(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)
GABOURY'S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT
Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (1918; Grand Rapids , Michigan
For the most part, churchgoers
and even preachers preferred ‘light and spicy’ literature to treatises on
doctrine in 1918 (first Foreword) when
The Sovereignty of God was first
published. Now, nearly a century later, doctrine is not just less preferred,
but tailored to taste. One publisher has reissued this treatise in an abridged
form. Those who dismiss this book by referring to it as ‘Hyper-Calvinism’ ‘will
not be worthy of notice,’ says Pink (first Foreword.) But he would certainly take notice, if
he were alive, of a publisher selling an abbreviated edition of his book. Why
was the book shortened? Was it not done to rid the book of what the publisher
thinks are ‘Hyper-Calvinist’ ideas? I had this shortened version once. Too bad
I don’t still have it, for I’d like to see how cut down it really is. Some
other reviewers have a better idea of what the guilty publisher has done. On
behalf of A. W. Pink, I intend to take notice of this publisher by scolding him
for a few lines. And I use the word ‘him,’ not ‘it,’ to identify the guilty
party, for the foul work was done by a person, not just an impersonal
publishing house. Only a full edition
of this treatise should be made available to read. Baker Books is considerate
and courageous to give us that, and self-effacing enough to let us decide for
ourselves whether or not to read a whole book.
To self-efface is more Christian than
to deface your brother’s work.
Defacing an author’s book is exactly what this other publisher has done. I hate
even mentioning that publisher’s brand here because I’ve benefited so greatly
from the books that are sold under its banner. Romans 11.22 insists that we
behold both ‘the goodness and
severity of God’ (p. 230.) Who is at fault, then? The author who would help us
behold the fullness of God? Or a publisher who truncates the fullness of God
that the author has labored to help us behold? Is the severity of God not a
factor for a publisher to behold while he cuts certain parts and aspects out of
an author’s work? A publisher like that ‘knows not what spirit he is of.’ For
certain, he is, while acting thus, ‘as carnal.’ A doctrine that ‘is the centre
of gravity in the system of Christian truth’ (p. 214) deserves a full
exposition and a full hearing or reading. No one has been given the right from
inspired revelation to prevent God from being known as fully as he has
disclosed himself. If a publisher disagrees with how an author has made God
known, or thinks the author has misrepresented God, that publisher should hire
an author to compose anew rather than meddle with a man’s intellectual
property! It may be that the parts that are cut out of said book will cry up to
God from the cutting room floor to draw a curse down on that publisher. To mess
with a man’s work is to violate the man. And when the work that is meddled with
is about the character and will of God, then is God’s name not desecrated in
the violation? Some publishers must have little idea of the momentous
implications of what they so casually do.
Broadly speaking, the doctrine so
carefully exposited by Mr. Pink is “the key to history, the interpreter of
Providence, the warp and woof of Scripture, and the foundation of Christian
theology” (p. 19.) More particularly, sovereignty means that it is God who
determines the destinies of men (p. 20.) It means that God has the right to
deliver or not to deliver, like when he allowed Stephen to be stoned but
rescued Peter (p. 22.) His sovereignty is displayed in announcing the Messiah
to lower class shepherds and to heathen people instead of to the scribes, the
lawyers, and the Sanhedrin (p. 27.) Sovereignty means that God may even work to
carry out his secret decrees through men like Judas (p. 41.) “If then the
arch-rebel was performing the counsel of God is it any greater tax upon our
faith to believe the same of all rebels?” (p. 42.) It is because of the
sovereignty of God that Moses was prevented from entering Canaan for uttering a
hasty word, while the murmuring Elijah suffered only ‘a mild rebuke’ and was
taken up into heaven instead of being allowed to die as other men (p. 45.)
Sovereignty is what limits the atonement to those chosen beforehand to
salvation (p. 61.) Some names have not been
written in the Book of Life (Revelation 13.8); this is proof that sovereignty
has limited the number (p. 99.) To such generalizations and particulars, A. W.
Pink adds periodic summaries of what Scripture teaches concerning election and
reprobation (pp. 58, 100, 104, 125), which decrees fall out from God’s
overarching sovereignty.
Arthur Pink is often tagged as a
Hyper-Calvinist. Is that a fair description of the man? I wouldn’t be so sure.
Does this treatise on sovereignty teach Hyper-Calvinism? Consider the main
marks by which a Hyper-Calvinist may be identified. The first mark of
Hyper-Calvinism is the assertion that the non-elect are not duty-bound, or
responsible, to believe on Christ. No such mark can be found in the chapter
called God’s Sovereignty and Man’s
Responsibility, which is where it would be found if it existed. Though man
lacks ability, yet he is accountable, teaches Pink (p. 154.) An irrevocably
determined destiny relieves no one of responsibility (p. 162.) That sounds like
an orthodox belief in responsibility to me. This chapter is the most poorly
executed part of the book, but not because of any Hyper-Calvinist trend. The
second mark by which Hyper-Calvinism may be identified is what naturally
follows from the first: a curtailed form of evangelism. If certain sinners are
not responsible, why bid them to believe or call them to repentance? Do you see
the progression? But there is no sign of the second mark either. A. W. Pink is
not for preaching to the elect alone. “Others [besides the elect] have the
benefit of an external call” (p. 210.) These are his exact words. That
perverted form of Calvinism which is designated by the prefix ‘hyper’ or
‘ultra’ and which may be identified by this mark cannot be found in this
treatise, not even in the author’s notes on evangelism, which is where the second mark would be found if it existed (pp. 73, 141.) Arthur Pink
believes that moral darkness will increase from his day until the end of the
world (pp. 13, 14), that ‘guilty Christendom’ will be deluded and take part in
it (p. 124), and that God is not seeking to convert the world, but only his
chosen part of it (p. 237.) But none of this (and does it not all ring true?)
is inconsistent with preaching the gospel to all. And none of it is inconsistent
with believing that all sinners are responsible for a faith that they cannot
produce and will never have except it be imparted by grace. But there is one
more mark to inquire about. That God does not love the non-elect in any way,
shape, or form is another Hyper-Calvinist mark. While Pink does clearly state
(in the chapter called Difficulties and
Objections) that God hates the non-elect and loves them not at all, he
admits in chapter one (p. 25) that God is kind to those who are unthankful and
evil, according to Luke 6.35. This kindness may be qualitatively different from
the love that God has for his elect, but it is a kind of love, and therefore
the man should not be accused of Hyper-Calvinism based on this point either.
The mutant form of Calvinism, the perversion of the kind that is true and
Scriptural, just doesn’t exist in this book. (And if not here, in this book on
‘Sovereignty,’ then probably not anywhere in this man’s writings.) The truth
is, an author is usually labeled ‘hyper’ on no surer ground than that he
teaches the doctrines of election and reprobation in all their concentrated
strength. Both of these doctrines appear again and again from Scripture to
Scripture, from one Testament to the Next, and from the Prophets to the
Apostles, as the expositions that precede Pink’s many and useful summaries
soundly prove. What is dismissed or shunned by those who scorn Pink is not
eccentric Hyper-Calvinism, but the flowers of Calvinism that spring up from the
root of Scripture. His tone is abrasive. But that is another matter. Might
Calvinism be rejected by some on account of his tone?
No matter what its tone, this
treatise on sovereignty will be rejected by any person who is determined to
rest content with his present caricature of God. This obnoxious tone, though,
is a needless, avoidable hindrance. It is impossible to ignore or not be aware
of. I’m surprised that more reviewers don’t mention it. The tone, more than
doctrinal content, is what repels more teachable readers, I think. At least once
the attitude comes across in a funny, inoffensive way, as in the case where he
shows that the lot is disposed, not by chance, but sovereignly. Two
exclamations, not just one, follow upon the proof of that (p. 240.) Usually and regrettably, the attitude is offensive.
From page 96: “Again; did Pharaoh fit
himself for destruction, or did not God harden his heart before the plagues were sent upon Egypt ?—see Ex.
4:21!” People are already emotional and touchy about this subject. Teaching in
this manner will not go far toward winning them over. It hurts the cause of
truth more than it helps it. With Pink, the acerbic spirit is more pervasive
than isolated. It can be found with ease, twice just on one page, for example
(p. 104.) The biggest turnoff is when the attitude is found with error, as on
page 176: “We can only ask God for what
Christ would ask. To ask in the name of Christ, is therefore, to set aside our own wills, accepting
God’s!” (all emphasis his.) If we can ask God only for what Christ would ask,
as Pink teaches, then we can never ask God for grace to overcome a sin, can we?
I counted only one tender moment in this entire treatise, on page 49. The one
on page 191 doesn’t count, for what touches us there is the combined influence
of Madam Guyon’s poem and the vignette from her life. (I don’t approve nor
recommend her prayer methods.) It should not be a miserable experience to read
and learn about the wonderful decrees of God and the ultimate hinge of his
inscrutable will. This treatise full of beautiful truth is unpleasant to read.
And I say this even though I agree, in the main, with what the treatise
teaches. I believe in double predestination. I believe that God loves the elect
especially and in a higher sense. I believe that God hated Esau and that Pharaoh
was ordained to damnation to the glory of God’s justice. Why, then, do I take
issue? This book is not part of a debate about truth. Pink assures us of this
when he states, in that first Foreword,
that he is not ‘entering the lists’ with anyone. If the treatise were a debate, the attitude would be
more tolerable. But this is supposed to be an exposition. And if this were a debate, even then there would be
something wrong with the tone. There is just something so bitter about the
communication that it renders the work repugnant. I like hard-hitting books.
But this one has a thorn in its side, and without enough grace to bear it.
There is a ‘root of bitterness springing up’ in it (Hebrews 12.15), and the
work is defiled thereby.
Which begs me to line up some of
Pink’s other faults. (1) I won’t make much of this first point, nor am I saying
that I am right for sure. I put the
point in only because the author I’m critiquing is so sure that he is right. The truth of the matter may
not be as simple as he thinks. He teaches that Christ could have healed the
‘great multitude’ (p. 24) when he healed the man mentioned in John 5.3-9. Can
we be certain of this assertion? We know from other verses that sometimes power
was with Jesus to heal (Luke 5.17) and that sometimes ‘he did not many mighty
works’ (Matthew 13.58.) Focus in on that verse from Luke particularly; it would
be needless to say that power was with him to heal if that was the case always. This fine detail may yield our
answer (in subordination to the fact that Sovereignty from Above had decided
the matter) as to why only one man was ‘made whole’ at the pool where so many
among the disabled were gathered in search of a miracle. Sometimes virtue went
out from Jesus to heal even before he perceived it (Mark 5.30.) Why? Because
Jesus was subject to his Father in heaven. Jesus was divine and had
supernatural power in himself and from on high. I’m not denying any of that.
But the works that he did were those which were given to him by his Father to
do, and no more (John 5.36.) (2) On page 39 Pink speaks of the ferocious
panther and the polar bear at Genesis 6.19, 20, which time was before the
Flood, before animals had become wild, and before the extreme seasons were
introduced. It was after the waters had receded and after the ark had settled
that the seasons began and the beasts became wild (Genesis 8.22, 9.1.) I’m not
making too much of this point either. But why not mention it since those verses
are so suggestive? (3) The mere fact (is it even a fact?) that the word ‘heart’
occurs ‘three times oftener’ in the Bible than does the word ‘will’ furnishes
no further proof that the heart is ‘the dominating center of our being’ (p.
133.) The heart may indeed be the center. But its frequency of mention could
not prove the point any more than that sin, on the strength of being mentioned
more, is greater than grace. This is a juvenile ‘proof.’ I am surprised to
catch a great scholar making use of it. Suppose that the city of Toronto were mentioned more than the city of Ottawa in a travel magazine about Canada . Would
that mean that Toronto
is the capital? No, and neither does Pink’s proof hold water. (4) His main
fault is supposing that he’s going to untie ‘the gordian knot of theology’—that
he will harmonize, more than others have been able to do, the Sovereignty of
God and Man’s Responsibility (p. 143, 144), which, unsurprisingly, he sorely
fails to do. The problem to solve is: “If man is incapable of measuring up to
God’s standard, wherein lies his responsibility?” (p. 160.) Nothing new
is discovered, and so nothing new is introduced, for a solution to this
dilemma. In fact, waters are muddied more than they are cleared up. If man were
to ask God sincerely from the heart
for mercy to overcome enmity, then God would respond, Pink tells us (p. 160.)
This solves nothing toward finding wherein lies man’s responsibility; in the
heat of the moment Pink forgets that man cannot ask sincerely from a heart that is spiritually
dead. A heart of stone cannot be sincere toward God. The unregenerate heart
is unable and insincere; man is
responsible to God to repent and believe, not because of an ability to be
sincere, but in spite of a mortal disability that includes the inability to
plead sincerely. In Pink’s own words from page 140: “Alas, what can lifeless man do, and man by nature is ‘dead
in trespasses and sins’ (Eph. 2:1)!” (all
emphasis his, especially the obligatory exclamation mark!) Pink is so sure
(‘too clever by half’) of his ability to probe into a matter that the best
theologians have been unable to fathom that he fails to notice the very
noticeable blemishes that he has let fall into his propositions. The position
of Spurgeon on this knot is better than tripping all over the place for a
solution. An approximation of that position is summarized for us near the top
of page 144: the Scriptures affirm both Sovereignty and Responsibility, two
truths that remain irreconcilable to finite man. It does no good to Pink’s
reputation that he puts forward this failed attempt to untie what the likes of
Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards were unable to unknot. Sovereignty lies behind
all of God’s decrees. Attitude lies behind many of Pink’s faults.
If the irritation caused by
Pink’s raw attitude can be endured, there is much in this treatise that
churches may be corrected on. That the love of God in Christ is limited in
scope is widely shown to be the case from Scripture (pp. 200-203.) Its
limitation is more than implied in well-known biblical sayings that are
commonly read without attention. Hebrews 12.6: “For whom the Lord loveth he
chasteneth” (p. 202.) What can this imply but that some receive no chastening
love? Many more verses are offered in proof of this uncomfortable fact. But I
give just a taste of how easy the point is to prove. It should be apparent that
a false interpretation of God’s love is dangerous in the extreme when linked up
with inadequate views of depravity and regeneration (pp. 114, 140, 141.) If
God’s love is taken for granted by the depraved sinner who is told that he needs
only to come forward, join a church, and sign a decision card, then his
desperate plight is not conveyed, and the evangelist may get for his lack of
trouble, not a sinner transformed by grace, but a falsely assured sinner on the
road to self-reform, and still on the broad way leading to hell. The sinner
must be told that in the matter of salvation it is not true that God helps
those who help themselves. “God helps those who are unable to help themselves” (p. 218.) Total depravity requires
regeneration for its fix; evangelical reformation follows regeneration, and some natural kind of reformation may be
mistaken for the supernatural, regenerative act.
But I must return, before I
close, to the subject of the spirit in which this treatise is written. The matter
is so important that it must be the main thing and the last thing left ringing
in the mind of the person who reads this report. I do not doubt, based on the
good content in this treatise and an allusion that is made on page 230, that A.
W. Pink subscribed, at least substantially, to the Westminster Confession of Faith, including the chapter Of God’s Eternal Decree (p. 84) which
was drawn up by the Puritans to whom this author owed so much of his
understanding. In that chapter, directed to ministers especially, if not
exclusively, are these words of warning: “The doctrine of this high mystery of
predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care….” The Puritan
Assembly agreed to include this last clause in the interest of those who ought
to ‘be assured of their eternal election’ through the teaching of this ‘high
mystery.’ Surely this ‘special prudence and care’ must include a spirit
befitting the conveyance of the ‘high mystery.’ Surely a sour spirit is the wrong spirit
to imbue in the work. A sour spirit must be a wicked sister at least, to the
careless and imprudent spirit that the Assembly forbade. A sour spirit is not
fit to handle Imperial Truth, is it? If some Christians are assured of their
eternal election by this treatise, this is good, and I am glad. But the reader
of The Sovereignty of God is apt, I
think, to carry away with him darker notions of God than can be justified from
Scripture. And this unfortunate baggage is due, not to the doctrine of
sovereignty exposited by the author, but to the Uzzah-like hand that reaches
into the work. John Bunyan, in handling the most disagreeable subtext of all
respecting the sovereignty of God: the reprobation of the non-elect, never
betrays an embittered spirit, as firm and steadfast as he is throughout, and
notwithstanding the irritating assaults on the doctrines of grace that might
have flustered the man. His Reprobation
Asserted is a far safer place to turn for lessons on sovereignty than The Sovereignty of God. And what James
White has to say in Debating Calvinism contains
many of the same repairs for false notions of verses connected to sovereignty
that Pink’s treatise does, and they are communicated less offensively, even
though the book containing them is polemical. The Force of Truth by Thomas Scott and Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray are better depots to
inquire at for the same reasons.
Let’s go on to dissect this rude
tone some more. Let’s get into the very guts of this issue. I counted 194
exclamation marks in this treatise. They appear after each Roman Catholic
anathema is quoted (p. 139.) They frequently appear after Scripture verses are
quoted (pp. 85, 87, 104, 127, 142, etc.) To sum up, you might find one of these
marks virtually anywhere. I would not edit even one of them out, though, out of
respect for what a writer has written. Let’s just take Pink as he presents
himself in his writings. And let the man be subjected to accurate criticism. He
unwittingly invites criticism in one of his vituperative remarks: “True liberty
is not the power to live as we please, but to live as we ought!” (all emphasis
his, p. 149.) Did the author of this admonishment, during the composition of
this treatise, live as he ‘ought’ to have lived? In spite of the ubiquity of
his glaring anger (not just righteous indignation, but biting rage), he would
have readers believe that he is not ‘entering the lists’ with anyone. He is totally entering the lists here; he
enters the arena of combat from the get-go and he stays in it the whole way
through! In case I have not sufficiently communicated the offensiveness of
Pink’s tone earlier, take a look at this from page 255: “The vessels of wrath
He endures ‘with much long-suffering’ (see Rom. 9:22). But ‘His own’ God
‘loves’!!” (all emphasis his.) Now take a look at a passage on the same subject
by R. M. M’Cheyne: “Ah, brethren! I believe each of you will yet be a beacon or
a monument—either a beacon of wrath or a monument of mercy” (Sermons, p. 186.) Do you feel the
difference between these two passages? The first one (Pink’s) communicates no
love, though the word ‘love’ is used with emphasis. The second one (M’Cheyne’s)
communicates love even while warning sinners.
And now I am going to qualify the
statement I made earlier about Pink not being a Hyper-Calvinist. Technically,
he may be innocent of the charge, for he admits that God is kind to unthankful,
evil persons, which is an admission that God has a sort of love for the
non-elect. But he admits this divine kindness in such a grudging spirit, and so
lightly and infrequently (probably just once) that I would not begrudge anyone
calling the man a Hyper-Calvinist practically
in this one book. On the subject of God’s love, A. W. Pink is not as well
read as he thinks he is, and not as much in the tradition of his theological
heroes as he asserts. He says the following on page 200: “That God loves
everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern
belief. The writings of the church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans
will (we believe) be searched in vain for any such concept.” It did not take me
more than the turning of a few pages in just one book to prove Pink wrong: “God
hath universal love, and particular love; general love, and distinguishing
love; and so accordingly doth decree, purpose, and determine: from general
love, the extension of general grace and mercy: but from that love that is
distinguishing, peculiar grace and mercy” (The
Works of John Bunyan, Volume 2, Reprobation Asserted, p. 340.) Bunyan goes
on to explain that it was because of God’s universal, or general love, that
Ishmael, the rejected son of Abraham, was blessed. That God loved Isaac ‘with a
better love’ is obvious, for he was chosen by God over against his
half-brother. That Ishmael was blessed by God no one can deny, though, for the
thing is written in Scripture. And what do we call a divine blessing but an
exhibition of God’s love? Bunyan is no obscure Puritan, but the best-known
Puritan of all. His belief that God loves everyone is no ‘modern’ belief, for
he lived in the 17th century, which century is closer to the
medieval age than it is to Pink’s. Pink quotes Bunyan’s treatise on reprobation
approvingly on pages 106, 107. How closely did Pink study this brilliant
treatment of eternal election? He had done well not only to study it, but to
imitate its appropriate tone. How strange that Pink could write a chapter
called Our Attitude Toward God’s
Sovereignty and at the same time be so blind to his own hyper-frequent
attitude abuses!
If it seems too extreme to label The Sovereignty of God Hyper-Calvinistic
even practically speaking, then can it not be said without slander that the
book is hyper in some fashion? If it
is not hyper based on its position on God’s love, can we not say that it is
hyper based on its hateful tone? It is hyper, or excessive, in the stridency of
its tone. There is nothing more conspicuous than this in the whole book. The
tone of the book is the book’s signature, if there is one. Thousands of persons
must have read the treatise since its first publication; would even one honest
person among them dare to say that its tone is not bleak and curt, even
consistently so? This nasty excess is distasteful, shameful, and intolerable. The Picture of Dorian Gray is the most
depressing novel that I have ever read. The
Sovereignty of God is the most depressing orthodox theology that I have
ever had the displeasure of reading. How lovely that these two depressing books
just happen to sit together on the shelf in a dark corner behind my shoulder!
A. W. Pink is not a necessary man to turn to for learning your Bible doctrines.
Any Puritan of note (and there are many to choose from) will teach you more,
will teach you better, and will do you more good.
An air of unsociability blows
through this treatise. And it makes for a sad reflection when you think of how
much readier the same message might be received through kinder communication.
To read the Puritans and to emulate their content is commendable. But to be as
approachable as they were, one must copy their character. The flowers of
Calvinism should never look and smell (as they do here on account of gruffness
added to gravity) like Beaudelere’s Fleurs
du Mal. To be specific, the mood of Pink’s treatise on sovereignty is like
the feeling conveyed by this couplet from Beaudelere’s poem, Owls: “And darkness settles
everywhere;/The last sad rays of daylight die.” That might seem like severe
criticism. And I suppose that it is. But this book had that impression on me.
The cause of this negative effect is the tone, the voice, or the expression,
which I have been careful both to show and to explicate.
Too many readers smear A. W. Pink
because they misunderstand Calvinism, its implications and deductions, and
Christianity generally. From the other extreme, he is read uncritically; some even
follow him cult-like. Balanced criticism of this author’s writings, and of this
book most particularly, is extremely lacking. From what I have read of him, he
is most times a great expositor. The
Sovereignty of God is his most controversial book. If I ever review other
books of his that I have read (which is unlikely), I can guarantee less
negativity in my criticism.
Content: A- (A sacred
subject seriously studied.)
Style: A- (Direct communication.)
Tone: C
(Constancy that slips into sourness.)
Grading Table: A: a keeper:
reread it; promote it; share it.
B: an average book:
let it go.
C: read only if you
have to.
No comments:
Post a Comment