Fifty Shades of Pink's Election

Unconditional Election is the central theme of Calvinism.  It is the belief that God predetermined every man's spiritual destiny before the world was created.  The doctrine states that God chose some to be saved while others he predestined to hell without any human participation in the matter.  

A. W. Pink is one of Calvinism’s best known authors and experts on Calvinism’s doctrines including Election.  In the first chapter of Pink’s book “Doctrine of Election” he writes about the doctrine of Election which many feel is the foundation for believing in Calvinism.                          

Pink’s take on the Doctrine of Election should be read with great interest as he admits that the Doctrine of Election has some very questionable aspects.

“It is a difficult doctrine, and this in three respects.  First, in the understanding of it.  Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead "here a little, there a little"—in typical history, in psalm and prophecy, in the great prayer of Christ (John 17), in the epistles of the apostles. Second, in the acceptation of it.”

Pink’s own take on the Calvinist doctrine of Election is very telling and remarkably chilling at the same time.  There are millions of Calvinists who believe a doctrine that has all the characteristics of another gospel.                                                                                                                                      
I will review Pink’s disturbing passage above from his book and it will be quite clear as to why

Pink's statements are so important to evaluate.

First, Pink admits that the doctrine is difficult to understand.  I certainly do not argue with his take on Unconditional Election because his confession is exactly what troubles me.  He is saying that it is not easily understood nor easily imparted.  True doctrines of scripture are not difficult or hard to understand.  True doctrine is easily imparted.  The Bible’s most precious and important doctrines are not difficult, not hard to understand and are easily imparted. Pink does us the favor of admitting that the doctrine is convoluted, misconstrued and lacking in actual substance.

Secondly, Pink admits that one needs to have a special teacher to teach the doctrine. One wonders what John and Peter would have thought since Acts records that they were unlearned and untrained men.  His statement is confirmation that this doctrine is remarkably shady in all respects.  If the only way to learn the doctrine is through a special teacher, it raises a clear red flag that the doctrine is questionable.  Imagine saying that one needs to have a special teacher to know the doctrine of the cross or regarding the resurrection for instance.  The fact is that the true doctrines in Holy Scripture are clearly stated and don’t require any “special teacher” except the Holy Spirit himself.

I have to agree with Pink that the only way anyone could ever come to believe this doctrine is by some kind of heavy indoctrination.  Reformed systematic indoctrination which is precisely what is happening today in Calvinistic churches.  Like the false doctrines of cults, indoctrination is the only way to get people to believe unscriptural doctrines.  You could give a million people the Bible and they would never concoct Calvinism's Election doctrine but teach them how to connect-the-dots and people will learn anything no matter how alien to scripture it is.

Thirdly, "great pains and diligence" is apparently what is required to figure this doctrine out.  I can heartily agree with Pink's confession on this too.  A doctrine this weak requires a great many pains to make it work even a little bit.  But I must ask, does one need to take great pains and diligence to know how powerful the blood of Christ is for us?  Of course not because Bilical understanding regarding the blood like all true foundational doctrines is clearly laid out in scripture.

Fourth, he mentions that one must “collect and tabulate their scattered statements on the subject” which is full proof that the passages of scripture used by Calvinism have to be knit together in some hodgepodge manner to build this doctrine.  He even uses the word “tabulate” to describe the methodology for coming up with this doctrine.  It is appalling that Pink uses a math term to illustrate how one understands   Calvinist Election.  This is not a term that speaks well of the doctrine's undeniable existence in scripture.  In other words, one must add up all the indoctrination in order to know it because apparently the doctrine is shrouded in some kind of dark cloud.  Why would God do that?                                

Imagine using the term “collect and tabulate” to describe how the doctrine of justification works for instance.  There is no need to collect and tabulate as one just needs to turn to Romans 5. Paul lays it out clearly and there is no need of collection and tabulation which is how a true Biblical doctrine should be identified in scripture.

Fifth, he states that it did not please “the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election” to which I have a few significant responses.  This statement does not sound like the Holy Spirit to me since Jesus introduces us to Him as the one who reveals all truth to us. Therefore it begs the question as to why the Holy Spirit would hide a significant doctrine since he always clearly lays out every other legitimate doctrine in scripture.  Jesus portrayed the Holy Spirit as such:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.  John 16:13

It is easy to conclude then that Calvinism’s doctrine of Election is not a Holy Spirit breathed doctrine at all for if the Spirit had been pleased, he surely would have given at least one complete and orderly teaching in scripture of the doctrine.

Sixth, he admits that the doctrine is put together “here a little, there a little"—in typical history, in psalm and prophecy, in the great prayer of Christ (John 17), in the epistles of the apostles.”  In other words, Pink admits here that the doctrine is extrapolated by pulling short snippets out of their original context in scripture.  “Here a little and there a little” is not a good foundation for a doctrine of the magnitude that Calvinism has made Election.  We all know false doctrines that are built with this kind of approach to theology.  The only passage he mentions is John 17 and this is laughable because this passage is clearly about God choosing some men to be his apostles and to preach the gospel but has nothing to do with the election of some men to be punished in hell.

Based on Pink's own take of  Election we should be very skeptical of this Calvinist doctrine of election.  Even Pink after his own many years of taking great pains to understand the doctrine admits that it has significant problems.  Calvinism's Election is a doctrine by the “connect-the-dots”

approach.  All cults have doctrines that meet the same criteria that Pink poses in his statement above. One would have hoped for more from a doctrine that is unfortunately believed by far too many and is the foundation for the five points of Calvinism.

Darrell Brantingham

(Check out my pithy comments on Calvinism on my Twitter account @confrontcalvin.)