Skip to main content


A. W. Pink Was Wrong

There is no doubt that A. W. Pink was a man used by God to publish truths that had fallen on dark times for many years. His book The Sovereignty of God (and other works) had great influence on a generation of men and women re-discovering the truth of our sovereign God and His electing grace. My reading of Pink's The Sovereignty of God in 1976 changed my life. I have known a great many Christians over the years who make the same claim. Nevertheless, for all his soteriological insight and solid understanding of the nature of God, Bro. Pink suffered from some very confused ideas about church. He simply never had lasting success fitting in with like-minded brethren. After relatively brief efforts at pastoring in four different states and Austrailia, Pink returned to England and spent the last 12 years of his life chuch-less. He died at age 66.  During those last years Pink worked on his monthly periodical Studies in Scripture, and had "church" alone with his wi
Recent posts

The Lie of "Deconversion"

Lately I've been reading so-called "deconversion" stories written by those who claim they were genuinely Christian but who at some point "deconverted" from Christianity to atheism or agnosticism. These stories differ in minor ways but generally tend to follow this sort of  narrative: 1. I became or grew up Christian. 2. My faith was genuine, sincere and informed. 3. Something - some sort of reading, epiphany or other experience moved me from being a Christian to unbeliever.  4. (Akin to #2 above.) My Christian experience cannot be considered false, spurious or delusional because I sincerely and aggressively assert that  it is not. In other words, I as an atheist am in a position to make irrefutable assertions about the nature of true Christianity.  One constant motif in deconversion stories is the supposed intrinsic positional superiority of being one who has "tried" Christianity and found it a failure... or a hoax. In other words, such folk

Is WWJD Our Ethical Model?

The phrase "What Would Jesus Do," abbreviated to "WWJD" became a popular expression and message in the 1990's and beyond. The marketing of WWJD shirts, posters, bible covers, bumper stickers, etcetera... no doubt made more than a few designers and manufacturers a pocket full of  shekels. However, is WWJD the ultimate or only standard by which Christians determine appropriate moral and ethical behavior? I think not. Not because I mean to diminish any responsibility to be Christ-like. God forbid.  In the sinlessness of His imitatible standards/virtues, we ought to ever strive to be like Him. The problem is that WWJD is not the appropriate paradigm for every moral concern and decision. Some of what Jesus did and did not do does not serve as a specific model for us.  Example. You are considering marrying or having children. Or buying a car. The Lord Jesus never owned a car.  He never married. He never had children.  He never bought insurance or set aside incom

Pink on Flattering Titles

Whatever else is true of him, A. W. Pink did not shy away from controversial subjects.  Submitted below is Pink's view of addressing pastors with flattering titles. Dismiss him as an iconoclast if you will, but do you have a scriptural rebuttal? Pink wrote: First, to the false comforters of Job, Elihu (God's representative) said: "Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither  let me give flattering titles unto men.' (Job 32:31) Second, "Be not ye called Rabbi" or "teacher" (Matt. 23:8), which is what "Doctor" signifies. Third, John 5:44 reproves those who "receive honor one of another" and bids us see "the honor that cometh from God only." Fourth, none of the Lord's servants in the New Testament ever employed a title. "Paul, an apostle," but never "the apostle Paul." Fifth, the Son of God "made himself of no reputation (Phil 2:7); is it then fitting that his servants should

The Lost Art of Letter Writing

When I was young, I recollect seeing envelopes in my home with 2 and 3 cent stamps. My mother kept much, if not most of her correspondence in those days. Even when I was I started high school in the late 60's, stamps were only 6 cents. In that era, well before computers, when phones were all black, tethered to the wall,  equipped with a dial apparatus &  long distance calls were generally reserved for emergencies or special occasions - human beings actually wrote letters to one another. Good letter writing skills tended to convey intelligence, thoughtfulness and concern. The days of hastily written, poorly constructed, and quite often banal emails were yet many, many years in the future. I remember when being stationed in Germany with the Army in the mid 1970's... my mother writing monthly or so. She regularly sent rather lengthy letters in that slightly elaborate cursive style that marked her generation. Though phone calls were possible, the cost was prohibitive. So when

Want to Boast? Boast in the Lord

... be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.   Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time ...  1 Peter 5:5-6 In recent weeks I have observed a sort of exaggerated, swaggering activity from those thinking themselves to be online guardians of truth, particularly in Facebook.  Many of these people are impatient and obsessed with grandstanding their own views...even at the cost of maintaining a basic level of kindly, loving  Christian demeanor. They become fixated in the proclamation of some peripheral viewpoint they substitute for genuine gospel truth, particularly  in the area of social concerns, political opinions or even debatable theological preferences. They carry with them a readiness to condemn and scold, to belittle and sometimes bully. They stand ready to flex their spiritual muscles at the proverbial drop of a hat. It's not that they are always wrong in their opinions, for so

The Offense of the Gospel

If you do not understand the gospel is offensive to the unbeliever, either you do not really understand the gospel, or understanding it, you  nevertheless do not preach it truly. It is certain that much of what passes for evangelical preaching today brings little offense. After all, much of the message of today's gospel is divorced from any call to repentence, though it is heavy on appeals for decision - as if God's salvation were contingent on the weakness of an ungaurded moment in the hearer. The gospel preached by our Lord and His aposles was in reality very offensive. It was offensive because it offered no comfort on the basis of heritage, works or mere passing mental assent. It was offensive because it removed any allowance on self and religious sensibility, or innate morality. How often do you hear modern preaching responded to like the gospel of Christ was responded to in John chapter 6,  with a reply akin to this: "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" (Jo