argument that this does not make the God of the Bible some type of monster, that it only magnifies the concept of His generosity and grace that He would choose to bless undeserving sinners with the gift of faith and thus, eternal life. That we cannot lay the blame on God for man being sinful, that all deserve death and for us to say He is wrong to choose out certain people for faith is the same as saying no sinners (all of humanity) deserve eternal separation from God.

That's my personal take on it.

 

I.E. Double predestination...........


I don't agree with it, but it sure sounds like A.W. Pink does/did.

 

Mind if I toss a funny in this?

I saw the title and went...

"When did she get saved??!?!"

:laugh:

Wrong Pink. :tonofbricks:

 

Um, that's what I thought, also!

 

This is inaccurate, non-Calvinists believe in election, only we believe God chooses those whom he in foreknowledge sees will believe.

The Calvinist view makes God appear partial, when the scriptures repeatedly say God is no respecter of persons.

In the non-Calvinist view God is fair, he gives every person the opportunity to believe. If men perish it is their own choice.

Because God foresees who will believe and who will not DOES NOT DETERMINE who will believe and who will not, God simply foresees those who will choose to believe and elects them.

I believe Pink contradicts himself. He says God does not decree who will be lost, but he ordains it. If men can only believe if God regenerates them, then God absolutely DETERMINES who is lost and saved. The unregenerate cannot possibly believe in the Calvinist view through no fault or personal choice of their own, they are born this way.

I believe the word of God enables all men to believe, those who do not believe do so of their own free choice.

 

Scripture Cited Is From 2011 NIV

Speaking of watered-down...

The Lord has the right to choose whom He will. He mercies some and hardens others. You need to respect His will.

Here we go again with the equal opportunity God that the Bible shows no evidence of.

Calvinists certainly believe this.

Such a weakening of the biblical data. Romans 8:29,30;Ephesians 1:4 and other passages are thrown overboard in your theology.

The Lord already elected long ago --before the creation of the world. You need to check your views against the Word of God. Do you remember Acts 13:48? "...all who were appointed for eternal life believed." People do not become elect.

I believe what the Bible teaches. "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." (John 6:65)

A sin-enslaved will is not so free.

 

We should understand, first, that Pink is supralapsarian in his take on soteriology. He is mildly hyper-Calvinistic in that sense. That is, in part, why he is having difficulty in reconciling the divine acts of a sovereign God with either the Scriptures or reality, both of which would ultimately disagree with the "hyper-Calvinistic" stance on double predestination.

Properly understood, God did decree that all who sin will die. However, to say that He decreed in a positive sense that some of whom He created were created for destruction would indeed make God out to be a moral monster as many have pointed out down through the ages. That is why "hyper-Calvinism" with its double predestination is seen as heretical. God is not the "author" of sin, nor is God the one to whom sin is pinned. That is an heretical statement, but made flippantly by many who enjoy taking on this argument. In God there is no shadow of turning and there is nothing that is not pure, holy, and perfect. To say otherwise is to blaspheme Almighty God!

So, as Pink alludes, sin is the responsibility of the sinner, even if the sinner is born into their sin (as the Scriptures say clearly). And, further, as sinners, we have no hope of extracting ourselves from that position. No work that we can do will be pleasing to God, for all our works are as filthy rags and it is by grace through faith that we are saved. That grace and faith are gifts of God, given because He is a merciful God who wishes to save. To whom we cannot know, but God does, and so we go about the work of the ministry seeking and presenting the gospel to the lost so that God can draw them to Himself and cause them to be justified and regenerated.

Below are the simplified tables of ordo salutis (logical order of salvation) as seen by the various views of soteriology. For those claiming a "non-cal" -- "non-arminian" point of view, I would only suggest that you formulate your own logical order of salvation and post it for discussion. I believe however, as much as those holding one of those non- positions might disagree, that they do fall within one of the current categories, There really are not many other choices.

Supralapsarianism
Elect some, reprobate rest
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation

Infralapsarianism
Create
Permit Fall
Elect some, pass over the rest
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation

Amyraldism
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation sufficient for all
Elect some, pass over rest
Call elect to salvation

Arminianism
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for all
Call all to salvation
Elect those who believe

 

have to realise that they are varying shades with those holding to cal theology...

Pink would fit into :high" camp, bordering Hypering, where he would tend to view God has directly determing/causing all things that come to pass, as if God "merely" permitted it, no longer in absolute control?

 

You again fail to see that the fall of Adam spiritual/physically killed us off, we are born "in Adam", and none would seek the Lord to be saved unless the Lord first woke their hearts/minds up to seek and find Him!

Salvation is of the Lord, would NOT be based upon Him seeing our decision to accept jesus, but upon His election among the sinners too make sure at least some become saints!

Opposite view would make the Cross at best "potentiall salvation", and don't think that would really bring glory to God in the highest, as he would be dependent upon frail humans to make sure His plans go through!

 

You're making a rather broad sweep there that is not justified.

All hyper-Calvinists believe in double predestination --just as all hyper-Calvinists are usually Supralapsarians.

There have been a lot men who have held to Calvinism "proper" who would not adhere to things which you ascribe to those holding to double predestination.

Here is a sampling of men who believed in double predestination:

Augustine
The Venerable Bede
Gotteschalk
Thomas Bradwardine
John Wycliffe
Zanchi
Martin Luther
John Calvin
Theodore Beza
William Perkins
John Gill
Herman Hoeksema
G.H. Kersten
Gordon Clark
James Boice