Was C.H. Spurgeon a Calvinist?

The term hypercalvinism has a definition, and it doesn't mean going beyond what Calvin taught, except in specific points. It's a specific label, actually, for a system of thought that denies some of the central truths of the calvinistic system of thought.

Certainly, they are condemned for not believing in the God revealed to them in creation. It was their duty to worship him—to have faith in Him—even though they universally reject him because they are natural born God rejecters. In other words, their inability to embrace God does not excuse their rejection of Him. That they reject the God revealed in creation is one of the grounds for their condemnation.

And to everyone to whom the Saviour is revealed through the good news of the gospel, there is an obligation, a duty, to embrace the gospel as the only hope for salvation. Furthermore, people are justly condemned for not knowing the truth about Christ because had they genuinely sought the mercy of the true God they see revealed in creation, God would have revealed his provision for mercy to mankind to them. God is found by those who seek him.

Yes. They must repent of their sins, recognize their need for a Savior, and acknowledge that their only hope is in the salvation of Christ, which is sufficient to save to the uttermost all those who believe, and then throw themselves on the mercy of Christ and trust in him for salvation.

That's personal.

That's not a lie. Every statement I made above is propositionally true. Is it not the duty of every creature to believe what is true?

Nope. Nope, it's their duty to believe that Christ and his work are trustworthy, and that Christ saves all those who come to him for mercy.

 

Will respond in more detail tomorrow but;

Where is Christ revealed in nature? Note I am not talking about God as general but specifically rejecting Christ as a Saviour. As Paul states:

Rom 10:13, 14 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

This clearly teaches that unless Christ is declared to them in the gospel then they are unable to be saved, i.e. Christ as saviour is not declared through the light of nature. As the Canons of Dordt teach "To be sure, there is left in man after the fall, some light of nature, whereby he retains some notions about God, about natural things, and about the difference between what is honourable and shameful, and shows some regard for virtue and outward order. But he is so far from arriving at the saving knowledge of God and true conversion through this light of nature" and goes on to teach;

"What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God performs by the power of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation, which is the gospel of the Messiah, by which it has pleased God to save men who believe, both under the old and new dispensation...Under the old dispensation God revealed this mystery of His will to few. Under the new dispensation, however, He took the distinction between the peoples away and revealed it to more. The cause of this very distribution of the gospel is not to be ascribed to the worthiness of one people above another, nor to the better use of the light of nature, but to the sovereign good pleasure and undeserved love of God. Therefore we to whom so great a grace is granted, beyond and contrary to all we deserve, ought to acknowledge it with a humble and grateful heart. But as regards others to whom this grace is not given, we ought with the apostle to adore the severity and righteousness of the judgments of God..."

Now whilst all men are duty bound to love God and to worship him and serve him, this does not include having saving faith in Christ or even believing in him.

The heathen in deepest darkest Amazonia know there is a god by the light of nature but they do not know of Christ unless a preacher preaches Christ to them.

Therefore how is God able to justly condemn the heathen who have never heard of Christ for their not believing in him?

As Gill notes:

It is urged, that "it cannot be consistent with divine equity and goodness, to make that a condition of any man’s happiness, which he cannot know to be his duty, or knowing, cannot do. Hence it is evident, that the knowledge of any revelation made to Jew or Christian, cannot be necessary to the happiness of heathens in general, much less the practice of any purely Christian duty; and therefore faith in Jesus Christ cannot be necessary to the salvation of as many of them as have never heard of him." I answer; that the heathens will not be condemned and punished for their ignorance of that revelation which was never vouchsafed to them, nor for the non-performance of and purely Christian duty, such as baptism and the Lord’s supper; nor for not believing in Christ, of whom they have never heard, only for those sins which they have committed against the law and light of nature; but inasmuch as they are without any true knowledge of the way of atonement for sin, and without any revelation from God of the method of salvation from it, they must be considered as destitute of the means of grace, and as far from true happiness and felicity." (The Cause of God and Truth, Part 3, Chapter 8, pp 217)

 

Sorry for not making this clearer. Christ isn't revealed in nature. God is. The point is about inability to believe: the rejection of God stems from a universal intransigent opposition to God which makes them unable to respond properly to him; and yet, even though they are unable to believe, they are still responsible to do so. Inability does not remove duty.

That makes the argument that people's inability to believe the gospel removes their responsibility to believe it a weak one. God routinely gives people duties they are unable to perform.

Furthermore, we are told that those who don't believe in Christ are condemned on the basis of their unbelief. From John 3:

Those who don't believe are condemned, and they are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the one and only Son of God. The basis for judging their rejection of the light (and in context this light is the light of Christ). If their is no duty-faith, how are people judged based on their rejection of the light of Christ? If they are judged for not doing it, then they had a duty to do it.

Acts 17:

If God commands it, then they have a duty to do it, and since the command includes all people everywhere, it includes those people groups who have not heard the command, and have not seen the objective proof provided in Christ's resurrection, either.

 

And what is the answer according to you?

 

I have a misstatement in my previous post. I said this:

I didn't mean to say that people are condemned for not knowing the truth about Christ, but rather that those who don't know the truth about Christ can still be justly condemned for not believing. The only hope people have is through the gospel message, but at the same time, God and his mercy are found by those who seek them.

 

Like the old saying goes, "a hyper Calvinist is anyone more Calvinistic then me." RJS and I tend to agree more then we disagree.

Peace,

j

 

The old saying is wrong. Hypercalvinism has a specific technical definition, even though a lot of people use the term wrongly in the way you say.

Two beliefs that put someone firmly in the hypercalvinistic camp are

• The denial that all people have a duty to believe.
• The denial of a universal call or offer in the gospel.

Simply being a supralapsarian or denying common grace, both things I disagree with, don't make someone a hypercalvinist.

 

Where did you find your "technical defintion?" Is it from a theologian or webmaster?

Two beliefs to define a hyper Calvinist from a different point of view [no, no, not mine]

• that God doesn't love everyone in a salvific sense
• the atonement was limited

:laugh:

It depends on who's giving the "technical definition."

Now back to your orignal programing...

 

Is far as I understand Scripture I would answer that those who never hear of Christ will not be condemned for not believing upon him i.e. unbelief is not a sin for those who never hear of Christ?

I will post a longer reply to russell55...I have just got back from work and am about to have dinner and then my sister will probably jump on the computer till late so watch this space

 

I agree fully but when did God place all men under the duty to have faith in Christ? Also how are they who never hear of Christ duty bound to believe in him? All men were given the duty to keep the law but not all men know about Christ and so the two are not equal.

Indeed duty belongs to Law however faith is a grace and not a part of Law and so is not a duty as Gill well explains:

Whether faith is a duty of the moral law, or is to be referred to the gospel? to which it may be answered, that as the law is not of faith, so faith is not of the law. There is a faith indeed which the law requires and obliges to, namely, faith and trust in God, as the God of nature and providence; for as both the law of nature, and the law of Moses, show there is a God, and who is to be worshipped; they both require a belief of him, and trust and confidence in him; which is one part of the worship of him enjoined therein: moreover the law obliges men to give credit to any revelation of the mind and will of God he has made, or should think fit to make unto them at any time; but as for special faith in Christ as a Saviour, or believing in him to the saving of the soul; this the law knows nothing of, nor does it make it known; this kind of faith neither comes by the ministration of it, nor does it direct to Christ the object of it, nor give any encouragement to believe in him on the above account; but it is a blessing of the covenant of grace, which flows from electing love, is a gift of God’s free grace, the operation of the Spirit of God, comes by the hearing of faith, or the word of faith, as a means, that is, the gospel; for which reason, among others, the gospel is so called; and it is that which points out Christ, the object of faith; and directs and encourages sensible sinners under a divine influence to exercise it on him; its language is, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). (see)​

To which I reply; let us add to that John 16:9 which states “Of sin, because they believe not on me”. Is unbelief a sin? Yes indeed but only if one is a Christ rejecter and you have failed to show how one can refuse to believe in a Christ that they did not know existed.

Notice that there is no mention here of faith but even if it was all you can show is that since Acts 17 God commands all men to have faith in Christ but not prior to it.

Gill notes:

“If it should be replied, that though the exhortation to repentance is not here made to all men; yet it is elsewhere expressly said, that God commandeth all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Let it be observed, that as this command to repentance does not suppose it to be in the power of man; nor contradicts its being a free-grace gift of God; nor its being a blessing in the covenant of grace, and in the hands of Christ to bestow; so neither does it extend, as here expressed, to every individual of mankind; but only regards the men of the then present age, in distinction from those who lived in the former times of ignorance: for so the words are expressed: and the times of this ignorance God winked at; overlooked, took no notice of, sent them no messages, enjoined them no commands of faith in Christ, or repentance towards God; but now, since the coming and death of Christ, commandeth all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, everywhere to repent; it being his will, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached among all nations (Luke 24:47):” (see)

And the times of this ignorance God winked at,.... Not that he approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance:

but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given: the Jews {a} call repentance hbwvth twum, "the command of repentance", though they do not think it obligatory on men, as the other commands of the law. The law gives no encouragement to repentance, and shows no mercy on account of it; it is a branch of the Gospel ministry, and goes along with the doctrine of the remission of sins; and though in the Gospel, strictly taken, there is no command, yet being largely taken for the whole ministry of the word, it includes this, and everything else which Christ has commanded, and was taught by him and his apostles; Mt 28:20. (see)​

To which I reply; even if you are correct here you have only affirmed that it is they who hear of Christ which are obligated to embrace him; therefore what you say has very important implications in that, by arguing that those who hear the gospel have a duty to embrace Christ you imply that those who do not hear the gospel have no duty to embrace Christ and that being the case you fail to establish the principle that all men at all times in all places have had and have a duty to believe in Christ; at the very best all you show is that it is the duty of all who hear the gospel to have faith in Christ and therefore faith is not a universal duty.

You state that “they are condemned for not believing in the God revealed to them in creation” and yet you state:

So if Christ is not revealed in nature how can they believe upon him if they do not hear the gospel? So your argument is this:

1. Faith in Christ is a duty upon all men because ,
2. Those who hear the gospel hear of him in whom they are duty bound to believe,
3. Not everyone hears the gospel but they are duty bound to believe in Christ even though they never hear of him and have no idea he exists and this is because,
4. God is revealed in nature but Christ Jesus is not.

Therefore; all men are duty bound to have faith in Christ even if they do not know he exists and if they do not believe upon him this is a sin even though they never heard about him in whom they are to believe!

This is, IMO, blatantly absurd. You ask me

I ask you how are people judged based on their rejection of the light of Christ if the light of Christ never reaches them through a preacher. As Paul asks “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

 

Part 2

What worries me is twofold:

1. You turn a covenant blessing into a duty, and
2. You turn faith into a mere intellectual assent to axioms.

You so deny a sinner can say with Paul:

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Once you remove that subjective element from saving faith you destroy it. As already noted:

""That faith by which a man is said to he justified, is not a mere assurance of the object, or a bare persuasion that there is a justifying righteousness in Christ; but that there is a justifying righteousness in Christ for him; and therefore he looks unto, leans, relies, and depends on, and pleads this righteousness for his justification: ... And what is short of this I cannot apprehend to be true faith in Christ, as the Lord our righteousness."​

Part of saving faith is saying Christ "gave himself for me". Now because faith contains this it cannot be a duty for how can the reprobate, those for whom Christ died not shed his blood be duty bound to believe that he did! So if you are correct and faith is a duty you have said that God has placed all men under the duty to believe a lie and then punishes them for not believing this lie!

 

Golden Oldies

On the first couple of pages on this thread are a number of Spurgeon quotes which go against the general tenor of St.Jerome's C.H.S citations.

 

someone pondered whether Spurgeon's Calvinism led to his depression, or his "fainting fits" as he called them. That's ridiculous. He suffered from extreme fatigue, despondency over the "fire" incident, and horrible pain from his gout-like diseases. Anyone who has battled chronic pain knows you battle depression.

I recommend Spurgeon's biography by Dallimore, or Spurgeon's autobiography.

 

Indeed. He claimed his cigars were one of the few things to provide pain relief.

 

Oh I see your a psychiatrist now! :laugh:

 

I once heard a IFB Pastor criticize him for smoking cigars, because he didnt have anything else to criticize him for ....so he used that in a sermon to tell his congregation that Spurgeon was not christian.....another nut!