# AW Pink a hyper-calvinist?



## Pergamum

Was he? I have heard he flip-flopped and even Banner of Truth edited some of his comments out of his works. What was thedevelopment of his theology like: from disy to non-Dispensational to what?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

I've read Iain Murray's biography of him, and it seems that through his life he was accused of being everything from an Arminian to a Hyper-Calvinist. Nothing I've read of him has made me think that he was HC, but I haven't read everything.


----------



## Gev

I dont think I'd say he was hyper from what I've read so far. 
In the beginning he was dispensational for many years then he gave that up and became covenantal. I've benefitted from his works a great deal. 
It seems like he loved John Owen a great deal and his theology seems to lean towards Owens. So he would be considered high calvinist but I wouldn't go far as to call him a hyper. I truly think he was regenerate.


----------



## AV1611

Pergamum said:


> Was he?



No he was not a hyper-Calvinist. He was simply a high-Calvinist.

Try also 
- http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/REV RH PINK 1.pdf
- http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/REV RH PINK 2.pdf


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Gev said:


> I dont think I'd say he was hyper from what I've read so far.
> In the beginning he was dispensational for many years then he gave that up and became covenantal. I've benefitted from his works a great deal.
> It seems like he loved John Owen a great deal and his theology seems to lean towards Owens. So he would be considered high calvinist but I wouldn't go far as to call him a hyper. I truly think he was regenerate.



Your comments trouble me; as someone who believes in the well-meant offer of the gospel, I am certainly not a friend of hyper-Calvinism, but what you say seems to suggest such people might not be regenerate. Is this true?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Exagorazo said:


> I've read Iain Murray's biography of him, and it seems that through his life he was accused of being everything from an Arminian to a Hyper-Calvinist. Nothing I've read of him has made me think that he was HC, but I haven't read everything.



I agree dear brother. I have benefited greatly from his writings.


----------



## etexas

I have a few of Pink's books, like any human writer and like any book save Scripture there are flaws...overall...I dig Pink! I I know that had nothing to do do with was he HC...I can't answer that, I have read no Bios on him, the stuff I have read by him seems on level.


----------



## Pergamum

Did Banner of Truth or someone else edit some of his writings? I heard that someone cutout some troubling stuff later on.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> Did Banner of Truth or someone else edit some of his writings? I heard that someone cutout some troubling stuff later on.



Yes, the _Sovereignty of God_ book was edited. The Baker edition has the bits Banner cut out.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Daniel. You've solved my quandary. Why did Banner fell the liberty or the need to do this? If those bits were so bad, why did Baker leave them in?


----------



## Pergamum

Pink...the unrated version sounds so funny!


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pergamum said:


> Thanks Daniel. You've solved my quandary. Why did Banner fell the liberty or the need to do this? If those bits were so bad, why did Baker leave them in?




Becasue the Banner promotes the well meant offer, and that God loves the reprobate in some way. Since Pink argued against this in the book, they pulled out Jehu's knife and cut it out..


Pink embraced Duty Faith and Duty repentance to all disciminately, yet held against any notion of Love or common grace to the reprobate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## AV1611

You will not find the following in the Banner edition:

"The Gospel is not an "offer" to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The Gospel is no mere invitation, but a proclamation, a proclamation concerning Christ; true, whether men believe it or no. No man is asked to believe that Christ died for him in particular. 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." (11. Difficulties and Objections)

Nor:
Appendix 1. The Will of God
Appendix 2. The Case of Adam
Appendix 3. The Meaning of "KOSMOS" in John 3:16
Appendix 4. 1 John 2.2


----------



## SRoper

Pergamum said:


> Pink...the unrated version sounds so funny!



I have a copy under my mattress.


----------



## etexas

Pergamum said:


> Pink...the unrated version sounds so funny!


Chuckle....it does!


----------



## etexas

SRoper said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pink...the unrated version sounds so funny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a copy under my mattress.
Click to expand...

Good one.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Daniel. You've solved my quandary. Why did Banner fell the liberty or the need to do this? If those bits were so bad, why did Baker leave them in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Becasue the Banner promotes the well meant offer, and that God loves the reprobate in some way. Since Pink argued against this in the book, they pulled out Jehu's knife and cut it out..
> 
> 
> Pink embraced Duty Faith and Duty repentance to all disciminately, yet held against any notion of Love or common grace to the reprobate.
Click to expand...



For a more in-depth explanation of why Banner got the knife out, the latest edition of Iain Murray's biography of AW Pink (i.e. the hardback one) is supposed to have an appendix setting out the justification for this.


----------



## DMcFadden

Dr. Curt Daniel had some of the most succinct comments on Pink . . .

A. A.W. Pink is one of the most well known of the Hyper-Calvinists, but he doesn’t fall into any one of the preceding categories. Pink was born in England, but ministered in America, Australia, England and finally Scotland. At first he was a semi-Arminian Dispensationalist, then a Calvinistic Dispensationalist, then he dropped Dispensationalism completely. He was a Baptist, but never a Calvinistic Antinomian.

B. In the second half of his ministry, he was in and out of the Strict and Particular Baptists. Though a prolific writer, it is not so well known that he wrote few of these books during his lifetime. Most of those under his name were posthumous collections of articles he had written in his monthly Studies in the Scriptures magazine.

C. Pink has enjoyed far more popularity after his death in 1952 than before. His many books sell very well. His most important book is entitled The Sovereignty of God, a medium-sized book which has been twice abridged. This was one of his first undertakings, and we see his ambivalence towards Hyper-Calvinism in its pages. Throughout his ministry, Pink was an on-and-off Hyperist. In some places, he castigates the Gospel Standard Baptists for denying “free offers”. Often he defends “free offers”. Yet in other places, Pink agrees with them that “free offers” are unbiblical and incompatible with Calvinist theology. He used many of the most popular Hyper-Calvinist arguments. So, though he was sometimes a Hyper, Pink was a mild one. Most of his writings are extremely readable masterpieces of deep theology compressed into a few words which anybody can understand and enjoy. His books, especially The Sovereignty of God, have done much to revive Calvinism in the 20th-century.


----------



## Bladestunner316

AW Pink is one of my favorite theologians. And is not hyper by any means.


----------



## Barnpreacher

The Holy Spirit used Piper's _Future Grace_ to open my eyes to Calvinism, but Pink's _Sovereignty of God_ put me over the top.


----------



## DMcFadden

I LOVE Pink's writing and have been building my library of Pink works. According to Phil Johnson, who seems to have researched this subject as well as anyone, hyper-Calvinists can be identified using a five-fold analytical tool. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

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.

By this definition, A.W. Pink, who seemed to flip-flop on a number of issues (or at least was VERY misunderstood) over his lifetime (e.g., who else do you know who was censured by the Baptist Union for denying human free will and the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists for believing in human free will???) may fairly be characterized as a hyper-Calvinist (at least at some times of his life and in some of his writings).

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2

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


----------



## AV1611

DMcFadden said:


> Dr. Curt Daniel had some of the most succinct comments on Pink





DMcFadden said:


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



Both of these are revisionist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Gev said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I'd say he was hyper from what I've read so far.
> In the beginning he was dispensational for many years then he gave that up and became covenantal. I've benefitted from his works a great deal.
> It seems like he loved John Owen a great deal and his theology seems to lean towards Owens. So he would be considered high calvinist but I wouldn't go far as to call him a hyper. I truly think he was regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments trouble me; as someone who believes in the well-meant offer of the gospel, I am certainly not a friend of hyper-Calvinism, but what you say seems to suggest such people might not be regenerate. Is this true?
Click to expand...



Thanks to a PM, I realise now that Gev was not suggesting that anyone with Hyper-Calvinists leanings was not regenerate; apologies for any confusion.


----------



## Theogenes

I love to read Pink! I love it how he permeates his writing with copius quotes from the Reformers and Puritans. Two of my favorite books of his besides "The Sovereignty of God", is "The Satisfaction of Christ - Studies in the Atonement" and "Our Accountability to God". If you are a Pink fan and haven't read those two books you're missing the cream of the crop. Was Pink perfect? No. Was he a hyper-Calvinist? No. Was he someone to be dismissed outright because there might be something you disagree with? No. He needs to be read like all men- with a Berean mindset. But DEFINITELY read Pink!! You'll have a feast for your soul. Just spit out the bones if you find any.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> A hyper-Calvinist is one who:
> 
> 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.



This is what this thread has been missing. How can we come to an agreement on whose a 'hyper-calvinist' if we don't have a working definition of one. The definition above is interesting. Do any one of those define a man as hyper or must it be all of them?

Perhaps PB could have a glossary!


----------



## DMcFadden

AV1611 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Curt Daniel had some of the most succinct comments on Pink
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Phil Johnson, who seems to have researched this subject as well as anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of these are revisionist.
Click to expand...


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:

_Throughout his ministry, Pink was an on-and-off Hyperist. In some places, he castigates the Gospel Standard Baptists for denying “free offers”. Often he defends “free offers”. Yet in other places, Pink agrees with them that “free offers” are unbiblical and incompatible with Calvinist theology. He used many of the most popular Hyper-Calvinist arguments. So, though he was sometimes a Hyper, Pink was a mild one. Most of his writings are extremely readable masterpieces of deep theology compressed into a few words which anybody can understand and enjoy._


----------



## yeutter

DMcFadden said:


> I LOVE Pink's writing and have been building my library of Pink works. According to Phil Johnson, who seems to have researched this subject as well as anyone, hyper-Calvinists can be identified using a five-fold analytical tool. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:
> 
> 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.
> 
> By this definition, A.W. Pink, who seemed to flip-flop on a number of issues (or at least was VERY misunderstood) over his lifetime (e.g., who else do you know who was censured by the Baptist Union for denying human free will and the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists for believing in human free will???) may fairly be characterized as a hyper-Calvinist (at least at some times of his life and in some of his writings).



Johnson's definition is not very helpful. It would arguably define not only Pink but also Gill, John H. Gerstner, Gordon Clark, David Englesma, and Herman Hoeksema as hypercalvinists. 

That would necessitate making a hyperhypercalvinist category for J. C. Philpot and the Gospel Standard types.


----------



## SteveBurlew

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 ([email protected]) if you're interested in receiving it and I'll gladly get it to you.
Grace & peace ...
Steve


----------



## Amazing Grace

SteveBurlew said:


> 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 ([email protected]) if you're interested in receiving it and I'll gladly get it to you.
> Grace & peace ...
> Steve



Hello Steve:

Has Banner done this with others works also? Is there an edit department that is responsible for this action?


----------



## AV1611

DMcFadden said:


> 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


----------



## AV1611

yeutter said:


> David Englesma, and Herman Hoeksema as hypercalvinists



Hypercalvinism and the Call of the Gospel
Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?
Is the Denial of the "Free Offer" of the Gospel "hyper-Calvinism?"
The Gospel

Also:
John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism
John_Gill_and_the_Cause_of_God
New Focus Interview on Hyper-Calvinism


----------



## Amazing Grace

AV1611 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


Excellent statement Brother Richard.


----------



## Gesetveemet

DMcFadden said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Curt Daniel had some of the most succinct comments on Pink
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Phil Johnson, who seems to have researched this subject as well as anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of these are revisionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> . . .
Click to expand...






> _*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. 
http://http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html#HyperCalvinismAndGill



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


William


----------



## DMcFadden

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.


----------



## JM

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 .


----------



## AV1611

DMcFadden said:


> 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


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

"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.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick

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.


----------



## DMcFadden

SteveBurlew said:


> 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 ([email protected]) 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.!


----------



## DMcFadden

Gesetveemet said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is enough evidence for me to stay clear of THE DOCTOR.
> http://http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr97.html#HyperCalvinismAndGill
> 
> 
> 
> As for Mr Johnson I have one word reprobation (Boooo)!
> 
> 
> William
Click to expand...


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.  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.


----------



## AV1611

DMcFadden said:


> 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."



I would be interested to see that seeing I thought Prof Engelsma (with whom I have discussed this issue) was very good.

His view is read here: Is Denial of the "Well-Meant Offer" Hyper-Calvinism?


----------



## Gesetveemet

> 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.


----------



## DMcFadden

Gesetveemet said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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.​_


----------



## Gesetveemet

> _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



.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> 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???


----------



## JoeRe4mer

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."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JoeRe4mer said:


> 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.


----------



## MW

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.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JoeRe4mer said:


> 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.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> 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.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


What do you not agree with Daniel?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you not agree with Daniel?
Click to expand...



Basically, I believe in the well-meant, free offer of the gospel. However, I do not want to get into it now.


----------



## Matthias

CatechumenPatrick said:


> 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


----------



## Gesetveemet

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


.


----------



## Matthias

Gesetveemet said:


> 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
> 
> 
> .





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


----------



## SteveBurlew

> Hello Steve:
> Has Banner done this with others works also? Is there an edit department that is responsible for this action?



To: Amazing Grace -- No, not that I'm aware of.


----------

