In turning now to the errors of Calvinism, it is not our purpose to examine the works of John Calvin; we will instead take a fairly recent book of this persuasion which has had a large sale, and which has turned many from positive truth into bypaths of error. It is entitled, "The Sovereignty of God," and was written by Arthur W. Pink, a man whom we understand died in Scotland during the years of World War II.
It is obviously impossible for us to review Mr. Pink's book in minute detail in our limited space, for it is a work of 320 pages. This, however, is not necessary, for if it can be proved to be built upon false premises, and permeated with erroneous teachings, then it will be evident that it is not trustworthy. This we purpose to do, without rancor or malice, but solely in the interest of the truth of God's Word, and for the help and edification of His children.
We will select for our first consideration author Pink's teaching of a limited atonement; that is, that Christ died on the cross for certain ones whom God in His sovereignty chose in a past eternity, but in no way for any others. To prove that he taught this, we quote a few excerpts from his book: "Surely the Lord Jesus had some absolute determination before Him when He went to the cross. If He had, then it necessarily follows that the extent of that purpose was limited, because an absolute determination or purpose must be effected." p. 72. On another page (123) he says, "From it [Adam's fallen race] God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His grace; the others He determined to destroy." Therefore, according to Mr. Pink, Christ came and died for "a few" of fallen men. Truly his ideas of the atonement are limited. He also seeks to bolster his "limited atonement" doctrine by misuse of portions of Isa. 53 as he attempts to prove that the Father in a past eternity made certain promises to the Son in respect to the limited number for whom He would die. We say at the outset, these ideas are the work of the finite mind trying to confine the infinite within its own exceedingly "limited" apprehension. Who has been able to comprehend the extent of the heavens that declare the glory of God in creation? or who shall rightly declare the moral glory of God in redemption? Shall mortal man limit the excelling glory of God in the work of the atonement?—that inestimable work that has glorified God in His very nature, character, and all His attributes. The Apostle Paul speaks of God's ways being "past finding out," but this writer seems to feel that he has found them out. Another has said about trying to comprehend God by the mind: "He would not be God if human understanding could measure Him."
The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work; that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Lev. 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes, two goats—one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him—the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation—a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution. In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin—the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more—for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:
"There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined. But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!
"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct.
"How came the two contending parties of religionists not to see both goats? The Word of God reveals both.... Plainly there are two goats. The goat of propitiation is to provide in the fullest manner for the glory of God, even where sin is before Him. In fulfilling it what was the consequence? Christ was forsaken of God that the believer should never be forsaken. He bore the judgment of sin that God's glory might be immutably established in righteousness. Thus grace in the freest way can and does now go out to every creature here below.
"But there is much more. Besides opening the sluices that divine lo-,-e might flow out freely everywhere, we also find another line of truth altogether: the fullest and nicest care that those who are His children should be kept in peace and blessing.... God took care, not only to vindicate His own glory and nature, but to give them knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. The sins are all out to be borne away.
"Even the type demonstrates... that we require these two distinct truths to maintain the balance of God's truth.... They are admirably held together; they compose God's truth. It is quite true that in the first goat God has secured His majesty, and His righteous title to send forth His message of love to every creature. Again, in the second goat He has equally cared for the assurance of His people, that all their sins, transgressions, and iniquities, are completely borne away. How could the truth of atonement be more admirably shown by types beforehand?"
Before leaving this part of the subject, let us refer to the words of another servant of God: "Christ is both high priest and victim, has confessed all the sins of His people as His own, and borne our sins in His own body on the tree. The two goats are but one Christ; but there is the double aspect of His sacrifice—Godward, and bearing our sins. The blood is the witness of the accomplishing of all, and He is entered in not without blood. He is the propitiation for our sins."
The error of the one-sided Calvinistic theology in the denial of propitiation in its wide scope for the whole world has necessitated a determined but futile attempt to remove or explain away every scripture which supports it. Take the verse which explains that Christ was the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:22And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)), so that His propitiatory sacrifice furnished the righteous foundation on which our sins have been removed; it also says, "and not for ours only, but also for the... whole world." The words in the King James translation "the sins of" are definitely not in the Greek, and are shown in italics in many Bibles, thus indicating that they were added by the translators. He was not a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but He is the propitiation for the whole world. The writer of the previous paragraph continues: "He is the propitiation for our sins. But in this aspect the world comes in too. He is the propitiation for the whole world. All has been done that is needed. His blood is available for the vilest, whoever he may be. Hence the gospel to the world says, 'Whosoever will, let him come.' In this aspect we may say Christ died for all, gave Himself a ransom for all, an adequate and available sacrifice for sin for whoever would come—tasted death for every man." But Mr. Pink says: "What then was the purpose of the Father and the design of the Son? We answer, Christ died for 'God's elect.' " p. 72. This is plainly error which limits the scope and value of the sacrifice to the limit of substitution—to the scape goat. Then he adds on page 73, "Christ died for the elect only." This is a flat denial of the Word of God.
Let us notice what Mr. Pink further says: "On the cross the Lord Jesus gave Himself a ransom, and that it was accepted by God was attested by the open grave three days later; the question we would here raise is, For whom was this ransom offered? If it was offered for all mankind then the debt incurred by every man has been canceled." p. 75. This is just so much human reasoning which sets aside the plain and emphatic statements of Scripture, but it all turns on Mr. Pink's not seeing, or being unwilling to see, the difference in the two goats, and what they signify.
We are cognizant of the fact that Mr. Pink uses the words propitiation and substitution, and speaks of their being Godward and manward (p. 75), but he makes them co-extensive and limits the work of Christ to bearing the sins of the elect. Words in themselves mean nothing unless that which is signified by them is admitted.
Mr. Pink rejects the correct rendering of 1 John 2:22And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2), and uses the mistaken text of the King James Version: "propitiation for the sins of the whole world." This only aggravates his confusion and mixes the truth of the two goats instead of retaining the careful distinction of God's Word. Christ is indeed the propitiation (or the efficacious sacrifice Godward by which God can and does offer peace and pardon to all) for the whole world, but to inject "the sins of" alters the sense and introduces error; it brings in substitution where it was not intended to be. But Mr. Pink by his confusion only compounds his difficulty, and so he then has to explain away "the whole world" (p. 74), instead of leaving out the erroneous "sins of."
Heb. 9:2626For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26) also suffers from the same muddling at the hand of this author, for he makes "Hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself," to mean, to put away the sins of the elect. He connects the same error with John 1:2929The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)—"The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"—and makes both scriptures apply to the actual guilt of the elect only; but this is very far short of the truth and shows how restricted his theology really is. Both of these verses contemplate the final and complete removal of sin and all its effects from God's creation. It certainly is not so now, but the work on which it will be accomplished is finished. At present the believer knows his sins forgiven; in the Millennium there will be a greater display of the efficacy of that wondrous work, but only in the eternal state will its full meaning be known. To lose sight of the important truth taught by the goat of the Lord's lot is to narrow one's apprehension of Christ's work to only one phase of it, and be guilty of disparaging His mighty work. It is sad indeed for one who does this, and worse still for those who teach others this human limitation of an infinite work. (Substitution is taught in verse 28 of Heb. 91For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Hebrews 10:1) "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.")
Mr. Pink's dedication to defend an unscriptural idea brought him into trouble with 2 Cor. 5:14, 1514For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. (2 Corinthians 5:14‑15) and 1 Tim. 2:5, 65For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5‑6). The former says, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again." Now Mr. Pink labors to prove that these ails mean only all the elect, and then to bolster that point he makes "all were dead" to mean the elect believers died with Christ. This is not only far-fetched, but it is wrong from the very context. The all were in the place of death; that was the portion of all mankind because of sin. Then in grace the Lord Jesus came down and went into death for all—it is again the general thought as seen in propitiation. But the verse adds, "that they which live" might henceforth live "unto Him which died for them, and rose again." There is a contrast between the all being morally in the place of death, and death their allotted portion, and the "they which live" (not now all, but the saved who have life in Christ) who should now "live unto Him."
Here are the words of another: "Christ's death for all is the proof that it was all over for mankind. If He went down in grace to the grave, it was just because men were already there, and none otherwise could be delivered.... There is then life in Him risen, and this not in Him only, but for those who believe. He is our life. And such is the meaning of 'those who live'; not merely those alive on earth (though this be implied, of course), but living of His life, in contrast with 'all dead.' " After going into the meaning of the Greek words, this writer adds concerning those who live: "It is not as including all for whom He died, but as of some out of all, 'those that live' in contradistinction to all dead.... The reader will observe that Christ's resurrection is associated only with 'those who live.' This again confirms the special class of the living, as only included in, and not identical with, all for whom He died. Those who would narrow the all for whom He died to the elect lose the first truth"—the judgment of death seen written on all, so that Christ's death becomes the ground of deliverance.
We will not take time or space to elaborate on Mr. Pink's justifying his same error in connection with 1 Tim. 2:5, 65For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5‑6). The "ransom for all" is what it says—"for all." The Apostle by the Spirit had just stated that the mediator between God and men was the Man Christ Jesus; but man is reluctant to believe in God's grace to him even when One died and rose for his deliverance; "it is 'a ransom for all,' whoever may bow and reap the blessing; which those do who, renouncing their own proud will for God's mercy in Christ, repent and believe the gospel." Simply believing what God says, the way He says it, is very much better than raising objections to conform to a pre-determined scheme, and then having to explain away what the Word says.
We may well say with Mr. Pink's concluding statement, "The Atonement is no failure." p. 320. It certainly is not, but it is of far greater import and value than Mr. Pink ever imagined. It has so thoroughly glorified God's character and nature—light and love—that He is glorified in the vastness of Christ's work, so that He is justified in offering salvation, pardon, and eternal life to all without limit. It has also proved that God was righteous in having passed over the sins of those who in Old Testament times had faith in Himself (see Rom. 3:2525Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Romans 3:25) and Heb. 9:1515And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:15)).