A concomitant error to Mr. Pink’s doctrine of a limited atonement, with its denial of the real truth of propitiation, is the Calvinistic denial of the elementary and basic truth that “God is love.” This is seen in Mr. Pink’s handling of John 3:1616For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16): “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” He goes to great lengths to prove that God does not love the world — mankind — and this precious verse suffers much at his hands. Everything must conform to his predetermined scheme; hence, he says it is not the world as such that God loves, but only “the world of the godly” or “the world of God’s people.” But where was “the world of the godly” or of “God’s people” when He sent and gave His beloved Son?
On this subject, Mr. Pink further says, “No matter how a man may live — in open defiance of heaven, with no concern for his soul’s eternal interests, still less for God’s glory. . . . Notwithstanding, God loves him, we are told” (p. 246). Here is serious heresy, for this of necessity makes God’s love to man to depend on something in man. If Mr. Pink could restrict God’s love to His own elect, will he say that they until conversion were otherwise than those whom he pictures as being unlovable? Undeserving? Were God’s elect in anywise different from all mankind? Instead of extolling God’s sovereignty, Mr. Pink here makes God’s love descend on the worthy only! If God does not love those who live “in open defiance of heaven” and those who have “no concern” for their “soul’s eternal interests” or for “God’s glory,” who then would be saved? If these are prerequisites for God’s loving us, our case is hopeless indeed. If God loves any on this basis, it would strike a fatal blow at the very thing — God’s sovereignty — for which Mr. Pink says he is contending.
Mr. Pink says, “One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody, and the very fact that it is so popular with all classes ought to be enough to arouse the suspicions of those who are subject to the Word of truth. God’s love toward all His creatures is the fundamental and favorite tenet of Universalists, Unitarians, Theosophists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, Russellites” (pp. 245246). Here he treads on dangerous ground, for he assumes that God’s love for His creatures is a fable simply because some false doctrines make His love a blind love that will wink at sin. God’s love is real, in spite of Calvinism, but it is holy and will not tolerate sin, in spite of Universalism and of all who would make God a party to sin. Even John 3:1616For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) shows that God’s love is not the kind that Mr. Pink would portray as being preached today, for He sent His only begotten Son into the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish. Justice must be satisfied or all would have perished — “the Son of Man must be lifted up.”
To show the folly of Mr. Pink’s contention that John 3:1616For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) only means that God loved His own elect and no one else, let us ask those of his persuasion, What, then, is the purpose of the word “whosoever” in the rest of the verse? Absolutely none whatever, unless “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” should mean that because God loved the world and gave His Son, any or all who will may come and be saved through Him. “Whosoever” has no meaning if it does not signify the scope of the offer. It is without limit or restriction. Would God make an offer that was not real? God did love the world and gave His Son; now all may come.
Author Pink remarks, “To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience, as well as afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is that the love of God is a truth for saints only” (p. 246). Was it to a believer that the Lord spoke John 3:1616For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)? No, Nicodemus was not so then. He still needed to be born again, as the Lord told him. Will Mr. Pink impugn the wisdom of the Lord Himself in quoting that verse to him? Listen to the words of a more sober strain:
“The love of God, and even His love announced in forgiveness through the work of Christ, may, through the power of the Holy Spirit, awaken the sense of need: still having the forgiveness is another thing. That love, brought home to the soul through grace, produces confidence, not peace, but it does produce confidence. Hence we come into the light. God is light and God is love. Christ in the world was the light of the world, and He was there in divine love. . . . When God reveals Himself, He must be both — light and love. The love draws and produces confidence, as with the woman in the city who was a sinner (Luke 7), the prodigal (Luke 15), and Peter in the boat (Luke 5).” “The law may by grace reach the conscience and make us feel our guilt, but it does not reveal God in love.” If conscience only were reached, it would drive man into hiding from God, as Adam did in the Garden, but it is the thought that there is goodness in the heart of God that draws anyone to Him. It was the sense of goodness in the father’s heart and house that led the prodigal to return. Little did Mr. Pink think of it, but his denial that God is love is closely akin to the devil’s lie when he libeled God to Eve, for he insinuated that God was not good — not love — that He was arbitrarily keeping back something from the creature which would have been for his good. What a solemn thing to echo a false accusation against God! To believe Mr. Pink, one would have to come to the conclusion that God is neither love nor good. This the devil propagated among the heathen, so that they sought to appease an angry God. At present there is generally another form of his old lie in the Garden, which in substance says, If God would put the sinner in hell, He would not be good or love. But be it remembered that a good and loving God can punish sin without any impairment of His goodness; a holy God must punish sin. A loving earthly father can punish a disobedient child without foregoing his natural love. Mr. Pink is on dangerous ground in his assumptions that God has no love toward the sinner; they strike at the very root of God’s nature, for He is love.
Mr. Pink says, “It has been customary to say God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin. But this is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a sinner but sin?” (p. 246). Ah, Mr. Pink, there is in the sinner a soul that will live on and on and on, either in bliss or in woe. Your statement will not bear scrutiny. God does love the sinner.
It would be amusing, if it were not so serious, to watch the way Mr. Pink twists Scripture to his own ends. When it comes to the rich young ruler in Mark 10, whom Jesus loved, Mr. Pink clears up the difficulty for himself by saying, “We fully believe that he was one of God’s elect and was ‘saved’ sometime after his interview with the Lord” (p. 247). This is only his bare assumption without any support.