Skip to main content

Arthur W. Pink on Salvation, Justification and Sanctification

I remembered some members of the "Easy Christianity" crowd say that Arthur W. Pink is in Hell for teaching works salvation without considering the full context of what he taught.  If Pink taught salvation by works, he would have not written that wonderful classic "Eternal Security".  I am afraid that so many people today prefer to have salvation without any sanctification, they want to believe that it's possible for a person to be saved but not be transformed and when I ask them how is that possible, they quote a few verses and get defensive.  When God saves a person, that is the beginning and not the end and remember, God does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called. 

When God saves the person, He does not merely save them but they are saved from their sins (Matthew 1:21).  When one teaches that it's possible to get saved but have no change and still live like a devil is contrary to what the Bible teaches.  While salvation is by grace through faith but true grace results to a transformation.  Ephesians 2:10 and Titus 2:11-14 does not teach God's grace is a license to sin but gives the power to overcome sin.  I am afraid that "Easy Christians" have severely misquoted Ephesians 2:8-9 to justify their heresy that a person can remain stagnant and still be the same after salvation.

1 Corinthians 6:11 is no justification to sinful living because it also mentions that the Holy Spirit sanctifies the believer.  Before they were saved they were unrighteous and unfit to even enter God's Kingdom because of their fallen state.  But after they were saved, they were justified and sanctified which means to be set apart from God.  After God declares the person justified, He does not stop there because He sanctifies them after they are declared righteous.  When that righteousness is imputed into the person, it does not mean that the person can rejoice to have a license to sin.  No true Christian would even think of the moment that because they are saved that they have God's permission to sin.  Romans 4:5 is definitely not permission to sin because if it was, Romans 3:31 would be a lie saying that the Law is fulfilled by the faith of the believer.

When the person gets saved, the Holy Spirit is within them.  John 16:8-9 says that the Holy Spirit reproves of sin.  Hebrews 12:5-7 says that whom God saves He also chastises making it impossible for the saved person to live like the rest of the world.  If anybody even bothers to teach that the Holy Spirit does not rebuke of sin and sanctify the person, that person is a deluded Antinomian.  If salvation by works is a sure road to no salvation then so is believing in a salvation that does not result to sanctification by God's grace.  Good works and perseverance happen as the effects and never the causes of the saints' salvation and preservation.  James 2:14-26 warns that faith that does not result to works is dead.  In short, when faith is authentic it is bound to produce good works because it is alive and not dead.


See also:

Popular posts from this blog

It's Not Okay to Be Blindly Loyal to the Pope and His Army of Pharisees

Some rabid Roman Catholics keep sensationalizing the sins of fraud pastors (as if true born again Christians ever support them) while they keep hiding the sins of their priests or Pharisees. They also say that born again Christians are blindly loyal to the pastor never mind that they are blindly loyal to the Pope and his Pharisees. Blind loyalty towards a a prosperity gospel pastor, a so-called successor of a so-called last messenger or any quack preacher is no different than blind loyalty towards the Pope and his Pharisees. Worse, Roman Catholics believe that their Pharisees are instruments in saving their souls or that the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands never mind all the priestly scandals are telling them otherwise.

I could remember how often Bible reading is discouraged (and yet some of these rabid Roman Catholics tell me I should read the Bible and I can't get wrong with it) because it could drive me crazy from reading it. Some Roman Catholics I've met &quo…

The Error of Comparing Protestantism to New Atheism

The amazing blindness of Catholic.com is too amazing isn't it? I just read an article written yesterday which compares Protestantism to New Atheism. As much as the article is written as professionally as possible in contrast to some self-proclaimed apologists I've had a lot of useless arguments with but I'd like to give a friendly rebuke to the writer Karlo Broussard. It's my sincere prayer that Broussard will see the truth from the pages of the Scripture. 
The writer commits the fallacy of categorical error. He compares Sola Scriptura with Richard Dawkins' views on science. Here's one of the statements that really should be considered a categorical error:
Just as science is the only tool Dawkins and company are willing to use to arrive at knowledge of the natural truth, Protestants use only the Bible for determining what is revealed truth. And as many modern atheists reject anything that science cannot detect, so too do Protestants reject any teaching that is…

Don't Even Think About Legalizing Prostitution or Sex Trade

There's some people who seek to legalize prostitution. Some "rational" atheists are already talking about prostitution should be legalized so it could be controlled by the government. The claim that "studies" show that prohibition doesn't work is a lie straight from the pits of Hell. The Israelites were doing sin not because God forbade it but because they were disobedient and the rulers did nothing to prevent those sins. It's not surprising is that the same people who seek to legalize prostitution also want to legalize narcotics and hard liquor all in the name of "succeeding in the war against them".

The logic behind legalizing prostitution is that so the government can control them and tax them. But the problem with the quest to legalize prostitution is that it encourages the sin rather than discourage it. The problem is not the war against prostitution but ignoring Ecclesiastes 8:11. Do you know why the war against prostitution isn't wo…

The Quest For "Unlimited Human Progress" is Really Destroying the Environment

Every time I read from the news of nature's decline due to pollution, how food supply can soon drop anytime, how plant and animal deaths are massively happening I can't help but blame it on one factor: SIN. Yes, sin and most people think it's a fantasy word. It wasn't just a fantasy word that kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden and cursed the Earth with all its imperfections. Sin brought disease and destruction to mankind. Unfortunately, man is to blame for the wanton destruction of the environment all in the name of "unlimited human progress".

You can't divorce science from the Creator and that's a fact. Yet you have people who want to benefit from science without considering the Creator. Christian scientists were conservative because they were aware of one truth that science without ethics is meaningless. I'd like to expand it to say that studying creation without the Creator is absolutely stupid. People can claim that removing God is the key to &qu…

Politically Correct Organizations Need to Take the Beam Out of Their Own Eye First

Politically correct organizations meddling in worldwide affairs is not anything new. Whether it's the Vatican, the European Union, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and any organization driven by political correctness (and not all of them are Illuminati or Jesuit ran but they're all still dupes of Satan and most of them don't even know it) it's always a problem that they are indeed meddling. While meddling isn't inherently wrong but here's some problems with politically correct organizations:
They only meddle when it's convenient for them as they are guilty of both selective outrage and selective justice.They meddle in the affairs of others without considering their own yard first.They meddle like as if they own the world.
It's stupid how political correctness demands Christians not to judge others but they end up failing to judge themselves. They are always taking "Judge not and you will not be judged." out of context without knowing wha…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

Why This Ministry DOES NOT Support the Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baptist Church is a so-called Baptist institution founded by Fred Phelps who is a lawyer and a theologian. Is it your average Baptist assembly or is this another of Satan's brain children? I would like to present my stand why this ministry does not support the Westboro Baptist Church and why as a Baptist, I do not support them either:
The founder Fred Phelps who serves as its pastor. I do find it disturbing he says that he supports sound doctrine of good Christian preachers of the past like John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon but his doctrine is not sound at all. His preaching is definitely not balanced. While I do appreciate him attacking the Great Whore of Revelation, apostasy, ecumenism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and a lot of sins however he is no better than the Roman Catholic institution which he frequently criticizes. Although he claims to be a Calvinist and a Spurgeon fan, however many of those who are Calvinist preachers like Paul Washer, John …