Arthur Walkington Pink (1886-1952)

[Pilgrim]

A. W. Pink states the following on this subject (taken from the above link):

“Unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee” (verse 5)?
This latter expression has occasioned not a little difficulty to some of the commentators, and, in the past, has been made the battleground of fierce theological fights. The issue raised was “the eternal Son-ship of Christ.”

Those affirming understood “this day (or “today”) the Greek is the same as in Luke 23:43 — to be timeless, and “this day have I begotten Thee” to refer to the eternal generation of the Son by the Father. Much of the fighting was merely a strife “about words,” which was to no profit. Though Scripture clearly teaches the Godhead and absolute Deity of the Son ( Hebrews 1:8, etc.) and affirms His eternality ( John 1:1, etc.), it nowhere speaks of His eternal “son-ship,” and where Scripture is silent it behooves us to be silent too. Certainly this verse does not teach the eternal son-ship of Christ, for if we allow the apostle to define his own terms, we read in Hebrews 4:7, “He limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today,” etc. This, it appears to us, illustrates the Spirit’s foresight in thus preventing “today” in Hebrews 1:5 being understood as a timeless, limitless “day” — eternity.

I wonder if this was an influence on MacArthur's former view?

 

[JimmyH]

That's interesting. I think many who share Pink's aversion to dispensationalism would disagree with the idea that nothing he published before 1932 is worth reprinting. I don't have Murray's bio handy, so I can't verify what was published before that date. Naturally, he was in the middle of some series in 1932.

But note that "The Sovereignty of God" was published before 1932, with 1929 being the last update that Pink worked on. Perhaps he was referring specifically to "Studies?" He basically disavowed other early books he had published, particularly on Bible prophecy, but it would certainly be news if we are to understand that he disavowed "Sovereignty" to some extent as well, although it might go some ways toward vindicating Murray's opinion of it, which is that Pink had modified his views on some things after 1929. Murray notes that Pink did not see fit to announce the last reprinting in his lifetime (1940 I think) of "Sovereignty" in "Studies."

When Sovereign Grace Publications had published Studies (hard copy) from its inception up until 1944, with the promise that they'd continue until the set was complete I bought them. So I have the earlier issues. Unfortunately the economic downturn, publishing costs has prevented SGP from finishing their commitment, and there it lies.

So I was grateful to be able to download 1945-1953 of Studies from Chapel Library to complete my set. Of course I haven't even come close to reading all the hard copies I have, but I've done some reading through many of them. In the early editions he had contributors submit articles but he discontinued that practice along the way. I'm not sure of the cut off date. Perhaps that might be why he didn't hold the pre 1932 publication in high regard ?

I have the Baker reprint of Sovereignty of God, and If I recall correctly the issue with Lian Murray's BOT edition was limited atonement. I've never seen a copy but I 'think' I remember reading that he deleted that chapter in the BOT edition. I suppose because he strongly disagreed with it ? I just checked my Baker edition and there are 320 pages of text. The BOT edition is obviously abridged with 147 pages (looking on their website at the table of contents

 

[Pilgrim]

When Sovereign Grace Publications had published Studies (hard copy) from its inception up until 1944, with the promise that they'd continue until the set was complete I bought them. So I have the earlier issues. Unfortunately the economic downturn, publishing costs has prevented SGP from finishing their commitment, and there it lies.

So I was grateful to be able to download 1945-1953 of Studies from Chapel Library to complete my set. Of course I haven't even come close to reading all the hard copies I have, but I've done some reading through many of them. In the early editions he had contributors submit articles but he discontinued that practice along the way. I'm not sure of the cut off date. Perhaps that might be why he didn't hold the pre 1932 publication in high regard ?

I have the Baker reprint of Sovereignty of God, and If I recall correctly the issue with Lian Murray's BOT edition was limited atonement. I've never seen a copy but I 'think' I remember reading that he deleted that chapter in the BOT edition. I suppose because he strongly disagreed with it ? I just checked my Baker edition and there are 320 pages of text. The BOT edition is obviously abridged with 147 pages (looking on their website at the table of contents View attachment 9348

I believe it had to do with reprobation and related matters. The controversy over Banner's abridgement of this book has been done to death on this board through the years. I don't think they cut out as much as the number of pages suggests. (To my recollection the print in the Baker edition is pretty big and it is pretty small in the Banner edition.) But I think they cut out something like 25-30% of the book.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

This is probably stretching things a bit. In Stornoway at the time there were at least two flourishing confessional Reformed congregations (the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian church) and plenty more across the island if for any reason those particular congregations didn't suit him.

I thought Dr Duguid helped to put this in perspective.

To add to Pink's difficulties, he was from Southern England and he was living in the Outer Hebrides in the 1940's - culture shock would have been considerable, and it's not clear that the locals were necessarily as welcoming as they could have been. The local Christians reportedly thought he was "an English nutter".

 

[alexandermsmith]

From what I recall from reading Iain Murray's biography of A. W. Pink, in addition to things that I came across in his writings, the primary reason he did not attend church was that he could find nowhere that was good enough for him. While I agree that there are valid reasons for people not being able to attend church such as illness, I do not believe that getting over a bad experience is one of them.

This would track with his behaviour elsewhere. He was in Glasgow for a period and attended the Free Presbyterian services, occasionally being asked to pray. However, when it became clear that he would not be called upon to assume a more prominent role within the church he and his wife stopped attending the services. That he thought he should be allowed to preach within the bounds of a church which he refused to join says a lot.*

It's a great shame when someone who has contributed positively to the church sets such a bad example by absenting himself from the public means of grace; and to do so because he considers no church good enough for him, or willing to validate his own belief that he was called to the ministry. Some of the comments he makes about churches he attended in Scotland show a great lack of discernment.

I have only read one book by Pink, his Sovereignty of God. I thought it was excellent and would happily recommend it (yes the unedited edition).

*This information is taken from his own words as found in letter 20 of the Banner paperback of his letters.