So, you say you like Spurgeon?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by MorseOp, Jul 11, 2012.

  1. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was searching through the BB archives and had to chuckle at the assertions, by some, that Charles H. Spurgeon really was not a Calvinist. Some say he was an Amyraldian and did not believe in definite atonement. I even saw Spurgeon quoted to defend their non-Calvinist position. Consider some quotes taken from Spurgeon's famous sermon, "A Defense of Calvinism."

    "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."

    "I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace."

    "Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it."

    "The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God.""

    "First, let me ask, must we not all of us admit an over-ruling Providence, and the appointment of Jehovah's hand, as to the means whereby we came into this world? Those men who think that, afterwards, we are left to our own free-will to choose this one or the other to direct our steps, must admit that our entrance into the world was not of our own will, but that God had then to choose for us."

    "Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible? Could that have been the origin of the Saviour's love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long before I believed. "But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."
     
  2. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I am bound to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart, because I find myself depraved in heart, and have daily proofs that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing."

    "The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation."

    "I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

    "Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!"
     
  3. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going forward I do not know how an Arminian can view Charles Spurgeon as an ally in their theology.
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    If they can believe the Bible an ally in their doctrine why not Spurgeon? In fact I believe that Scripture is more clear on the Doctrines of Grace than Spurgeon!
     
  5. Catalyst

    Catalyst
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't figure out why people think god can't be fully in control, and yet you have free will. Calvinism is like a wading pool next to the ocean. It doesn't begin to capture God's perspective. What it does, is take manly terms that has manly limits, that were used to try to offer a poor anthropomorphic example of God's awareness, and try to bind god to those rules like a human is stuck to them. God has no before middle or after. Calvin's confusion is applying before you were bor, to God's perspective. There is no before to god, as he doesn't have a humanly right hand on a humanly body. And there aren't gold streets in heaven....we wait for the resurrection, anyway.....

    So, to say the phrase God knew before, and go to the "called" which in god's perspective would be the same as recognized, as called is before present with, as present with is requored before recognized.

    Holding god to manly limits like awareness of time continuum, we are stuck He isn't, is anthropomorphically dense. And I'm pocking on calvin there.
     
  6. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0

    Doctrines of Grace? Oh, yes, all Christians believe in those.
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Finally, at last, we have One on the Board who can look at things from God's perspective!:thumbs::smilewinkgrin:

    Pock [whatever you mean] on Calvin all you desire just don't pock on the Biblical Doctrines of Grace.

    Frankly I have believed for many years that the error of "freewillers" [Arminians, semi-Pelagians, and Palagians] was attempting to apply "manly" rationale and "manly philosophy" [as you do above] to the understanding of the Word of God.
     
  8. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    You didn't run across your thread "Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?" that you started under one of your other Baptist Board "identities"?

    But you've tweaked it a bit here to "So, You Say You Like Spurgeon?"

    Isn't the "deja vu repost" JesusFan/DaChaser/Yeshua1's schtick?

    But with "Doulos" and "Herald" too, looks like you've even got him beat.:rolleyes:
     
  9. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jerome,

    I just thought it an interesting topic to bring up. I never make claim to being original. I even sourced the sermon, "A Defense of Calvinism."

    The purpose of the thread is not to defend Calvinism per se. Rather it is to find out why some non-Calvinists appeal to him when defending their position. It strikes me as kind of funny. Spurgeon was no friend of Arminian theology. It would be like me throwing out the idea that Charles Wesley was a Calvinist. Preposterous.
     
  10. psalms109:31

    psalms109:31
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    My dear friends, I beseech you do not in any way give yourselves lip to any system of faith apart from the Word of God. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants; I am the successor of the great and venerated Dr. Gill, whose theology is almost universally received among the stronger Calvinistic churches; but although I venerate his memory, and believe his teachings, yet he is not my Rabbi. What you find in God's Word is for you to believe and to receive. Never be frightened at a doctrine; and above all, never be frightened at a name. Some one said to me the other day, that he thought the truth lay somewhere between the two extremes. He meant right, but I think he was wrong, I do not think the truth lies between the two extremes, but in them both. I believe the higher a man goes the better, when he is preaching the matter of salvation. The reason why a man is saved is grace, grace, grace; and you may go as high as you like there. But when you come to the question as to why men are damned, then the Arminian is far more right than the Antinomian. I care not for any denomination or party, I am as high as Huntingdon upon the matter of salvation, but question me about damnation, and you will get a very different answer. By the grace of God I ask no man's applause, I preach the Bible as I find it. Where we get wrong is where the Calvinist begins to meddle with the question of damnation, and interferes with the justice of God; or when the Arminian denies the doctrine of grace.

    C.H.Spurgeon

    Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching [Paperback]
    Iain H. Murray (Author)

    Is a real good book to read
     
    #10 psalms109:31, Jul 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2012
  11. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    psalams109,

    One of the things I like about Spurgeon is that he was constantly policing his own. What you posted does not negate his Calvinist convictions. He was reacting against those who would trust in their Calvinism and not the Gospel of the Bible. I agree with that. Any Christian who trusts in their system, their local church, their own reputation more than the Bible is in love with themselves more than they are with God. It is a good warning to be reminded of. Thank you for posting this.
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Didn't he hold also to the concept that the Bible teaches that one is regenerated and places faith in jesus to get saved at same time, for hre held that it would make no sense to procliam jesus to those already regenerated by God before palcing faith in christ?
     
  13. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't especially care for Spurgeon, even though I quote him at times. He was very inconsistent. Yes, he clearly identified himself as a Calvinist, but he also said it was foolish to preach the gospel to the regenerated to believe, the regenerate being saved already. He compared this to giving medicine to a person who is already healed.

    No one is regenerated until AFTER they believe, because until you place your faith in Jesus and have your sins forgiven you are dead in trespasses and sins.

    Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

    This verse shows it all. We were all dead in our sins, but we were quickened when all our trespasses were forgiven. And no man can be forgiven until he first places his trust in Christ. Faith precedes regeneration.

    To be dead in sin means to be CONDEMNED. It is a legal judgment. No man is alive until he is justified by faith.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    that is wht many baptist cals like myself hold to regeneration/faith as happening from our perspective same time, as the lord quickens sinners to be able to exercise their god given faith in Christ and get saved!

    And what you was referencing about him was what i was trying to say!
     
  15. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spurgeon said,


    Spurgeon's point was what Jesus said, that is the sick who need a physician (Luke 5:31). Spurgeon is not separating the regenerate from those who are saved. He understood the order of salvation well. He would agree with every other Calvinist that regeneration precedes justification, but only by the narrowest of measurement.
     
  16. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your honesty.
     
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a ridiculous interpretation of what Spurgeon said, look carefully.

    Spurgeon said it was ridiculous to bid a regenerate person to believe "to be saved" when he is saved already, being regenerate.

    Calvinism teaches a man is first regenerate, and then he believes to be saved. That is not what Spurgeon is saying here, he is saying a person who is regenerate has already believed and is saved.

    It is impossible to be regenerate unless you first believe. Until you believe you are not justified and you are dead in all your trespasses and sins. Why can't you understand this?

    You can't be regenerate and dead in your sins at the same time, so it is impossible to be regenerate until you believe.
     
  18. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not not have the time, nor the inclination, to teach you how to use logic when reading.

    Why would Spurgeon think it foolish to preach to the regenerate? Because they are already saved! He was making a point. He never said that he somehow had some special revelation that told him who was regenerate and who was not. He believed in preaching the Gospel to all who would listen (and for that matter all who would not willingly listen). If you cannot understand the point he is making then...well....you cannot.
     
    #18 MorseOp, Jul 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2012
  19. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,377
    Likes Received:
    728
    We have explained this several times before,he still misses it.Just like he completely misses acts 13:48,and col2-3:wavey:
     
  20. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,915
    Likes Received:
    94
    Yes....same old same old..... What a boar (LOL)
     

Share This Page

Loading...