# The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink



## SmokingFlax (May 30, 2004)

In my quest to gain a better understanding of Covenant theology this is my first book on the subject. I only have a few more pages to go.

Anybody have any comments about it? 

There are a couple/few places where he openly disagrees with Witsius on some issues. He also plainly demolishes the dispensational view with a rather enjoyable frequency.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 30, 2004)

Pink is good, everything except that baptism flaw.:bs2:


----------



## SmokingFlax (May 30, 2004)

Yes, Pink is pretty good... This is my 5th book that I've read of his (The Sovereignty of God, The Attributes of God, Elijah, and Gleanings in Genesis being the others). His insights into the Word are pretty amazing...at least enough to make me feel like a know-nothing.

I did come across something on the web a few years ago that made me wonder though. It was an article about antichrist where it was attributed to A.W. Pink that he felt that the final Antichrist was going to be Judas Iscariot reincarnated or some such nonsense. I find it hard to believe that it comes from the same guy(???).

What is bs2?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 31, 2004)

Just a question:

Where does Pink address the Judas Iscariot Issue? and also his view of baptism?

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 31, 2004)

The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink


----------



## Learner (May 31, 2004)

Christopher:you have to understand that A.W.came from a dispensational background.Many of his earlier books including &quot;The Antichrist&quot;were tainted with teachings he later disavowed.Mr.Murray in his &quot;The Life of A.W.Pink&quot;details in the back of said book the particular works of Pink's which merit caution.
Sean:do you only have reservations on &quot;that baptism flaw&quot;?What about church government?I mean from your stanpoint being a Presbyterian and all.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 31, 2004)

I love Pink for many of his writings primarily his work on the soveriegnty of God, I think it should be required reading for every new christian. I think he has many flaws though, i appreciate his scholarliness, yet all of his writings seem to maintain a solid devotional quality, a great attribute in my opinion. I have been reading through his commentary on Hebrews and while I highly recommend it, it is kind of like a good steak you have to eat the meat and spit out the bones.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 31, 2004)

[quote:79b3ca4a68][i:79b3ca4a68]Originally posted by Irishcat922[/i:79b3ca4a68]
Pink is good, everything except that baptism flaw.:bs2: [/quote:79b3ca4a68]

Pink also tended towards Hyper-calvinism and had a low view of the church.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 31, 2004)

Where did you get that from Ian, I always felt that from what I have read of Pink that he was fairly Evangelistic. Although I haven't read him extensively.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 31, 2004)

Banner of Truth edits the Hyper-Calvinist material from Pinks writings. While he was certainly evangelistic he did not feel that it could be said in any shape or form that God loved the unconverted.

&quot;Arthur Pink's early writings reflected the highest of high-Calvinist opinion. Some have suggested that Pink was flirting with (or even embraced) a kind of hyper-Calvinism. Certain hyper-Calvinist tendencies certainly marred some of his earlier works. For example, Pink's well-known and mostly helpful book on the sovereignty of God originally included material (later edited out of the Banner of Truth edition) denying that God loves all His creatures-particularly the reprobate. According to Pink, God's hatred for non-elect sinners allows for no disposition toward them that can properly be called &quot;love.&quot;
Pink's denial of the love of God toward the reprobate set him at odds with Calvin, Flavel, Charnock, Manton, and most of the Puritans. But in Pink's later ministry, he encountered a virulent strain of hyper-Calvinism, promoted by the &quot;Gospel Standard&quot; churches in England. The Gospel Standard articles of faith deny that it is the duty of every sinner to repent and believe in Christ.&quot;

the rest of this article can be read here

As regards to his view of the church. He spent 16 years in isolation with no formal relationship with a church. His efforts at preaching were not met with success, and his books did not sell. He seemed to take this as a warrant for asceticism. He continued to write articles and books and answer questions about his writings via letter until his death in '53

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 31, 2004)

I'll have to do some more reading about Mr. Pink. I have never read any biographies on him. Did you say Ian Murray had written one?


----------



## Ianterrell (May 31, 2004)

No I didn't mention a Murray Biography on Pink. I'm not aware of any biographies on Pink that are in print. There are a few short bios online though.


----------



## py3ak (May 31, 2004)

Iain Murray has written a biography of A.W. Pink. It is very good --informative, sympathetic, but by no means uncritical.

It may be out of print, as the only place I could find it online was at abebooks.com

Here is the link

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=292114384


----------



## Learner (May 31, 2004)

Richard Belcher has written several books on Pink.Some are largely his letters.I gave these books to Dr.Robert Morey a couple years ago and haven't gotten around to asking for them back.Maybe now is the time.
A.W. was not hyper-calvinistic Ian.You are right that he took the Gospel Standard creed to task.He did this particularly in :&quot;Man's Total Depravity&quot;.Mr.Murray was largely responsible for &quot;editing&quot;out what he thought were offensive,
objectionable parts to Pink's &quot;T.S.o.G.&quot;.That is approximately one third of the book!pink was a balanced man as far as covering the full counsel of the Word of God.It depended upon his audience.If he was addressing mostly strong Calvinists he would concentrate on the precepts and man's responsiblity.On the other hand,if his readers or listeners leaned toward Arminianism he would focus on God's electing grace and the eternal decree.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 31, 2004)

I didn't say that he was a hyper-calvinist just that he tended towards hyper-calvinist thought. I'm not an expert on Pink, but if he didn't think that one could describe God as loving sinners in some sense, than he did in my opinion tend towards hyper-calvinism. He was certainly devotional, and evangelistic so one would not apply the label Hyper-Calvinist to him.


----------



## Learner (May 31, 2004)

Understood Ian.But does God love reprobate sinners.That is the ones foreordained for eternal torment?


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 2, 2004)

I would say that he does. But not to the degree that he loves his elect. He does not love all men the same way, or with the same intensity. The elect he loves with a special affection. This much is clear. Perhaps without being too speculative God's love for the &quot;world&quot; could be as one theologian put it the love that we have for the poor fallen wretch strewn out in the alley. A kind of merciful pity fills us. In this sense I feel God loves the reprobate.


----------



## Learner (Jun 2, 2004)

*Does God love the Reprobate?*

No,He does not.Does he love those whom He will say:&quot;Depart from me.I have never known you.&quot;?He knows His sheep, who are His elect ones.That is He loves them with an everlasting love.But He does not love those whom He does not know.Now,God &quot;knows&quot;everything and everyone.The special &quot;know' in Scripture is an intimacy peculiar only to the called- out- ones;that is,His Church.Charles Hodge was in error regarding Romans 9:13.
When God hates it does not mean &quot;loved less&quot;.Hate is hate.
God hates some.But there is not sin in His hatred.David had righteous hatred toward some folks(see Psalm 139 for instance),but it is difficult for us to hate in a pure manner.God,however does hate in a pure fashion.


----------



## grace2U (Jun 21, 2004)

Whether one thinks that God loves everybody will depend on one's definition of 'love'.

God is 'kind to the unthankful and evil' (Luke 6:35).
He 'makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust' Matt 5:45)'
He 'endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction' (Rom 9:22). 

If this constitutes love, then indeed, God loves everyone.

But in fact, God's love (in the sense of [i:8a3a8a2042]agape[/i:8a3a8a2042] love) He has only for His elect. It is only to them that He says, 'I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness [or 'covenant mercies'] I have drawn you' (Jer 31:3).

Blessings,
Steve


----------

