Some time ago in another place I voiced (a little tongue-in-cheek) the opinion that A.W. Pink may not have been genuinely converted.
I based this speculation on the fact that though he travelled the world, living on three continents, he could not find a single church that was worth joining – and this at a time when,
for example, Lloyd-Jones was ministering in Westminster. ‘They went out from us, but they did not
really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained
with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us’ (1 John
2.19). I used the analogy, I remember,
of a ‘minister’ conducting adulterous affairs on several different continents
and arrogantly defending his right to do so.
We would not consider a man who was so contemptuous of his wife and marriage
vows to be a believer or, at very least, a man to be admired. Why then are we so wimpy about a man who was
so contemptuous of Christ’s bride?
Recently, Pyromaniac Dan Phillips weighed in with his
critique of Pink and does it so much better than I. Tom Chantry’s replies (several of them) in the ‘comments’ section
are illuminating and worth reading, too but the rest of the comments – not so much.
Of course, I have no way of knowing the state of Pink’s
heart, regenerate or not. But let it be
faced about professed Bible teachers who dismiss all of evangelicalism that
does not agree with them on every jot and tittle. Such men are not to be followed.
They are not to be supported.
They are not to be admired.
Their souls are in danger.
Let the reader understand.
