Federal Visionist Found Innocent in the PCA

Federal Visionist Greg Lawrence has been cleared of all charges as the result of a trial in the Siouxlands Presbytery.    While the commission’s report still has not been released, you can read about the case here.   Suffice it to say the art of obfuscation has triumphed once again in the PCA.  Big surprise.  Is it me, or is the PCA looking a lot like Doug Wilson’s FV phony Presbyterian denomination, the CREC?

*Pictured – Greg Lawrence, James Jordan and a very unfortunate child.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, Siouxlands Presbytery

40 Comments on “Federal Visionist Found Innocent in the PCA”


  1. Hi Sean,

    NO surprises here, I’m afraid. It’s going to happen again, and again, and again. Judgement day is going to be a terrible day for these tripesters.

    That well known Scripture in Isaiah 5:20 is apt in these instances:

    “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

    There is a blog called “For the Elect Only”, which is run by someone I consider to be a heretic, Mark McCulley, who has a new blog post up with a scathing attack on the Westminster Larger Catechism. While the attack is a JOKE in itself, being written on the strength of AW Pink’s works (another heretic to my way of thinking), this is what Pink is reported to say regarding the WLC’s question, “What is Sanctification”

    Answer, ““Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby, they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time through the powerful operation of His Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life.”

    A.W. Pink’s “thoughtful” rebuttal goes like this: “First, the definition or description of sanctification of the Westminster divines is altogether inadequate, for it entirely omits the most important aspect and fundamental element in the believer’s sanctification: it says nothing about our sanctification by Christ (Heb. 10:10; 13:12), but confines itself to the work of the Spirit, which is founded upon that of the Son.”

    Well, I think I DID see the WLC mention, “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby, they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time through the powerful operation of His Spirit, APPLYING THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST UNTO THEM, renewed in their whole man after the image of God;….”

    My point is this – these people are judged by the Westminster Standards alone, instead of the Scriptures. This was the case with Jeff Meyers and is now the case with Greg Lawrence. Until this is changed, these people will be cleared of their treason against a Holy, Righteous and Just God every single time.

    May God have mercy on us all!

    Here is a link to that blog —>> http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/sanctification-is-not-more-and-more-by-aw-pink/

    Take care.
    My love to you in Christ.
    Liz

  2. Hugh Says:

    Why do the Keystone Cops come to mind?

    As well as this theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUN78LgRfHE&feature=related

    sigh…..

  3. NeoNicene Says:

    Elizabeth,

    We should probably take it easy on speculating how the day of judgement will go. Our sovereign God alone is judge. If God sovereignly saves some and condemns others to hell based not on any foreknowledge of what they believe or do, we got just as a good shot as those you are so quick to condemn.

  4. Steve M Says:

    NeoNicene

    Who’s “we”?

  5. Hugh Says:

    Steve M, you’re hilarious! Reminds me of the Lone Ranger & Tonto joke, “What do you mean ‘we.’ white man?”

    To the Pink/ WLC thing. John Murray (no foe to Westminster standards!) has a great piece on the deficiency of some (incl. said standards, methinks) in explaining sanctification biblically: http://www.reformedliterature.com/murray-definitive-sanctification.php

    Definitive (as contrasted with progressive) sanctification has long been the overwhelming majority report in reformed circles. A shortcoming that Murray rectified.

    I don’t think it’s the fault of the West. standards that visionaries are exonerated. It’s the cluelessness & gutlessness of The Presbyterian invertebrates!

  6. Hugh McCann Says:

    Oops; TYPO! That should have read:

    Progressive (as contrasted with Definitive) sanctification has long been the overwhelming majority report in reformed circles. A shortcoming that Murray rectified.

  7. Hugh Says:

    Sean,
    Would you please post the links to your, Lane’s, and/ or Wes’ articles dealing with the specifics of this case?
    Thanks!

  8. Sean Gerety Says:

    I’m bit short on time Hugh, but if you just click on the Siouxlands tab I’m sure you’ll find them all. As for Wes’ site, I’m sure there are a few but you’ll just have to do a search.

  9. Hugh Says:

    Thanks, Sean. Will dig.

    Am trying to find earlier reports of TE Lawrence’s errors & charges against, rather than ‘Baggins contra Moon’s defense of Lawrence, etc.

    The link you give above has only the charges. We want the evidence ~ TE L’s writings, sermons, etc.

  10. AZTexan Says:

    I’m still dying to know why Arthur Pink is labelled a heretic… I understand he was a flat-Earther, but what have I missed?

  11. Hugh Says:

    Ha ha, AZTex! 🙂

  12. Hugh Says:

    He reportedly backed off his supra-stance (Baker ed. of Sov. of God vs. Banner of Truth ed.), and he WAS a Baptist, after all. 🙂

    Perhaps these offended our RSA friend! 😉

    Liz: Enlighten us, please!

  13. Hugh Says:

    Sean,

    Wes White has taken down everything of substance related to this.

  14. AZTexan Says:

    @Hugh:
    Darn, I’ve only got the BoT edition of Sovereignty of God. Why on flat, flat Earth would he up and quit supra-ism? I must know, but I assume it probably is some weird Baptist thing. However, as my lurking at 5 Pt. Salt and DefCon demonstrates, I’m not above occasionally slumming it with a handful of the less-annoying credodunkers here in cyberspace. 😉

    So, from where I sit…good ol’ A. W. Pink probably is not writhing in hell…yet. Elizabeth, yeronner, we eagerly await the opinion to support your verdict.

  15. Hugh McCann Says:

    Pink was edited by Banner of Truth to reflect their idea of how he WOULD have (or OUGHT to have) edited his earlier publication.

    The issue is well-critiqued here: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=160

    I can no longer find Iain Murray’s article rationalizing his editing of AWP, but it used to be at their website.

    Also, from J. F. Foster’s review of the Baker ed. @ Amazon: ‘I mentioned at the start of this review that this particular edition of Pink’s work is a source of great controversy. The reason is because of two main arguments put forth by Pink in this edition that were deleted by the Banner of Truth edition. The first is Pink’s argument in favor of limited atonement that argues that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world on the cross, but only for the sins of God’s elect. This is by far the most controversial and debated point of the 5 points of Calvinism. Many self described Calvinists reject this point in favor of a modified form of unlimited atonement, but Pink argues forcefully for the limited atonement view here. Second, and even more controversial, is Pink’s lengthy discourse on what is known as ‘double predestination’. This is the view that God not only actively elects certain people to be saved, but also actively condemns people to torment. Again, most Calvinists today reject double predestination, but Pink, in the longest chapter of this book, strongly affirms this doctrine. This chapter is the single most controversial aspect of this book, among many controversial aspects, and was deleted in its entirety in the Banner of Truth edition of the book.’


  16. Hi Guys,

    I am sorry I am taking so long to come back to you, but I am bogged down right now.

    I started having an ENORMOUS problem with Arthur W. Pink while I was reading his “Studies on Saving Faith”. I no longer have that book, but I went online to see if I could find it there. Here is the link.

    http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/saving_faith/index.html

    There you will see an OUTRAGEOUS quote by Pink, which goes like this:

    “3. A theoretical knowledge of Christ is not sufficient. Upon this point we must dilate at greater length, for much ignorance concerning it prevails today. A head-knowledge about Christ is very frequently mistaken for a heart-acquaintance with Him. But orthodoxy is not salvation. A carnal judgment about Christ, a mere intellectual knowledge of Him, will never bring a dead sinner to His feet: there must be a living experience—God’s word and work meeting together in the soul, renewing and understanding. As 1 Corinthians 13:2 so plainly and solemnly warns us, I may have the gift of prophecy, understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, yet if I have not love, then I am nothing. Just as a blind man may, through labor and diligence, acquire an accurate theoretical or notional conception of many subjects and objects which he never saw, so the natural man may, by religious education and personal effort, obtain a sound doctrinal knowledge of the person and work of Christ, without having any spiritual or vital acquaintance with Him.”

    What sayeth you guys to THAT one, when Scripture CLEARLY tells us that the heart and the mind are the same thing.

    “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” – Proverbs 23:7

    A.W. Pink espoused Lordship Salvation. That is also badly reflected in that same booklet. I am sure Dr John Robbins would not have missed this stuff. I have not looked at the Trinity Foundation’s website to see if he has written anything against Pink.

    I did not know that Pink was a Flat Earther – Good grief, what more do you want? LOL

    Take care. I will come back on this ASAP
    My love to you all in Christ.
    Liz


  17. Hallo again Guys,

    I need to add that the quote I copied from Pink’s book, “Studies on Saving Faith”, is to be found in Chapter 7, Part 3. It is called “Coming to Christ with our Understanding”. Pink denies that we need to undertand Scripture. He says we need a “heart-aquaintance”. Sheeeeeeesh! So, we need to get acquainted in our hearts with God now, in order to get saved? Sounds like hard work to me.

    That link I posted will only take you to the index, so I needed to come back and tell you that. You would need to click on the link that takes you to Chapter 7, Part 3.

    Thank you muchly.

    I look forward to your ideas on this issue, as Justification by Faith ALONE is the doctrine on which the whole of the Reformation was hinged, and Paul has something to say to ANYBODY who preaches another gospel in Galatians 1:8-9.

    Take care now.
    My love to you in Christ.
    Liz

  18. Sean Gerety Says:

    Pink’s Sovereignty of God unbutchered is a masterpiece. His handling of limited atonement and double predestination are spot on even if they’re an affront to emasculated neo-Calvinists.

  19. AZTexan Says:

    @Hugh: Thanks for the eye-opening linkage. I’ve long had misgivings about Iain Murray and BoTT, and the more I learn about him/them, the stronger my dislike becomes. I want a refund for my BoT copy of Sovereignty of God! Banner of (un)Truth: (un)Trust(worthy).

    @Elizabeth: I see where you’re coming from, but I’m very far from consigning Pink to the dustbin over a few paragraphs – (and, in light of the TR article provided by Hugh, who knows how heavily “*edited” [i.e., chopped, mangled, processed]) – especially on a notoriously sticky topic as prone to misarticulation (by authors) and misunderstanding (by readers) as that of saving faith v. lordship salvation v. easy believism.

    I take Studies on Saving Faith as a whole to be a sober, incisive challenge to the self-deceived who wholeheartedly believe in a god of their own design, trusting alone in their (dead) faith in watered-down nongospels like those of altar-callers and libertines. Well do we know how easy it is when answering error to come across as falling into the ditch across the road, though in fact we be never so far from supporting the opposite extreme. Had Pink been answering lordship salvation, his words would undoubtedly have been construed by some as antinomian. Had you not already purged your library of the volume in question, I would encourage you to give it another, more-charitable, perusal. Oh, well. 🙂

    *From the copyright page of Studies on Saving Faith (2010. Northampton Press.): Studies on Saving Faith was first published as a series of articles in the monthly magazine “Studies in the Scriptures” in 1932, 1933 and 1937. This Northampton Press edition, in which spelling, grammar, formatting, and syntax changes have been made

    Hmmm. Also interesting is that the introduction is by woefully inept exegete (Dispensationalist, Marrowist hypo-Calvinist) John MacArthur, also regarded by many as a lordship guy…and recently profiled (a tasteless, tacky move in my opinion) by none other than…Iain Murray. Something stinks, but from where I sit it ain’t good ol’ A. W. Pink or his doctrine, flat-Earth silliness be sodded.

  20. Jim Butler Says:

    I know this is a bit off-topic, but where does A.W. Pink indicate his belief in a flat-earth in his writings? I Googled it and the only thing I saw was James Jordan saying he had heard Pink thought the earth was flat.

    Jim

  21. AZTexan Says:

    Excellent question, Jim; I’d like to know, myself. I’ve only heard hearsay to date, but it seems a pervasive factoid whenever Pink is brought up. Perhaps it’s like the old chestnut that B. B. Warfield was an evolutionist.

  22. justbybelief Says:

    Thanks for clarifying and substantiating your claim, Elizabeth. I thought at first you were saying that because Pink disagreed with the WLC he was a heretic, now I know otherwise.

    I remember being told in several Baptist churches on several occasions that if the gospel hadn’t descend the 18″ from the head to the heart I wasn’t saved, and I was deluding myself if I thought I was. I remember being on my knees trying to mentally force it (the gospel) into my heart, whatever that meant–scraping the psyche raw I suppose. Maybe I should have whipped myself too as that’s always effective in spurring the spiritual life.

    Teachers may have a great understanding of election and double predestination and may articulate it better than anyone else. They can know every other doctrine in the Bible and be able to expound it to the grateful ears of their listeners, but if they go astray on the doctrine of ‘how a person (he) is saved’ all their other study of the Bible and teaching, is worthless and vain and they, and their listeners, will end up in hell. The ‘good news’ or gospel is the means God uses to call his people. If the gospel is absent but every other doctrine present there can still be no salvation.

    Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is a water-shed.

    Men believe that in order to fight what they see as a ‘dead’ faith in others, they must create a new doctrine to combat it. In doing this they have undermined (negated) the gospel. The head heart distinction is a contrivance of Satan and expounded by men to create moralists, not Christians and as such is a doctrine that negates the gospel of grace because it undermines faith.

    If we are unwilling to bring ALL men and there teachings under the scrutiny of the Word of God, we are idolaters–we are not noble.

    Thanks again, Elizabeth.

    Eric

  23. Steve M Says:

    Elizabeth

    Thanks for the Pink link. The more I read the worse it gets. I have read much Pink years ago but his is something I have not read before.


  24. Hi there justbybelief and Steve M.,

    I just about wept when I saw your posts. Thank you both.

    I have answers for all of you, but I cannot tarry right now, so here is a video I made on YouTube, when a user posted a question on my channel, asking me if I believed that simple belief in Jesus Christ saves. Here was my answer to this man.

    Have a good day, all of you.
    My love to you all in Christ.
    Liz


  25. Charles Hodge split the head and heart too, is he a heretic? Pink has his errors (as all do) – it should be noted that he was Dispensational in his earlier writings, before writing “The Divine Covenants” – but IMHO to say he preached another gospel is silly.

  26. Hugh Says:

    With Patrick on this (thus far).

    Liz gives:

    Pink denies that we need to understand Scripture. He says we need a “heart-aquaintance”. Sheeeeeeesh! So, we need to get acquainted in our hearts with God now, in order to get saved? Sounds like hard work to me.

    >Cheesy, maybe even sloppy, but not necessarily heretical. Read on.

    Then, this from Pink: “A theoretical knowledge of Christ is not sufficient.”
    >Have we any qualms about this? One must be known by him, and truly know him. See below.

    “A head-knowledge about Christ [vs] heart-acquaintance with Him.”
    Likewise: “…orthodoxy is not salvation. A carnal judgment about Christ,
    a mere intellectual knowledge…”
    >Again, as Patrick points out, Hodge said the like. Wrong technically, but understood rightly (judged charitably?), we can say that he means merely knowing that Christ was an historical person, a good man, a moral teacher, etc., is insufficient. That he’s the Son of God? Not enough – demons get that much right. One must believe that he died for his/ her sins, per 1 Cor. 15:3f., no?

    Then, “there must be a living experience—God’s word and work meeting together in the soul, renewing and understanding.”
    >We don’t argue; Jesus said, “Ye must be born again.”

    Lastly, “…the natural man may, by religious education and personal effort, obtain a sound doctrinal knowledge of the person and work of Christ, without having any spiritual or vital acquaintance with Him.”
    >Untrue? Come on, all false teachers within the visible, confessing church meet these sad criteria.

    We have the blessing of Clark/ Robbins and their scrutinizing of tripartite “faith,” head/ heart fallacies, et. al. Pink was fighting particular battles. Without historical perspective, we can lose the truth that men state things extremely, not including all POVs, not giving all sides.

    I await more concrete evidence that Pink was a heretic before putting the torch to his stake.

  27. justbybelief Says:

    To define faith as anything other, or more, than belief is false. Belief is an operation of the mind. Belief of the gospel in an operation of the mind renewed by the Holy Spirit. To place belief in an ‘organ’ that doesn’t exist–the heart as something different from the mind–is false. So, someone, who proclaims that you must embrace the gospel with a nonexistent faculty (the heart) is preaching in such a way that precludes anyone from ever being saved. Whoever preaches this nonsense is preaching a false-gospel.

    We used to have a joke (no offense to N.D. intended):

    Q: How do you drive a North Dakotan crazy?
    A: Put him a round room and tell him to piss in the corner.

    *Hint: A round room has no corners 😉

    This is a summary of the head heart distinction. Maybe we should replace ‘North Dakotan’ with ‘Siouxlands Presbytery.’

  28. justbybelief Says:

    I might add that the unbeliever is in the position of the North Dakotan in the above joke–completely lost. According to the Bible, in the unregenerate state we are DEAD. Therefore, it behooves the teacher to get it right, otherwise, the unbeliever will FOREVER be wandering the labyrinth–lost.

  29. Hugh Says:

    Just2B,

    …someone who proclaims that you must embrace the gospel with a nonexistent faculty (the heart) is preaching in such a way that precludes anyone from ever being saved. Whoever preaches this nonsense is preaching a false-gospel.

    Surely, it’d be utter nonsense to exhort men to utilize “a non-existent faculty,” as you say. Yes, no one could therefore be saved if they need an organ, ability, faculty, etc. that doesn’t indeed exist.

    And yet, if Pink and/ or the myriad other Reformed folk who made this distinction meant that mere acquaintance with the gospel data is insufficient to qualify as saving faith, we’d agree.

    Like our calling the tripartite “faith” a needless tautology, we can say this head/ heart thing is a false dichotomy. But either can be understood biblically, I believe, just as they can be denounced as poorly-worded.

    But we’re not Carp & Dunc, after all! 🙂


  30. Hugh,
    I will address you, seeing as you like AW Pink so much. 😉

    In the Forward to the First Edition of his book “The Sovereignty of God”, Pink felt a great need to toot his own horn. Here is a paragraph from that Forward. Note how he uses the royal “we” in his diatribe:

    “In addition to the widespread effects of unscriptural teaching, we also have to reckon with DEPLORABLE SUPERFICIALITY OF THE PRESENT GENERATION. To announce that a certain book is a treatise on doctrine is quite sufficient to prejudice against it the great bulk of church-members and most of our preachers as well. The craving today is for something light and spicy, and FEW HAVE PATIENCE, STILL LESS, DESIRE, to examine carefully THAT WHICH WOULD MAKE A DEMAND UPON THEIR HEARTS AND THEIR MENTAL POWERS. We remember, also, how that it is BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT IN THESE STRENUOUS DAYS FOR THOSE WHO ARE DESIROUS OF STUDYING THE DEEPER THINGS OF GOD TO FIND THE TIME WHICH SUCH STUDY REQUIRES. Yet, it is still true that “Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” and in spite of the discouraging features referred to, we believe there is even now a GODLY REMNANT who will take pleasure in giving this LITTLE WORK a careful consideration, and such will, we trust, find in it “Meat in due season.”

    Aaah, how nice and pious of Mr Pink. How nice of him to think of us on this blog who might consider giving his “little work” a careful consideration.

    I know of heretics on YouTube that say similar things when they are getting ready to spout their nonsense to their itching ears viewers. One particular man, against whom I have an entire channel dedicated, continuously starts off his very long and arduous sermons with words like: “You guys are never going to get this – you’re never going to understand what I am going to teach you – but this is in the Book, so I am going to preach it, whether you like it or not!” His poor viewers don’t even know what he is doing to them. And yes, I have this man on video saying this nonsense to his friends and subscribers. “If Man does not have a Free Will, then God is twisted!” and “This is a ‘Shut Up and Listen Ministry. If you don’t like it, you can go somewhere else!” But, regardless, he still rails on and on, ad nauseum…tooting his own horn all the way through. And YES, I have him on video doing that too. He’s not as sophisticated in his speech, as is AW Pink, but you soon catch his drift.

    Getting back to AW Pink, earlier on in that Forward to the First Edition of “The Sovereignty of God”, we see him saying this:

    “In the following pages an attempt has been made to examine ANEW in the light of God’s Word some of the PROFOUNDEST QUESTIONS WHICH CAN ENGAGE THE HUMAN MIND. Others have grappled with these mighty problems in days gone by AND FROM THEIR LABOURS WE ARE GAINERS. While making no claim for originality the writer, nevertheless, has endeavored to examine and deal with his subject from an ENTIRELY INDEPENDANT VIEWPOINT. We have studied diligently the writings of such men as Augustine and Acquinas, Calvin and Melanethon, Jonathan Edwards and Ralph Erskine, Andrew Fuller (Fullerism’s Andrew Fuller?) and Robert Haldane*. And sad it is to think that these eminent and honored names are almost entirely unknown to the present generation. THOUGH, OF COURSE, WE DO NOT ENDORSE ALL THEIR CONCLUSIONS, YET WE GLADLY ACKNOWLEDGE OUR DEEP INDEBTEDNESS TO THEIR WORKS. (I wonder what God would have to say about THAT?) We have purposely refrained from quoting freely from DEEPLY TAUGHT THEOLOGIANS, BECAUSE WE DESIRED THAT THE FAITH OF OUR READERS SHOULD NOT STAND IN THE WISDOM OF MEN BUT IN THE POWER OF GOD. For this reason we have quoted freely from the Scriptures and have sought to furnish proof-texts for every statement we have advanced.”

    Aah yes, Monty Collier would do an excellent send-off of how that should be read. The man has missed his calling, for sure. But I digress…again…

    Back to AW Pink and that Forward, he says this, to make sure you don’t get away with your slander of his work:

    “It would be foolish for us to expect that this work will meet with general approval…….We do not forget the words of one long since passed away, namely, that “DENUNCIATION IS THE LAST RESORT OF A DEFEATED OPPONENT.” To dismiss this book with the contemptuous epithet–“Hyper-Calvinism!” will not be worthy of notice.” (June 1918 Arthur W. Pink).

    Phew! Yes, and the emphases are all mine.

    Now, I had no clue that I was going to hit a nerve when I said in my first comment that AW Pink was a heretic as far as I was concerned. I STAND BY WHAT I SAID regarding his work, “Studies on Saving Faith.” I am not the only one who has come to that conclusion regarding this man. Many others have done so too.

    It was not my intention to offend. Hugh, certainly not to offend YOU, my dear. I think most people who frequent this blog know that your sense of humour tickles me pink (pun intended). 😉

    Thank you all for reading my rant. While I am certaily no Alex Jones, I am known to go on and on about things, and to speak my mind. I am, after all, a South African – a Capetonian to boot, and in South Africa, they have not yet tried to curtail our freedom of speech.

    Please excuse my spelling, or any heresy I might have committed in this section. My nails are long and I blame them for any faux pax. I will clip them before I write here again. 🙂

    Thank you for indulging me. I am indebted.
    My love to you in Christ.
    Liz

    PS: Yes, I have been accused, many times, of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The following video is merely for your entertainment. Please enjoy my butchered version of this man’s sermon. Thank you. 🙂


  31. Too much deranged irony in this thread. *Backs away slowly*

  32. justbybelief Says:

    “3. A theoretical knowledge of Christ is not sufficient. Upon this point we must dilate at greater length, for much ignorance concerning it prevails today. A head-knowledge about Christ is very frequently mistaken for a heart-acquaintance with Him. But orthodoxy is not salvation. A carnal judgment about Christ, a mere intellectual knowledge of Him, will never bring a dead sinner to His feet: there must be a living experience—God’s word and work meeting together in the soul, renewing and understanding. As 1 Corinthians 13:2 so plainly and solemnly warns us, I may have the gift of prophecy, understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, yet if I have not love, then I am nothing. Just as a blind man may, through labor and diligence, acquire an accurate theoretical or notional conception of many subjects and objects which he never saw, so the natural man may, by religious education and personal effort, obtain a sound doctrinal knowledge of the person and work of Christ, without having any spiritual or vital acquaintance with Him.”

    Hmmm…

    In other words, the Bible is not a sufficient medium for God’s communicating to me the facts about who Christ is and what He’s done much less is it the means of grace. His words aren’t spirit so anything I know, will know, or can know about Him is not spiritual. Since revelation is insufficient for knowledge or as a means of grace, I’m going to wait for an experience from God. Of course he commanded me, SIMPLY, to believe His word but I didn’t because that’s just head-knowledge–a useless fact–and its not the heart-experience I’m really waiting for. I certainly don’t want to just believe when an experience awaits me, do I. *Sits on the anxious bench*
    .
    .
    .
    Been there, done that, never again. *Backing out of the abyss*


  33. justbybelief, that does not seem to be Pink’s meaning at all. Could he be clearer? Yes. Did he have Clark’s precision? No. But take a modicum of charity and allow Pink to interpret Pink here:

    “a mere intellectual knowledge of Him” is equated with “A carnal judgment about Christ,” i.e. Pink is referring to what can be understood and/or known by the unregenerate man. An unregenerate man can possess all the “knowledge” or understanding of the biblical data about Christ and yet not believe it, not trust that Christ actually died for sin. Now, would I call this “mere intellectual knowledge”? No, because I’ve had the benefit of reading Clark and others. Pink’s no heretic.

    “there must be a living experience—God’s word and work meeting together in the soul, renewing and understanding.”

    Scripturalists cringe at the term “living experience” because of errors we now associate with the terms. But without the baggage, the term is *absolutely fine*. The Spirit’s use of the Word in His work of regeneration (what Pink is very clearly referring to) is certainly an experience, an experience of new life. This regeneration is exactly what is needed to raise a dead sinner to life. The rest of the paragraph continues to contrast a regenerate belief with even the very best of unregenerate understanding. Pink is still orthodox. No luck here, heresy-hunters.

  34. Sean Gerety Says:

    I think there has been enough Pink bashing for one thread seeing it has virtually nothing to do with the topic of the post. Pink is no heretic. So if that the argument some are trying to make take it somewhere else.

  35. Hugh Says:

    JustBy & Liz et.al.,

    My 6:53pm & 7:24pm posts for Sept 28 stand unanswered, so I too am done defending a man I hardly know. Patrick similarly tried, and apparently failed as well. Sean’s giving up; so must I.

    BACK TO THE ISSUE: See updated report & thread on the case @ http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/siouxlands-presbytery-exonerates-te-greg-lawrence/

  36. Sean Gerety Says:

    I’m not giving up. Sovereignty of God is brilliant. He comes the closest to anyone I’ve ever read to Clark in solving the problem of evil. However, if I wrote a post on Pink I’d love to discuss and defend him where I could. He was a great Baptist (but, of course, he wasn’t without problems as he was a Baptist) ;-P I just think painting him as a “heretic” is just stupid.

  37. Hugh Says:

    Atta boy – don’t give up! Hear, hear to Sean’s posts.

    I just figured that if my points are unanswered, they may be unanswerable, and there it is.

    The anti-Pink quotes are thus far insufficient evidence for a “Guilty” verdict on the charge of heresy.

  38. AZTexan Says:

    Patrick: >>Too much deranged irony in this thread. *Backs away slowly*<<

    Deranged irony is precisely right, and I whiffed it from the get-go. Wasn’t sure what was in that bottle, but it sure as hell needed to be uncorked and dumped out, putrid as it is. *opening windows, turning on fans*

    Hugh: My Baker copy of the real Sovereignty of God is ordered and soon to be on its way. Thanks for the heads-up. 🙂

  39. Hugh Says:

    AZT – I second Sean’s comments on the Baker ed. of Sovereignty. ENJOY!

    BTW: There is a 3-year-old Puritan Board thread for those interested:
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/pinks-sovereignty-god-development-38897/


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: