AW Pink a hyper-calvinist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How so? I don't know the writings of Johnson, but Curt Daniel did his 900+ page dissertation at Edinburgh on hyper-Calvinism. Unless you have more information on his work, I guess I would be inclined to trust him here.

Within the Banner of Truth Trust and in the more moderate Calvinism of Curt Daniel (what has now been termed hypo-Calvinism) there has been a tendency of revisionism. They then label any who oppose their brand of Calvinism as hyper-Calvinist.

Historically the "free offer" refered to the fact that the gospel is preached to all. Now it means that the gospel itself is an offer of salvation. With this redefining of the term they then engage in anachronism in that they read their new definition back into the Puritans and Reformers.

I would suggest:
EPC of Australia - The Offer of the Gospel
EPC of Australia - The Gospel Offer Freed from Confusion
 
How so? I don't know the writings of Johnson, but Curt Daniel did his 900+ page dissertation at Edinburgh on hyper-Calvinism. Unless you have more information on his work, I guess I would be inclined to trust him here.

Within the Banner of Truth Trust and in the more moderate Calvinism of Curt Daniel (what has now been termed hypo-Calvinism) there has been a tendency of revisionism. They then label any who oppose their brand of Calvinism as hyper-Calvinist.

Historically the "free offer" refered to the fact that the gospel is preached to all. Now it means that the gospel itself is an offer of salvation. With this redefining of the term they then engage in anachronism in that they read their new definition back into the Puritans and Reformers.

I would suggest:
EPC of Australia - The Offer of the Gospel
EPC of Australia - The Gospel Offer Freed from Confusion

Excellent statement Brother Richard.
 
Dr. Curt Daniel had some of the most succinct comments on Pink

According to Phil Johnson, who seems to have researched this subject as well as anyone

Both of these are revisionist.

How so? I don't know the writings of Johnson, but Curt Daniel did his 900+ page dissertation at Edinburgh on hyper-Calvinism. Unless you have more information on his work, I guess I would be inclined to trust him here.

Which part of Daniel's observations do you find inaccurate? I would think that most of us Pink aficionados could agree to the following:

. . .



Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill, by Curt D. Daniel. Privately published, 1983. Pp. xii-912. $60.00 (hard cover). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

The first is that Daniel does not distinguish "offer" as the promiscuous preaching of Christ as Savior with its command to all hearers to repent and believe on Jesus for salvation from "offer" as the declaration to all hearers that God loves them, Christ died for them, and God is now giving them the chance to be saved by believing. This distinction is both biblical and confessionally Reformed. "Offer" as promiscuous preaching with a summons to all to believe in Christ is the external call of the gospel as taught in Matthew 22:1-14 and in the Canons, II/5. "Offer" as a declaration of universal love and atonement dependent on the sinner's will is the Arminian heresy that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches condemned at Dordt and Westminster on the basis of the apostle's doctrine in Romans 9:16.

By failing to make this fundamental distinction, Daniel labels all who deny the "offer" as hyper-Calvinists, regardless what specific doctrine of the offer they have in mind. The result is that those whose rejection of the "offer" consists of a denial of universal love dependent on the will of the sinner are tarred with Daniel's broad brush of hyper-Calvinism, even though they preach to all and call all to believe in Jesus Christ.

The second fault is gross. Daniel argues that genuine Calvinism is the doctrine of a saving love of God and a death of Jesus Christ for all without exception. On this basis, the proper "offer" is, in fact, the "bold declaration" to all who hear the gospel, "God loves you, Christ died for you, and now God pleads with you to believe so that you may be saved" (p. 459). Accompanying this offer is "a sufficient common grace" that enables all to accept the offer, if only they will (pp. 161, 162). It is Daniel's basic thesis that hyper-Calvinism began to develop when, after Calvin, the Reformed faith adopted limited atonement. This jeopardized the offer. What is necessary for the warding off of hyper-Calvinism is the embrace of universal atonement. This involves repudiating the decree of reprobation.

This is the remedy for hyper-Calvinism! This exotic mixture of Arminianism and Amyraldianism, Daniel calls, with a kind of fetching modesty, "Low Calvinism." It is, indeed, low - very low. It is abased and debased "Calvinism." The glory of salvation in this gospel belongs to the sinner. Using his "sufficient common grace" rightly, he not only saves himself by accepting the offer but also makes the death of Christ atoning and the love of God successful.
There is an important warning here. Those professing Calvinists who insist on an "offer" expressing God's love for all and desire to save all cannot escape universal atonement. When universal atonement is adopted, the eternal, double decree of predestination is rejected.

This is enough evidence for me to stay clear of THE DOCTOR. :scholar:
http://http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html#HyperCalvinismAndGill



As for Mr Johnson I have one word reprobation (Boooo)!


William
 
William,

Thanks, that was exactly the kind of detail I was looking for. My knowledge of Daniel is limited to his lectures (up through about 49). In those he comes out pretty strongly against softening of election and reprobation. Perhaps I wrongly deduced the direction he was heading. Your citation of the review would seem to settle the matter. Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism

In The Cause of God, Gill makes it quite plain that the Gospel is to be preached to all, as the Spirit leads, but it comes as ´a savour of death unto death` for some and ´a savour of life unto life` for Christ`s Bride . Gill specifically emphasises that he is not denying the use of ´calls, invitations, and messages of God to men by his ministers` but maintaining that such calls, etc. are ´not sufficient in themselves, without powerful grace, to produce true faith in Christ, evangelical repentance towards God, and new spiritual obedience, in life and conversation.` Gill can argue in this way because he believes that there is a two-fold call in evangelism. ´First there is the internal effectual call which is the ´powerful operation of the Spirit of God on the soul` which cannot be resisted, then there is the external call by the ministry of the Word which, ´may be resisted, rejected, and despised, and become useless.` Such teaching, when compared with Calvin`s exposition of God`s call in Book II, Chapter XXIV of his Institutes reflects fully the heart of Calvinism. Even Andrew Fuller acknowledged Gill`s evangelistic outreach at times, in fact modern Fullerites tend to be far more critical of Gill than Fuller himself .
 
My knowledge of Daniel is limited to his lectures

Note also that Curt Daniel does not actually provide any evidence in either his talks or in his History and Theology of Calvinism to support his thesis. He simply makes assertions. Interestingly, Curt Daniel does not believe that Pink changed his mind whilst Iain Murray believes he did.

See also: Standard Bearer - V.72 - I.14 - Editorial - Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism: The Alternatives? By Prof. David J. Engelsma
 
"Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect."

If that is hyper Calvinism then call me one. But I thought hypers were those who did not believe in witnessing to others because they might accidentally witness to someone who was non-elect.
 
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Are these criteria necessary conditions of being a hyper-Calvinist? Sufficient conditions? From what I've read, Pink does not say anything that Calvin, in Calvin's Calvinism (his treatise on predestination and providence) does not affirm. Pink might even be softer than Calvin seemed to be on occasion, with respect to the "free offer" even. If the above criteria are each sufficient conditions, then many Calvinists from the Reformation to today are hyper-Calvinists, as these conditions seem to collapse all forms of high-Calvinism into hyper-Calvinism, which is both theologically and historically flawed.
 
Interesting discussion! Well, gentlemen, I am admittedly new to the PuritanBoard, but being the one who heads things up for Banner of Truth on this North American side of the Atlantic, I thought I would chime in regarding the issue of Banner of Truth's edition of Pink's "The Sovereignty of God," raised by Pergamum (see above). It is a commonly asked question and one that has been somewhat answered/addressed here. However, I thought I would offer anyone interested in the full story a PDF of the chapter "Pink on the Sovereignty of God" from within Iain Murray's biography, "The Life of Arthur W. Pink". This issue is fully addressed by Iain himself in this chapter as to specifically why Banner published Pink's work as we did. Let me know via email (steve@banneroftruth.org) if you're interested in receiving it and I'll gladly get it to you.
Grace & peace ...
Steve

Steve, thanks again for providing the chapter out of Murray's biography of Pink. Wow! That certainly casts a different light on the subject than from the limited sources I had been using. Thanks so much.!
 
Both of these are revisionist.

How so? I don't know the writings of Johnson, but Curt Daniel did his 900+ page dissertation at Edinburgh on hyper-Calvinism. Unless you have more information on his work, I guess I would be inclined to trust him here.

Which part of Daniel's observations do you find inaccurate? I would think that most of us Pink aficionados could agree to the following:

. . .



Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill, by Curt D. Daniel. Privately published, 1983. Pp. xii-912. $60.00 (hard cover). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]

The first is that Daniel does not distinguish "offer" as the promiscuous preaching of Christ as Savior with its command to all hearers to repent and believe on Jesus for salvation from "offer" as the declaration to all hearers that God loves them, Christ died for them, and God is now giving them the chance to be saved by believing. This distinction is both biblical and confessionally Reformed. "Offer" as promiscuous preaching with a summons to all to believe in Christ is the external call of the gospel as taught in Matthew 22:1-14 and in the Canons, II/5. "Offer" as a declaration of universal love and atonement dependent on the sinner's will is the Arminian heresy that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches condemned at Dordt and Westminster on the basis of the apostle's doctrine in Romans 9:16.

By failing to make this fundamental distinction, Daniel labels all who deny the "offer" as hyper-Calvinists, regardless what specific doctrine of the offer they have in mind. The result is that those whose rejection of the "offer" consists of a denial of universal love dependent on the will of the sinner are tarred with Daniel's broad brush of hyper-Calvinism, even though they preach to all and call all to believe in Jesus Christ.

The second fault is gross. Daniel argues that genuine Calvinism is the doctrine of a saving love of God and a death of Jesus Christ for all without exception. On this basis, the proper "offer" is, in fact, the "bold declaration" to all who hear the gospel, "God loves you, Christ died for you, and now God pleads with you to believe so that you may be saved" (p. 459). Accompanying this offer is "a sufficient common grace" that enables all to accept the offer, if only they will (pp. 161, 162). It is Daniel's basic thesis that hyper-Calvinism began to develop when, after Calvin, the Reformed faith adopted limited atonement. This jeopardized the offer. What is necessary for the warding off of hyper-Calvinism is the embrace of universal atonement. This involves repudiating the decree of reprobation.

This is the remedy for hyper-Calvinism! This exotic mixture of Arminianism and Amyraldianism, Daniel calls, with a kind of fetching modesty, "Low Calvinism." It is, indeed, low - very low. It is abased and debased "Calvinism." The glory of salvation in this gospel belongs to the sinner. Using his "sufficient common grace" rightly, he not only saves himself by accepting the offer but also makes the death of Christ atoning and the love of God successful.
There is an important warning here. Those professing Calvinists who insist on an "offer" expressing God's love for all and desire to save all cannot escape universal atonement. When universal atonement is adopted, the eternal, double decree of predestination is rejected.

This is enough evidence for me to stay clear of THE DOCTOR. :scholar:
http://http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html#HyperCalvinismAndGill



As for Mr Johnson I have one word reprobation (Boooo)!


William

William, your citation of Engelsma was helpful. However, Matthew McMahon has a review of Engelsma's work on the larger subject, giving it his coveted "sourpuss" award for "half quotes" and "bad exegetical work." Personally, some of the details and fine points of full-bodied Calvinism and the intra-mural disputes among same are new to me, so I will avoid too many of my own comments out of sheer ignorance. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of "Calvinists" who would evidently consider Calvin a "fence-sitter" and "weak." Yikes! This is an ephiphany to me. :think: As to Phil Johnson, a professing Dordtian Calvinist, are you serious in labeling him "reprobate" or was that tongue-in-cheek??? Hell and reprobation are two concepts that I try to handle with great pain and utter respect (sortof like working with 220v electricity). I have great discomfort calling anyone hell bound who upholds the fundamentals of the Christian faith, certainly not a fellow Calvinist.
 
As to Phil Johnson, a professing Dordtian Calvinist, are you serious in labeling him "reprobate" or was that tongue-in-cheek??? Hell and reprobation are two concepts that I try to handle with great pain and utter respect (sortof like working with 220v electricity). I have great discomfort calling anyone hell bound who upholds the fundamentals of the Christian faith, certainly not a fellow Calvinist.


No sir I would never call someone a reprobate (Mr. Johnson). What I meant was that he dances around the word reprobate by using the term non elect as all the WMO guys like to do. I very sorry you misunderstood forgive me.
 
As to Phil Johnson, a professing Dordtian Calvinist, are you serious in labeling him "reprobate" or was that tongue-in-cheek??? Hell and reprobation are two concepts that I try to handle with great pain and utter respect (sortof like working with 220v electricity). I have great discomfort calling anyone hell bound who upholds the fundamentals of the Christian faith, certainly not a fellow Calvinist.


No sir I would never call someone a reprobate (Mr. Johnson). What I meant was that he dances around the word reprobate by using the term non elect as all the WMO guys like to do. I very sorry you misunderstood forgive me.

My bad! Thanks for setting me straight. I don't get the problem with the word that some seem to have. Even Curt Daniel (evidently not one of your favorites) devotes a good bit of time to saying that it is wrong for a Christian to "wish" there was no hell or that God did not reprobate some. He argues that it is blasphemy to suggest that there is something wrong or substandard about ANY decree of God.

When we discussed the practical implications of the doctrine of election, we asked, “Do you
love the doctrine of election?” The answer should be, “Yes, praise God.” Now ask yourself, “Do I
equally love the doctrine of reprobation? “We should love it to the glory of God, as He does.
Christ glorified God for hardening the reprobate (Matt. 11:25); so should we. Unfortunately, most
Christians reject and loathe this glorious truth. Even many Calvinists secretly hate it. At the
least, many wish reprobation and damnation were not so. But that is the wrong attitude. We
should not wish for things to be other than they are regarding election and reprobation, else we
are correcting God. Nor should we wish there were no such place as Hell. Such wrongful
internal attitudes do not give glory to God, but instead are mild forms of blasphemy. Rather, we
should marvel at the glory of God in these dual doctrines, and praise God for them.​
 
When we discussed the practical implications of the doctrine of election, we asked, “Do you
love the doctrine of election?” The answer should be, “Yes, praise God.” Now ask yourself, “Do I
equally love the doctrine of reprobation? “We should love it to the glory of God, as He does.
Christ glorified God for hardening the reprobate (Matt. 11:25); so should we. Unfortunately, most
Christians reject and loathe this glorious truth. Even many Calvinists secretly hate it. At the
least, many wish reprobation and damnation were not so. But that is the wrong attitude. We
should not wish for things to be other than they are regarding election and reprobation, else we
are correcting God. Nor should we wish there were no such place as Hell. Such wrongful
internal attitudes do not give glory to God, but instead are mild forms of blasphemy. Rather, we
should marvel at the glory of God in these dual doctrines, and praise God for them.​


DMcFadden

I am sorry to drag this post on it’s been some time I know. However Mr. Daniel in the quote you provided says that “Christ glorified God for hardening the reprobate” true enough but Pink in chapter 5 of his book (not the Banner edition) on Romans 9 says a little more.


From A.W. Pink's book: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
Chapter 5
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION
by A.W. Pink​
"Behold therefore the goodness and the severity of God"
Romans. 11:22

That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening—"Whom He will He hardeneth"— and it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, . . . The case of Pharaoh is plain enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth.

Verse 18: "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth". This affirmation of God’s sovereign "hardening" of sinners’ hearts—in contradistinction from judicial hardening—is not alone. Mark the language of John 12:37-40, "But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." Now, reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in His Word. It is not a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a childlike spirit which is needed, in order to understand this doctrine.


In Peace, William



.
 
Last edited:
I have read one work of Pink and he espoused the gap theory after that I could not take him seriously.


In his early days AW Pink was a Dispensationalist, so that is probably why the Gap-Theory was in some of his early writings, he may have changed his position on this later??? :blah:
 
Just a thought gentelmen. Perhaps some of the "modern" readers of the works of Pink, Gill, or even Calvin, are simply misunderstanding what true Calvinism is in the first place and falsely labeling it "hyper-calivinism."
 
Just a thought gentelmen. Perhaps some of the "modern" readers of the works of Pink, Gill, or even Calvin, are simply misunderstanding what true Calvinism is in the first place and falsely labeling it "hyper-calivinism."

Most mainstream Calvinists would say that Gill and Pink went beyond the Reformers and Puritans at certain points.
 
I don't think the facts warrant us to conclude that there was a contradiction or change in A W Pink's theology, but merely a different way of stating the truth according to the particular school of thought he was addressing. He denied the gospel is an offer or invitation in the sense that a revivalistic Arminian would understand those words, that is, as an appeal to man's free-will. If one reads the relevant sections of Pink's writings, it will be clear that this is what he is speaking against. However, when he was addressing the denial of duty-faith, he maintained the gospel offer as a general and outward call to the depraved sinner to repent and believe in order to be saved, with full dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit to work those graces in the elect. Yes, he did not divorce the offer of the gospel from the conditions on which it is offered, as is done by those who maintain the so-called "well-meant offer." He insisted that in God's purpose the offer of salvation is only intended to benefit the elect, and refused to make God's blessedness in any sense dependent on the will of the creature. But in so doing he was simply maintaining the traditional reformed view of the gospel as a divine revelation grounded in the eternal counsel of God and not in any sense contingent on the will of man.
 
Just a thought gentelmen. Perhaps some of the "modern" readers of the works of Pink, Gill, or even Calvin, are simply misunderstanding what true Calvinism is in the first place and falsely labeling it "hyper-calivinism."

I think the Apostle Paul would be called an HC and Antinomian in this day in age. Even from legalists and calvinists alike. He was called that back then, so it would only increase now. Calvin would be labled an HC by some today. That's why i dislike labels so much.
 
I don't think the facts warrant us to conclude that there was a contradiction or change in A W Pink's theology, but merely a different way of stating the truth according to the particular school of thought he was addressing. He denied the gospel is an offer or invitation in the sense that a revivalistic Arminian would understand those words, that is, as an appeal to man's free-will. If one reads the relevant sections of Pink's writings, it will be clear that this is what he is speaking against. However, when he was addressing the denial of duty-faith, he maintained the gospel offer as a general and outward call to the depraved sinner to repent and believe in order to be saved, with full dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit to work those graces in the elect. Yes, he did not divorce the offer of the gospel from the conditions on which it is offered, as is done by those who maintain the so-called "well-meant offer." He insisted that in God's purpose the offer of salvation is only intended to benefit the elect, and refused to make God's blessedness in any sense dependent on the will of the creature. But in so doing he was simply maintaining the traditional reformed view of the gospel as a divine revelation grounded in the eternal counsel of God and not in any sense contingent on the will of man.

I would not agree with you on the well meant offer, but interesting thoughts nonetheless. Thank you for sharing. :cheers2:
 
I don't think the facts warrant us to conclude that there was a contradiction or change in A W Pink's theology, but merely a different way of stating the truth according to the particular school of thought he was addressing. He denied the gospel is an offer or invitation in the sense that a revivalistic Arminian would understand those words, that is, as an appeal to man's free-will. If one reads the relevant sections of Pink's writings, it will be clear that this is what he is speaking against. However, when he was addressing the denial of duty-faith, he maintained the gospel offer as a general and outward call to the depraved sinner to repent and believe in order to be saved, with full dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit to work those graces in the elect. Yes, he did not divorce the offer of the gospel from the conditions on which it is offered, as is done by those who maintain the so-called "well-meant offer." He insisted that in God's purpose the offer of salvation is only intended to benefit the elect, and refused to make God's blessedness in any sense dependent on the will of the creature. But in so doing he was simply maintaining the traditional reformed view of the gospel as a divine revelation grounded in the eternal counsel of God and not in any sense contingent on the will of man.

I would not agree with you on the well meant offer, but interesting thoughts nonetheless. Thank you for sharing. :cheers2:

What do you not agree with Daniel?
 
I don't think the facts warrant us to conclude that there was a contradiction or change in A W Pink's theology, but merely a different way of stating the truth according to the particular school of thought he was addressing. He denied the gospel is an offer or invitation in the sense that a revivalistic Arminian would understand those words, that is, as an appeal to man's free-will. If one reads the relevant sections of Pink's writings, it will be clear that this is what he is speaking against. However, when he was addressing the denial of duty-faith, he maintained the gospel offer as a general and outward call to the depraved sinner to repent and believe in order to be saved, with full dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit to work those graces in the elect. Yes, he did not divorce the offer of the gospel from the conditions on which it is offered, as is done by those who maintain the so-called "well-meant offer." He insisted that in God's purpose the offer of salvation is only intended to benefit the elect, and refused to make God's blessedness in any sense dependent on the will of the creature. But in so doing he was simply maintaining the traditional reformed view of the gospel as a divine revelation grounded in the eternal counsel of God and not in any sense contingent on the will of man.

I would not agree with you on the well meant offer, but interesting thoughts nonetheless. Thank you for sharing. :cheers2:

What do you not agree with Daniel?


Basically, I believe in the well-meant, free offer of the gospel. However, I do not want to get into it now.
 
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Are these criteria necessary conditions of being a hyper-Calvinist? Sufficient conditions? From what I've read, Pink does not say anything that Calvin, in Calvin's Calvinism (his treatise on predestination and providence) does not affirm. Pink might even be softer than Calvin seemed to be on occasion, with respect to the "free offer" even. If the above criteria are each sufficient conditions, then many Calvinists from the Reformation to today are hyper-Calvinists, as these conditions seem to collapse all forms of high-Calvinism into hyper-Calvinism, which is both theologically and historically flawed.

I have to agree with you on this. Pink is no more of a hyper-Calvinist that Calvin himself. He is a great theologian and his works are almost unparalleled when it comes to his grasp and clear explanations of the Sovereignty of God. I recommend reading the unaltered version. I think it is rediculous to edit a dead mans works because you or your denom/society/whatever does not agree with it...

and there is not an argument or a comment on this green earth that will make me think otherwise. If Banner of Truth did not agree with even ONE word of Pink's writing then they should not have published it. It misrepresents the author, who is no longer with us.

Of course thats only my 2 cents
 
Rev Winzer,

I agree and thank you for stating ". . . he was simply maintaining the traditional reformed view of the gospel as a divine revelation grounded in the eternal counsel of God and not in any sense contingent on the will of man." this is a important issue concerning Pink.

Calvinism is being destoyed from the inside out with a kinder and gentler form of Calvinism and the idea that “The issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is not whether God loves all men, it is whether God loves all men equally”


William


.
 
Rev Winzer,

I agree and thank you for stating ". . . he was simply maintaining the traditional reformed view of the gospel as a divine revelation grounded in the eternal counsel of God and not in any sense contingent on the will of man." this is a important issue concerning Pink.

Calvinism is being destoyed from the inside out with a kinder and gentler form of Calvinism and the idea that “The issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is not whether God loves all men, it is whether God loves all men equally”


William


.

:agree:

William,

You may find this interesting. Its a great article concerning "comfortable calvinism"
LazarusUnbound.com - The Bunker Mentality

I make no claims about the author or his ministry, but I do love this article and feel it is relevant to our times
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top