Was J.C. Philpot a Mystic who taught Pietism?!

Was J.C. Philpot a Mystic who taught Pietism?!

Mike Jeshurun

It has ever been the tactic and practice of the haters of Truth to malign God’s servants by falsely affiliating them with those who teach error. This is what is sometimes known as ‘guilt by association’.

A classic example of this is the labeling of Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches as ‘Hyper-Calvinists’ by Hypo-Calvinists such as Ian Murray and the Banner of Truth! These Hypo-Calvinists hated the truth that the Gospel is not an ‘offer’ and that God in the preaching of it is not sincerely trying to save the reprobate whom He hath afore ordained to destruction, that they conveniently maligned those who reject this ‘Well-meant offer’ as Hyper-Calvinists! In fact The Banner of Truth is so set against the denial of the ‘well-meant offer’ that they would dare to rewrite history to make one of the best Calvinist’s book on God’s sovereignty by A.W. Pink look as if it accommodated the Hypo-Calvinist heresy!

Who is Joseph Charles (J C ) Philpot?

Joseph Charles Philpot (1802 – 1869) was known as “The Seceder”. He resigned from the Church of England in 1835 and became a Strict & Particular Baptist. While with the Church of England he was a Fellow of Worchester College, Oxford. After becoming a Strict and Particular Baptist he became the Editor of the Gospel Standard magazine and served in that capacity for twenty years.

His preaching was marked by clear views of gospel truth; an ability to set forth the deepest truths in a simple manner; a wealth of similies from nature to open up and explain the things of God; and a clear discernment of the vital distinctions between a mere profession of Christ and a true saving knowledge of Him.

Having seceded from the Apostate ‘Church of England’ [Babylon as he called it], Mr. Philpot knew first hand what nominal Christianity was all about. Neither did he mince words in his preaching against a dead profession as opposed to vital godliness and true religion! Of these dead religionists he said- ‘If your religion is only in the Bible, and has no existence out of the Bible in your own soul, which is the case with thousands who are considered great Christians, the same fire that will at the last day burn up the Bible will burn up your religion with it”!

Such a man must necessarily have enemies! And history proves that when haters of the truth cannot find anything with which to accuse the true servants of God, they conveniently malign them by false charges. Our own Lord and Saviour was accused of being a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. [Mat 11:19]

There has been a charge that J.C. Philpot was a Mystic who taught Pietism. This brief article is to counter that charge and set forth the truth of Brother Philpot’s preaching. If there ever was a preacher who had a clear discernment of the vital distinctions between a mere profession of Christ and a true saving knowledge of Him, it was J.C. Philpot!

He confessed: “My desire is to exalt the grace of God; to proclaim salvation alone through Jesus Christ; to declare the sinfulness, helplessness and hopelessness of man in a state of nature; to describe the living experience of the children of God in their trials, temptations, sorrows, consolations and blessings.” Of this ‘living experience’ which he speaks of, his writings abound and have been a confirmation of the operations of the Divine hand in the lives of many saints since.

But was he a Mystic who taught a form of Reformed Pietism? To answer this question one must first understand what the term Pietism actually means.

Question: “What is Pietism?”

Here is one definition – “Pietism is a movement within Christianity that attempts to focus on individual holiness and a consistent Christian life. It is typically led by laymen or local pastors who are frustrated with the perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency within the larger church”. [S. Michael Houdmann]

Here is another – “Any teaching that promises something extra to make someone an “elite” Christian is rightly called “pietism”.  The essence of pietism is this: It is a practice designed to lead to an experience that purports to give one an elite or special status compared to ordinary Christians. [Bob Dewaay]

Lastly – “Pietism (from the word piety) was a movement within Lutheranism, lasting from the late 17th century to the mid-18th century and later. It proved to be very influential throughout Protestantism and Anabaptism, inspiring not only Anglican priest John Wesley to begin the Methodist movement, but also Alexander Mack to begin the Brethren movement. The Pietist movement combined the Lutheranism of the time with the Reformed, and especially Puritan, emphasis on individual piety, and a vigorous Christian life”. [Wikipedia].

Some famous Christian Pietists are Madame Guyon, Thomas A. Kempis, John Wesley and even the popular Watchman Nee.

Did J.C. Philpot teach Pietism?

To be sure Brother Philpot spoke of ‘Dry Doctrinal Calvinists’, dead Calvinists, heady notional Calvinists and ‘Graceless Calvinist’s! These were not set in contrast to some elite Calvinists who possessed a deeper experience and understood some deeper ‘mystery’, but just plain regenerated Christians with vital godliness. In other words, according to Philpot you were either a Christian or you were not!

He did not categorize Christians into two groups of those with the ‘second-blessing’ or ‘higher-life’ and those who were just Carnal Christians like the Pietists do. Unlike Pietists such as John Wesley, Finney and the holiness people who taught that ‘the higher life’ could be attained through sincere desire, prolonged prayer and patient waiting, Philpot blasted all forms of human ability and put man in the dust where he belongs! Philpot’s God was obligated to no man, not even the regenerated Calvinist!

Philpot had seen the fruits of dry notional Calvinism first hand, for he was once a part of the ‘Church of England’ from which he resigned! He wrote in his letter of Resignation to Mr. Provost concerning the dead religionists of that Church –

Who among them can give a clear and decisive account of his call by grace, or of his call to the ministry? What description can they give of the entrance of the law into their conscience, bringing with it guilt, condemnation, and death, and of a deliverance by the inward revelation of Christ and the application of the ‘blood of sprinkling’? The greater part are violently opposed to the fundamental doctrines of unconditional election, particular redemption, imputed righteousness, and man’s helplessness. And those who do set forth the doctrines of free and sovereign grace preach them with such dryness and deadness as clearly show that they were never wrought into their experience by the blessed Spirit. Under their ministry the ‘spiritual children’ of God will not sit; for knowing little or nothing of the work of regeneration, and the trials, temptations, or consolations of the people of Christ, they cannot approve themselves to the consciences of the spiritual, either as called by grace or as sent to preach the gospel”.

Like many who come out of the established Church (Babylon) Mr. Philpot found to his grief that these dry, notional Calvinists were present wherever there was a Church of considerable membership. This burdened him much to preach and constantly set forth the difference between true and false religion in the majority of his sermons.

He even discovered the cause for the existence of such dry and dead Church membership, i.e. a dry doctrinal preaching with the exclusion of the precepts!

He wrote –

“Consider this point, ye ministers, who Lord’s day after Lord’s day preach nothing but doctrine, doctrine, doctrine; and ask yourselves whether the same Holy Spirit who revealed the first three chapters of the epistle to the Ephesians did not also reveal the last three? Is not the whole epistle equally inspired, a part of that Scripture of which we read, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)?

“To despise, then, the precept, to call it legal and burdensome, is to despise not man, but God, who hath given unto us His Holy Spirit in the inspired Scriptures for our faith and obedience…. Nothing more detects hypocrites, purges out loose professors, and fans away that chaff and dust which now so thickly covers our barn floors than an experimental handling of the precept. A dry doctrinal ministry disturbs no consciences. The loosest professors may sit under it, nay, be highly delighted with it, for it gives them a hope, if not a dead confidence, that salvation being wholly of grace they shall be saved whatever be their walk of life. But the experimental handling of the precept cuts down all this and exposes their hypocrisy and deception”

To summarize: Brother Philpot’s burden in his method of preaching was to detect hypocrites and purge out loose professors from the assembly. He knew full well the vanity and utter uselessness of a dry doctrinal ministry to save anyone and thus laid emphasis on doctrinally sound experimental/experiential preaching. As one old, well-tried Christian exclaimed of this kind of preaching, “It is not a new doctrine – but the old, preached with life and power.”

Mr. Philpot said, “Many ministers preach gospel truths, but are not blessed. Why not? Because, they have not preached them under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit! Their thunders are mimic thunders—their preaching is rather ‘acting’ than preaching. The secret of all preaching is the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. If that is denied, the tongue is merely that of the actor on the stage”!

Was J.C. Philpot a Mystic?

Now what or who is a ‘Mystic’? “A Mystic is a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy”.

Mr. Philpot never claimed to have any direct communication with God and thereby have an insight into any ‘divine mysteries’. He ever maintained that the only mode of our communing with God was through prayer and the only way God spoke to us was through His Word the Bible!

Notwithstanding, he maintained that, “Christ in the mere letter of the word cannot satisfy their keen appetite. They must feed upon him internally, or their famine still continues. To these hungry, famishing souls, to have Christ in the letter is like a starving beggar standing outside a shop where there are plenty of provisions, and not having a farthing to buy them with”.

“There are many times and seasons when the word of God is to us a dead letter; we see and feel no sweetness in it. But there are other times, through mercy, when the word of God is made sweet and precious to us; when we can say, with the prophet of old, “Your words were found, and I did eat them; and your word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16).

Now dear reader, is this not the experience of even true Christians? Unless the Word is quickened by the Holy Spirit, it is just a dead letter! If just reading the Bible alone could ‘save’ then many Roman Catholic’s and other cultists who use the Bible as their spiritual guide would be saved. It was not until the Spirit sovereignly opened Romans 1:17 to Luther that he saw the truth!

The Psalmist was not physically blind! Yet he prays – “Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous thins out of Thy law”! [Psa 119:18] The disciples on the road to Emmaus knew the Old Testament well. But it was not until the Master opened their understanding that they understood it. [see Luk 24:45]. The Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians- “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance”! [1Thes 1:5] To the majority the Word of God preached is ‘word only’, without any power, assurance or operation of the Holy Spirit!

Philpot’s description of the true Christian and his experience will very quickly expose those who have a dead religion! And this one of the main reasons why he is hated so much.

Here is an excerpt from him on the experience of a truly regenerated soul –

The Christian thus learns that if he stands, God must hold him up; if he knows anything aright, God must teach him; if he walks in the way to heaven, God must first put, and afterwards keep him in it; if he has anything, God must give it to him; and that if he does anything, God must work it in him. He now “through the law”-that is, through his experience of its killing sentence-”is become dead to the law, that he may live unto God”. He can no longer take a killing letter for a living rule, but is deeply conscious that it is only by being “married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that he can bring forth fruit unto God” Ro 7:4. Thus by the presence of God going with him, he becomes separated “from all the people that are upon the face of the earth” Ex 33:16.

Whilst others boast of what they have done for God, he is glad to feel that God has done something for him; whilst others are handling the shell, he is eating the kernel; whilst others are talking of Christ, he is talking with Him; whilst others are looking through the park palings, he is enjoying the estate; and whilst others are haranguing about the treasure in the Bank of England, he is pleased to find a few coins in his own pocket, stamped with the king’s image and superscription. But he finds the truth of that text, “In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increases sorrow” Ec 1:18. As his inward religion separates him from those who have only an outward one, he becomes a butt for empty professors to shoot at. Those whom he once would have disdained to set with the dogs of his flock, now spare not to spit in his face Job 30:1 Job 30:10.

A constant acquaintance with his own vileness preserves him from a self-righteous holiness in the flesh; a daily cross and a rankling thorn keep him from careless presumption. His path is indeed a mysterious one, full of harmonious contradictions and heavenly paradoxes. He is never easy when at ease, nor without a burden when he has none. He is never satisfied without doing something, and yet is never satisfied with anything that he does. He is never so strong as when he sits still Isa 30:7, never so fruitful as when he does nothing, and never so active as when he makes the least haste Isa 28:16. All outstrip him in the race, yet he alone gains the goal, and wins the prize. All are sure of heaven but himself, yet he enters into the kingdom, whilst they are thrust out. He wins pardon through guilt, hope through despair, deliverance through temptation, comfort through affliction, and a robe of righteousness through filthy rags. Though a worm and no man, he overcomes Omnipotence itself through violence; and though less than vanity and nothing Isa 40:17 2Co 12:11, he takes heaven itself by force Mt 11:12.

Thus amidst the strange contradictions which meet in a believing heart, he is never so prayerful as when he says nothing; never so wise as when he is the greatest fool; never so much alone as when most in company; and never so much under the power of an inward religion as when most separated from an outward one. Strange mysterious creature! He cannot live without sinning, yet cannot live in sin; cannot live without prayer, and yet for days together cannot pray; continually finds religion a burden, yet would not part with it for the world; lusts after sin as a delicious morsel, yet hates it with a perfect hatred; esteems Christ the Chiefest among ten thousand, and yet is at times tried with doubts whether He is a Saviour at all.

Such, then, is the path, however feebly or imperfectly described, in which the redeemed walk Isa 35:9, a path trodden by them alone, and that too, often sorely contrary to their own inclinations. To walk in this path is not the product of wisdom Dan 2:30, the effect of talent 1Co 2:6, nor the fruit of study. We neither placed ourselves in it at first, nor have kept ourselves in it afterwards. If we have done either, we are not in the way at all, but are walking in a side path, and shall end at that door which Bunyan saw to open into hell from the very gates of heaven.

Who are these who charge Mr, Phipot of being a Pietist Mystic?

Why they are the same ones whom Mr. Philpot exposes as being dead Calvinists, heady notional Calvinists and ‘Graceless Calvinist’s! Oh they are Reformed ‘theologians’ all right! But it is all in their head, and has not reached their heart!

They can debate on all the five points of Calvinism and tell you the difference between Infra and Supra-lapsarianism and everything in between! They have hosted large websites with ‘Reformed’ writings that would keep you occupied for a lifetime! But try telling them to come out of Apostate Babylon, the denominational ‘Church’ that they are a part of and they will show their true colours! Tell them that Christmas is Roman Catholic and Pagan and should be shunned by Christians and they will manifest the character of goats by justifying it!

Let me say this in closing: that the preaching of Brother Philpot stands out against the moderate and general Calvinism which, along with the infusion of a dry and legal spirit, is prevalent in most Baptist, Presbyterian and ‘Reformed’ Churches of our day! None can cherish and appreciate his preaching except those who have a valid experimental religion in their hearts and are willing and daring enough to bare their bosom to every arrow that flies from the pulpit!

These and these alone will cherish and praise God for a ministry such as Brother Philpot’s! The rest will trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you!

Mr. Philpot in his own words as to why men hate his preaching –
From J. C. Philpot’s Daily Portions April 29

“Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins? Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord.” –Lamentations 3:39, 40

I believe in my conscience there are thousands of professors who have never known in the whole course of their religious profession what it is to have “examined and tested their ways;” to have been put into the balances and weighed in the scales of divine justice; or to have stood cast down and condemned in their own feelings before God as the heart-searching Jehovah. From such a trying test, from such an unerring touchstone they have ever shrunk. And why? Because they have an inward consciousness that their religion will not bear a strict and scrutinizing examination.

Like the deceitful tradesman, who allures his customers into a dark corner of his shop, in order to elude detection when he spreads his flimsy, made-up goods before them, so those who have an inward consciousness that their religion is not of heavenly origin, shun the light. As the Lord says, “Every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved; but he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.”

Now if you know nothing of having from time to time your ways searched and tested by God’s word, or if you rise up with bitterness against an experimental, heart-searching ministry that would test them for you, it shows that there is some rotten spot in you–something that you dare not bring to the light. The candle of the Lord has not searched the hidden secrets of your heart; nor have you cried with David, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts. And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”

* * * * * * * * *


10 thoughts on “Was J.C. Philpot a Mystic who taught Pietism?!

  1. Mike, this is an awesome post. Thank you for writing it. I am putting it on my blog with a link to yours and have added your site to my links. If you need me to remove it for copyrite purposes or as some sites who don’t want their google rankings messed with (yes, I’ve heard that excuse before)that’s totally fine with me, please let me know, and I will just put an exerpt with the link to your blog. This is just too good to not post. I find that if exerpts are posted, the links are not followed but if the entire article is posted, people tend to finish it maybe a little more often. Please though, let me know if this is not ok.


    • Dear Dawn,
      Thank you for your encouragement and kind words. None of my articles or blogs have any ‘copyright’. Anyone is at liberty to use them with or without credit. In preparing these articles I have received help from many sources, some acknowledged and some unacknowledged. I am persuaded that the material herein set forth to be a true statement of Scripture teaching, and my desire is to further, not to restrict, its use.

  2. Excellent. I just discovered your sites maybe within the last week and have been so encouraged by them. Your testimony is amazing. God’s sovereignty is such assurance. Without it, I’d be damned.

  3. Dear Sir,
    While discovering little on the Internet to Induce me to continue borrowing a computer, I must say what a pleasure it was to come across your page relating to Mr Philpot. A fine article here, too, regarding the attacks of men, on those who challenge the philosophy that God “owes” human beings salvation, a happy life &c … an unpleasant matter which I have just, yesterday, been obliged to withstand yet again, myself. Wonderful to see words expressive of a like mind! All the very best to you,
    Yours sincerely,
    Philip Livingstone

  4. Postscript: Sir,

    I must state that I do know Iain Murray, personally, from the Free Church Continuing in Edinburgh (a wonderfully humble man with which to speak); and have spent too much time at the Banner Distribution Warehouse, chatting away there. It was during this time, that I was made aware of the (then) upcoming (Revised) Life of AWP, and was appalled at the glaring difference between the 1981 version, and the 2004 revision. Indeed, the backbone was taken out of Pink!

    I was obliged in 2003, to rise (although no memory of doing so) from the audience and speak openly against the panel at the Carlisle (North England) Conference; when a man in the audience asked if they would recommend a Bible Commentary for his family. The panel recommended John Stott – not Gill, Henry, but a known modernist. I left the conference immediately thereafter, at the morning ‘break’, and confess to crying on the drive back to Scotland. Cannot fathom why this is happening; but that 2003 experience effectively finished me with Banner.

    I had written a thesis on the Religious Humanism of the Modern Evangelical Church, and wondered if it might have been too “severe”. Alas, given what has transpired in the decade since, I could never have anticipated the defection that has occurred in those who were once defenders of truth. Very sad indeed.

    Philip Livingstone

    • Dear Brother Philip,
      Thank you so much for your encouragement. It means a lot to me. May the Lord bless you for rising up and speaking up against the compromised panel at the North England Conference. It is so encouraging to know that the Lord has his Elijah’s in every corner of the world crying out against the apostasy.

      “Who will rise up for Me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for Me against the workers of iniquity”? [Psalm 94:16]

      Sadly there are very few voices in our day who will stand up against the enemies of Truth! Oh what a privilege to be amongst the few chosen ones who are ordained to be the defenders of the Faith once delivered to the saints! [Jude 1:3]

      Brother, men like us should stay in touch and encourage one another. I have sent you a personal letter to the email you have provided. Please take the time to read and respond when time permits.


      • My dear Friend,
        Many thanks for your welcome reply. A pleasure indeed, to “meet” you. I have not read the email note you mention — You must not presume upon my ability with the computer: for me to manage to post a comment, is a major accomplishment! – but shall make my way there shortly. A pleasure, once again, to be in contact with you; and I shall be returning, God willing, to read more of good old Philpot.
        I am,
        Yours very sincerely,
        Philip Livingstone

  5. Dear Brother Mike, First, I must thank our living God for guiding me to the works of Philpot before meeting up with you and your blog(s). This piece is so brilliantly true and does witness to my spirit, soul and mind.

    I have by the grace of God learned many of the same things as this man did, all through the illuminating Holy Spirit. When the Lord grants us light to understand something in His Word, He gives the light, waters it, and that truth brings forth fruit unto Righteousness, Holiness, and Obedience to that truth.

    Thank you for providing beacons of light in the midst of such utter trash that has leavened the internet with such falsehood, and false Christians. There are little lites here and there, but one finds you must always be on guard for the little “foxes” to sneakily appear!

    The Lord bless you and I do hope the Lord is strengthening you during this trial you are going through at the present. Have heard no news from you, sure do hope you can give us a little news on the condition of your dear wife.
    In His Eternal Love……..
    Your brother in Jesus

  6. Dear fellow reformed Christians. I post this 6 years later especially in regards to Ian Murray’s revised biography of A W Pink. I am a fan of Mr. Pink and was appalled by his book’s account of Pink. Below is my review on Google of the book. I very much like this blog!
    Does Murray present Pink fairly?? Two stars – probably should have been 0!
    ByTerry on October 30, 2017
    Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
    Several months ago I purchased this book being a long time lover of AW Pink.
    I want to make it clear that this is not a vote against AW Pink but for him! This is a vote against Ian H. Murray as I think he has gone out of his way to present Pink in an unfavorable view both as a Christian and as a man. Primarily for his withdrawal from the physical church and his subsequent reclusiveness as he retired himself from preaching to reading, studying and writing about doctrinal truths. And then for his strict adherence to a pure form of Calvinism as that which came forth out of the Reformation.
    I was saved of an Arminian mentality and much struggled to make sense of scripture. Then I became aware of reformed theology and the sovereignty of God and the scriptures began to come together and make sense. But my fleshly mind much rebelled against the sovereignty of God especially in election. Eventually by the grace of God I came to see those doctrines clearly. I give Pink much credit in the finishing work of the conversion of my beliefs from Arminianism to Calvinsim by the power of his writings. Of course the main credit goes to Lord by His Spirit in me and the subsequent opening of my eyes to the truth with lies in scripture. But Pink did much to prepare the soil for this.
    Pink has become quite popular through the writings he left behind. God is glorified! Now as I read the Bible (KJV) I find harmony in the scriptures and fully accept the doctrines which came out of the reformation. So I owe much to Pink for this although now I find little need for his writings as the scriptures themselves are sufficient within themselves. When I do feel the need to refresh my remembrance of doctrine it is Pink who I primarily turn to along with Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, & Gill.
    On his death bed I believe among his last words was the statement “The scriptures explain themselves!”
    Murray’s quarrel with Pink seems in part to be that when the people would no longer receive his puritanical preaching nor his strict interpretation of scripture from a sovereign God’s viewpoint that he retired from preaching withdrew from the church (which rejected him) and focused on writing Bible studies to those who appreciated his works. Today in the modern church many if not most pastors if they found themselves in Pink’s position would tone down their message in the name of pragmatism until they found a doctrine which would tickle the ears of their congregation. But Pink refused to compromise what he saw as the true doctrines of God.
    I think a large part of the problem that Murray has with Pink lies in his dislike for Pink’s brand of Calvinism. I picture Murray more of a 4 point Calvinist whereas Pink is a full fledged 5 point Calvinist. Murray is more of a liberal modern persuasion. Pink’s doctrines come from scripture, but I fear Murray’s doctrine is much influenced by humanism and the philosophies of man.
    Today I see the Bible, doctrine, and the church under a furious attack which has and is taking its toll on Christianity. I see AW Pink as a hero who refused to follow the path of the downgrade.
    2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
    2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
    2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
    2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
    2Co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
    The modern church has totally mingled itself amongst the heathen and thrown holiness and godliness to the wind.
    Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
    Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
    I see Pink as a proponent of the narrow way. And I see modern day pastors standing in the midst of the wide gate beckoning to the broad way. Modern day preaching is much to the satisfying of the goats and leaves the sheep starving!
    I write this because I feel Murray has much maligned a godly man who kept the godly calling which was upon him to provide a lamp for those who would follow him into an ever darker morass of ungodly doctrine and beliefs. Pink promoted being born again and converted whereas the modern church promotes an intellectual belief wherein more often than not there is no evidence of any inner change in the person whatsoever.
    It is interesting that another famous theologian of a puritanical bent by the name of Jonathan Edwards was eventually after the two great awakenings tossed out of his church over his refusal to bend on allowing non-covenant church members (those who showed no signs of saving grace) to partake of communion! For the non-covenant or nominal believers had come to be the majority in his church. As we view the downgrade of the modern church so it all continues at a much accelerated pace!
    OK enough of this, on this day the 500th anniversary of the Reformation when Martin Luther tacked up his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenburg, Germany back on Oct. 31, 1517 . Skip the biography – Read Pink with the goal of becoming sufficient entirely in scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura).
    May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!! Praise the Lord. Hallelujah and Amen!!

    • My dear Brother Terry, thank you for dropping by and posting this true and honest evaluation of a maligned ‘biography’ of brother A.W. Pink. I am so blessed to be aquainted with brethren like you who are not afraid to speak the truth in love. Incidentally this comment has been posted on my J.C. Philpot’s blog whereas it rightly belongs on my A.W. Pink’s blog. But no worries for I have posted your comment here as a separate post on my Pink’s blog for all to read. Truly this is a must read for all Christians of this generation. God bless you.

      You can find the post here . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s