Talk:Arthur Pink

A.W. Pink?
Possibly worth noting that I had a terrible time finding this page because I was looking for "A.W. Pink" and there is no redirect. Might be good to put one in, but I don't know how. Also, this page has many of his works online, including books, and might make for a good addition, blaring music aside. :-) --Injoy 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a redirect from "A. W. Pink", ie, a space between the "." and the next letter / word, which I think is fairly standard. The pink archive is also in the external links.  Both of these may have been done after this message - no idea.  Bernard S. Jansen 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arthur Pink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616035617/http://www.pbministries.org:80/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm to http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible typo in quote
Could there be a typo in the quote "that those of my friends who would dearly like to help me are powerless to do so; while those who could, will not. And in a very few years at most it will be too late.  What I have gone through the last seven years is so reacting on my physical and mental constitution, that ere long I shall be incapacitated even in doors should be opened unto me ..." (quoted in Murray, 154 - italics by me, indicating the word in question)? I wonder if it should read "ere long I shall be incapacitated even if doors should be opened unto me". --ChoG (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that typo.--John Foxe (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content from Pink book --> Murray POV
The current last sentence of this article reads


 * "After Banner of Truth Trust republished it in 1961—modifying it to remove Pink's alleged hyper-Calvinism—the book sold 177,000 copies by 2004." The footnote says: "Murray, 314–15. The Banner of Truth Trust edition has been criticized for omitting nearly half the original work, including three entire chapters. Hanko, "The Forgotten Pink.""

Hanko disputes Murray's account. He says (emphasis added):


 * "This kind of Calvinism is not only forgotten and neglected today, but misrepresented as hyper-calvinism and fatalism, and openly ridiculed by those who claim to be Calvinism’s friends."
 * Hanko says that Murray had "the closest possible connections" with the Banner publisher. Hanko says that Murray downplays the removal of 3 chapters -- more than half the book -- from Pink's book and tries to justify it. He says that the Banner misled readers and that Murray's justification is wrong ("Murray, then, justifies the Banner’s wholesale slaughter of Pink’s book by referring to two supposed changes in Pink’s theology") http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_106.pdf

As a practical matter, unless we want to get into the weeds over Banner's removal of content for its edition, I propose the following revised sentence:


 * "After Banner of Truth Trust republished it in 1961—modifying it to remove 3 chapters —the book sold 177,000 copies by 2004."

However, the Hanko article shows (or argues) that Murray is no unbiased observer but has a theological POV that he applies in interpreting Pink.

Accordingly, this article has a SINGLESOURCE problem, with a source that has a bias regarding the Pink. I don't think this is a notability problem, but it does call into question the quality of the article and its NPOV. ProfGray (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't understand how removing information from the sentence improves the reader's understanding. The sentence does say "alleged hyper-Calvinism." Perhaps if the footnote briefly explained what ideas were eliminated in those three chapters? John Foxe (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because, per Hanko, it was not removed for the reasons given by Murray or Banner. Hanko does try to explain what was eliminated, but it seems a bit immaterial to understanding Pink --> the removal says more about Banner or Murray, right? Still, if you feel you can briefly explain Hanko... let me know. ProfGray (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The change is a terrible one. It makes it seem like it was a mere abridgement. Yes, we need some more reliable sources about why it was abridged, but they should be easy to find. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, I daresay we do want to get into those weeds - that is a major topic in Pink studies. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another reference to Pink and Hypercalvinism from an article in Reformation Today. StAnselm (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you finding more sources for this article. But those references to hyper-C rather reinforce my sense of the term. Anyway, is it possible to find articles by historians, rather than theologians? Or are they not into those weeds? If this were in Judaism, I would push harder against the use of theological sources, because there I can find better alternatives or show the biases. ProfGray (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, there is a new edition being published this month, with an essay *on the publication history* co-authored by Paul Helm. StAnselm (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)