The Gospel According to Pink

No, not her:


That’s Arthur Walkington Pink and his book, “The Sovereignty of God” has been burning up my lunch hour.

Here are his words on the Gospel:

Concerning the character and contents of the Gospel, the utmost confusion prevails today. The Gospel is not an offer to be tossed around by evangelical peddlers.

The Gospel is no mere invitation, but a proclamation–a proclamation concerning Christ; true whether men believe it or not. No man is asked to believe that Christ died for him in particular.

The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sinners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ and you shall be saved.

Admittedly, Pink’s words have to do more with what the Gospel isn’t and his brief definition does not (cannot) surpass the Apostle’s divinely inspired definition, read it here.


From The Fall Collection


Our Dogs are Children, Our Children are Evidence

Please don’t misconstrue this post as another tired attempt at bemoaning how this country has gone into the toilet (to quote Chris Rock, “we’re losing everything”).

As if this nation was Utopia before certain ‘progressive’ elements imposed their worldview on the culture. It never was, it never will be, after all the literal meaning of Utopia is ‘no place’.

Let us also keep in mind what the Rob Bell (below) said.rob-bell1

His words are as follows,

Why blame the dark for being dark? It is far more helpful to ask why the light isn’t as bright as it could be

All that being said, check out the following story:

Miami abortion clinic owner threw live baby away, prosecutors say

If we can get past the contradictions in the headline and actually go into the story, it is acknowledged that the accused is alleged to

…delivering a live baby during a botched procedure and then throwing the infant away.

The child of course is dead, so what kind of charges is this woman facing? Involuntary manslaughter? Criminal neglect? Homicide?

No, rather “practicing medicine without a license and tampering with evidence.”

Where is Andy Rooney when you need him?

“Christian” Nations and Evangelism


Is this logo for real? Yes, and believe it or not you can buy the t-shirt here.

Been listening to Mark Dever talk about evangelism in a 3-part series. So far it has been uncomfortably convicting. The talks are from the Desiring God 2009 Conference for Pastors at John Piper’s church in Minneapolis.

In the second part, “The Pastor and Evangelism” Dever shares an exchange he had with a Muslim friend, Bilam (sp?), while they were both at Cambridge.

Bilam commented on how corrupt this “Christian country” was of Great Britain, and I just quickly, sort of on the side, said “Britain is not a Christian country. I mean, you can’t really have Christian countries.”

Well Bilam, a very sharp friend, said very quickly, “Well, thats the problem with Christianity, you don’t have a full social, political vision of the world. We as Muslims know how to pattern society.”

And so I wasn’t prepared for that kind of argument right then. I just responded:

“Look honestly Bilam that’s because I think Christianity has a more realistic portrayal of human nature. We understand that force and coercion cannot finally bring about the change that needs to happen in people.”

Islam has an understanding of people that we’re basically good. Islam has an understanding of people that they can put a sword to our throats and make us a sufficiently good Muslim.

Well we don’t understand that with Christianity. You can’t really expand Christianity with the sword. That’s the problem with considering Europe “‘Christian”.

Friends, Europe has largely never been evangelized. It’s an unevangelized place. There have been places where the Protestant gospel broke forth and maybe some of the early monks had the Gospel right, but basically you have Charlemagne with the sword sticking it to the necks of a German tribe saying “in the river or you die.”

And that’s how Europe was “evangelized.”

But friends that’s not Christianity and that’s not what we do even on a mental sense, when we share the Gospel.

Good stuff.

Why Don’t Doves Cry?

Because they can’t.

And so begins Part 2 of the “Pictures of Birds Perched on Our Fence” series.


The above picture came to my mind after reading a passage from A.W. Pink’s breathtaking treatise, The Sovereignty of God.

Pink quotes J. Denham Smith in the chapter titled, “God’s Sovereignty and the Human Will” (emphasis mine),

Man is impotent as to his will. He has no will favorable to God. I believe in free will; but then it is a will only free to act according to nature.

A dove has no will to eat carrion; a raven no will to eat the clean food of the dove. Put the nature of the dove into the raven and it will eat the food of the dove. Satan could have no will for holiness. We speak it with reverence; God could have no will for evil.

The sinner in his sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For this he must be born again.”


Instead of taking a needed nap this afternoon, I decided to get ahead in next week’s reading of Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Today’s (it’s actually tomorrow’s) selection was from Book 1, Chapter 17, Sections 3-7. Chapter 17 is titled, “Use to Be Made of the Doctrine of Providence.”

This excerpt is from Section 6 (emphasis mine),

The chief aim of the historical books of Scripture is to show that the ways of His saints are so carefully guarded by the Lord, as to prevent them even from dashing their foot against a stone.

Therefore, as we a little ago justly exploded the opinion of those who feign a universal providence, which does not condescend to take special care of every creature, so it is of the highest moment that we should specially recognize this care toward ourselves.

Hence, our Savior, after declaring that even a sparrow falls not to the ground without the will of His Father, immediately makes the application, that being more valuable than many sparrows, we ought to consider that God proves more carefully for us.

As I read this, my wife drew my attention to something right outside our kitchen window. I saw it, grabbed our camera and took a couple of pictures, here’s one of them:


Coincidence? Ha!

Calvin, of course, is alluding to Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:29-31.


I’ve read the Bible solely as an important work of literature. I’ve also read it with the intent of using it as a weapon against the faith of someone who was utterly convinced of its unique divine inspiration.

In fact, it was during this time that I myself became utterly convinced that the Scriptures were of divine origin.

Yes, I know that the Bible “did not arrive by fax from heaven”.

As a matter of fact, Dan Brown might have benefited from reading John Calvin before erecting such an absurd straw man through one of his characters.

How did I become convinced that the Scripture is from God? Well it’s hard to put into words but I think Monsieur Calvin adequately describes my experience here:

Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.

Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God.

We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate.

This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.

Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce.

I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality.

Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, ch.7, s.5