Another error of Pinkism is to make God’s foreknowledge of certain ones His “approbation and love.” This he argues at some length and says that those to whom He will yet say, “I never knew you,” were not the objects of His approbation (pp. 70,105). Now just what does such an argument prove? Does not approbation mean (according to Webster) “act of approving; approval; sanction; commendation”? If God back in eternity had approbation for those whom He chose, then election goes for nothing, for the word indicates only the approval of the thing chosen, and not supreme sovereignty at all.
On page 121, 1 Peter 2:8 is forced to say that the Israelites who rejected Christ were appointed to be disobedient, whereas a careful examination will show that they, being disobedient, were appointed to stumble.
Election, which is God’s sovereign choice, we believe, is often confused in Mr. Pink’s book with
predestination. These two things are not the same, for the latter is always spoken of as
to something, as,
to “be conformed to the image of His Son.” Election is His choice of individuals, and not predestination; the latter is the thing to which He has appointed them, but neither is ever used to designate the doom of the wicked. Mr. Pink’s chapter on “God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility” is a pitiable attempt to reconcile his doctrine with any offer of the gospel to the sinner. In one place he says that men are commanded to search the Scriptures, but he should know better than that. In John 5, where the verse is found, it is a challenge to the Jewish leaders, for the Lord really said to them, “YE search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have eternal life, and they it is which bear witness concerning Me, and ye will not come to Me that ye might have life” (vss. 39-40 JND). They were guilty of willful rejection of Him, for they searched the Old Testament, and it gave ample evidence to His Person and work, but they would not come to Him. In another place, Mr. Pink approvingly quotes the Puritan Manton: “Let us do our duty, and refer the success to God, whose ordinary practice it is to meet with the creature that seeketh after Him” (p. 196). What is this but a gospel of works? And did not God say, “There is none that seeketh after God” (
Rom. 3:1111There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (Romans 3:11))? Is not this setting aside of man’s total ruin (which Calvinism is supposed to set forth)?