Replies

Every succesful Calvinistic soul winner preaches like an 'Arminian' one.

And every repentant Arminian prays like a Calvinist. So much for the usual accusations. They're quite tiresome after a certain number of repetitions.

You may be aware that Spurgeon's predecessor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was John Gill, the writer of the one great Baptist commentary. Although Gill was a thorough Calvinist, Gill's commentary, in much the same way as Calvin's, was not particularly Calvinistic but instead a learned commentary filled with information on Hebraisms, variants of scripture phrasing from various ancient versions and historical insights on ancient life among Jews in the Roman Empire. I use it very often for the insights in ancient life.

Gill also bragged that in his decades as pastor, he had never once given an altar call. But he was also quite successful, though not to the extent Spurgeon was.

Spurgeon is sweeter and easier to love but there is no denying he was a thorough Calvinist and stated it forthrightly on many occasions. While ill and elderly, he fought against the creeping liberalizing Arminian influence among Baptists and English churches in general. Spurgeon lived and died a thorough Calvinist.

Every succesful Calvinistic soul winner preaches like an 'Arminian' one. And every repentant Arminian prays like a Calvinist. So much for the usual accusations. They're quite tiresome after a certain number of repetitions.

What accusation?

I would accept the idea that a truely repentant believer would pray like a Calvinist, that is, he acknowledges he is a sinner who needs grace.

But the plea of the Gospel is 'whosoever'(Jn.3:16) and no Calvinist can preach that and be consistent with Calvinism.

And no Arminian can preach the Gospel and not preach that man is a condemned sinner going to a real hell (as do the modern neo-evangelicals) and need the saving work of Christ to save them.

Maybe the best way to approach this is stop dividing between 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' and start looking at Biblical vs non-Biblical views.

You may be aware that Spurgeon's predecessor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was John Gill, the writer of the one great Baptist commentary. Although Gill was a thorough Calvinist, Gill's commentary, in much the same way as Calvin's, was not particularly Calvinistic but instead a learned commentary filled with information on Hebraisms, variants of scripture phrasing from various ancient versions and historical insights on ancient life among Jews in the Roman Empire. I use it very often for the insights in ancient life.

Yes, I am aware of Gill, Gail Riplinger has noted some of his comments on certain subjects.

, Gill also bragged that in his decades as pastor, he had never once given an altar call. But he was also quite successful, though not to the extent Spurgeon was. Spurgeon is sweeter and easier to love but there is no denying he was a thorough Calvinist and stated it forthrightly on many occasions. While ill and elderly, he fought against the creeping liberalizing Arminian influence among Baptists and English churches in general. Spurgeon lived and died a thorough Calvinist.

No question that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but his soul winning appeals were not 'Calvnistic', they made individual appeals for the individual to make a personal decision.

My own personal opinion is that we have gone to 'Arminian' on appealing to souls.

The Bible never speaks of asking someone to make a 'decision for Christ'.

We have become enarmored with 'numbers'.

Paul said that he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase (1Cor.3:6), so my view of 'soul-winning' is really more 'Calvinistic' (like Gill) put out the Gospel and let the individual make a decision when they are ready to do so.

I think 'pressing for a decision' (a result of D.L.Moody and Finny) has led to many false professions.