Posted on 07/23/2002 6:49:27 PM PDT by sola gracia
|
ARE YOU SURE YOU LIKE SPURGEON? "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon Praised by many evangelicals as a great preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon is considered a successful and "safe" example of a "non-theological" ministry. His works are recommended as a means to lead many aspiring pastors into developing their own successful ministries. His Lectures to My Students are often used for this purpose, emphasizing the "practical" aspects of evangelism. But while the form of Spurgeon's successful preaching is often studied by would-be pastors, the content of this Christian giant's preaching and teaching is often ignored. Rather Spurgeon is popularly thought to have heartily approved of the same theology that is presently dominating American culture: Arminianism. Many Christian leaders, for instance, like to point out Spurgeon as one who also had no formal college training. They ignore the fact that he had a personal library containing more that 10,000 books.1 It is further argued that the success of his ministry in the mid-to-late 19th century was due to his anti-intellectual piety, "his yieldedness to the Spirit," and his Arminianism. The fact is, Spurgeon was not anti-intellectual, nor did he entertain delusions of being so holy that he could allow God to work only if he was "yielded." Most importantly, he was not an Arminian. He was a staunch Calvinist who opposed the dominant religious view of his day (and of ours), Arminianism.2 Even toward the end of his life he could write, "From this doctrine I have not departed to this day." 3 He was grateful that he never wavered from his Calvinism.4 "There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrine of grace than do I..."5 Reading Spurgeon's beliefs, one will see that this tremendously fruitful ministry was built upon the preaching of the biblical gospel. In his work, "A Defence of Calvinism," he states unequivocally: [T]here 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. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation Here Spurgeon affirms his agreement with what are usually called "The Five Points of Calvinism." Spurgeon's own summation was much shorter: A Calvinist believes that salvation is of the Lord.7 Selections from his sermons and writings on these subjects make his position clear. Regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace: Regarding Unconditional Election: Regarding Particular Atonement: He has punished Christ, why should He punish twice for one offence? Christ has died for all His people's sins, and if thou art in the covenant, thou art one of Christ's people. Damned thou canst not be. Suffer for thy sins thou canst not. Until God can be unjust, and demand two payments for one debt, He cannot destroy the soul for whom Jesus died.12 Regarding the Perseverance of the Saints: Certain that the Cross was an offense and stumbling block, Spurgeon was unwilling to make the gospel more acceptable to the lost. "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, is the truth that I must preach today, or else be false to my conscience and to God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine."14 Elsewhere he challenged "I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible....Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be heresy..."15 Spurgeon believed that the price of ridicule and rejection was not counted so high that he should refuse to preach this gospel: "[W]e are reckoned the scum of creation; scarcely a minister looks on us or speaks favorable of us, because we hold strong vies upon the divine sovereignty of God, and his divine electings and special love towards His own people."16 Then, as now, the dominant objection to such preaching was that it would lead to licentious living. Since Christ "did it all," there was no need for them to obey the commands of Scripture. Aside from the fact that we should not let sinful people decide what kind of gospel we will preach, Spurgeon had his own rebuttals to this confusion: [I]t is often said that the doctrines we believe have a tendency to lead us to sin....I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the systems of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as orthodox. We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles....We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?"17 His attitude toward those who would distort the gospel for their own ideas of "holiness" is clear from the following: No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it 'a licentious doctrine' did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven.18 According to Spurgeon (and Scripture as well), the response of gratitude is the motive for holy living, not the uncertain status of the believer under the influence of Arminianism and its accompanying legalism. "The tendency of Arminianism is towards legality; it is nothing but legality which lays at the root of Arminianism."19 He was very clear on the dangerous relationship of Arminianism to legalism: "Do you not see at once that this is legality--that this is hanging our salvation upon our work--that this is making our eternal life to depend upon something we do? Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminianism, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works...."20 A status before God based upon how we "use" Christ and the Spirit to feign righteousness was a legalism hated by Spurgeon. As in our day, Spurgeon saw that one of the strongholds of Arminianism included the independent churches.21 Arminianism was a natural, God-rejecting, self-exalting religion and heresy.22 As Spurgeon believed, we are born Arminians by nature.23 He saw this natural aversion to God as encouraged by believing self-centered, self-exalting fancies. "If you believe that everything turns upon the free-will of man, you will naturally have man as its principal figure in your landscape."24 And again he affirms the remedy for this confusion to be true doctrine. "I believe that very much of current Arminianism is simply ignorance of gospel doctrine."25 Further, "I do not serve the god of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence...The God that saith today and denieth tomorrow, that justifieth today and condemns the next...is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation of Ashtaroth or Baal, but Jehovah never was or can be his name."26 Refusing to compromise the gospel in any way, he soundly refuted and rejected common attempts to unite Calvinism and Arminianism into a synthesized belief. Nor would he downplay the importance of the differences between the two systems: This may seem to you to be of little consequence, but it really is a matter of life and death. I would plead with every Christian--think it over, my dear brother. When some of us preach Calvinism, and some Arminianism, we cannot both be right; it is of not use trying to think we can be--'Yes,' and 'no,' cannot both be true.Truth does not vacillate like the pendulum which shakes backwards and forwards....One must be right; the other wrong.27 Alan Maben Notes 1. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictonary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Recommended Works: Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon, 2d ed. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986; reprint. Spurgeon, Charles H. "A Defence of Calvinism" in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography. Edited by S. Spurgeon and J. Harrald. Rev. ed. Vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976; reprint. Spurgeon, Charles H. New Park Street Pulpit. A collection of his sermons. Spurgeon, Charles H. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. A collection of his sermons. Alan Maben is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach and Simon Greenleaf School of Law |
Oh, and these kind of discussions inevitably lead to stereotyping and namecalling.
Paul preached sound doctrine in Ephesians chapters 1-through-3, but he ended chapter 3 with an appeal and a prayer for the Ephesians that they would add to their intellectual understanding of sound doctrine the real experience of Christ. There is a strain within Christianity that is scared to death of experiencing Christ...they view it as too "Charismatic and neo-mystical." I feel sorry for such Christians, because they are missing out on the real point of their redemption. The point of their redemption is not to run rhetorical circles around other people, but to experience Christ.
Oh brother, you are so right on. I have seen many professing "reformed" brothers and sisters give up the fight when their "understanding" of theology doesn't get them over the hump. One of my favorite verses is in Phillipians 3:10 "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and share in the fellowship of his sufferings...." (my paraphrase of the NIV)
This is quite a statement coming from someone who was taken up into the third heavens to gaze visually at the risen Lord and had lived in the power of His Spirit for over 23 years. Wow! That's what I want.
When push comes to shove, I will stand and defend the doctrines of grace -- those teachings of the Reformation that revived Christianity, and returned the church to the true teachings of faith and redemption. But for those who see only an intellectual adherence to the truth as the one essential thing, I will try to persuade them that they need to incorporate a worship in the spirit as well. The Spirit is not antithetical to the truth. Why should anyone view them as contradictory? This is one of the tragedies stemming from 20th Century Christianity: The Pentecostals hijacked the "Spirit" and twisted true spirituality. The conservative, traditional denominations largely reacted to the Pentecostals by avoiding any honest discussion and pursuit of the Spirit. This split has been tragic. Christ would lead us to reintegrate spirit and truth so that we can live the lives, and worship Him, as He intended.
You stated the balance and comprehensiveness of our worship well.
Bless you, sg, this is exactly what I'm talking about! It grieves me that the perspective you've articulated is often lacking in many of the discussion threads I read here. I'm not saying "pitch doctrine over the edge," but let's incorporate the practical aspects of Christianity (our relationship with Christ) into the discussion. Spurgeon did so, and that's one of the main reasons he was such a powerful preacher, whose ministry continues to this very day (he combined Reformed doctrine with a practical dependence on the Spirit of Christ -- see what power that represents!).
I know what you mean about adherents of Reformed theology who seem to give up when they hit the wall. That is precisely where I was about 17 years ago. My intellectual knowledge didn't get me past a major crisis. It was when I realized that Christ intended us to actually know, in our experience, His grace and His adequacy to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves in times of real crisis, that my faith came alive again. It didn't change what I had come to understand, and what is usually characterized as "Reformed doctrine." In fact, the practical application of living by grace through faith was entirely consistent with my Reformed understanding (not to mention it was also BIBLICAL!)
Notice how many times in Rom. 9 Paul uses the word "mercy." He talks about the sovereign choice of God as a demonstration of His mercy! Other translations talk of this as a demonstration of God's kindness. We understand that God sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau -- our theology is correct, and our intellectual understanding is in place. But who has come to understand the sovereign choice of God in their lives as a demonstration of His mercy?!
I wish more people of Reformed background would relate the truths of these teachings in the context of the experiencing of God's mercy and kindness to them. Their arguments would be without contradiction.
MERCY! That's what it is brother, mercy. It it hadn't been mercy it would have been justice and we all know where we would be then. I find it interesting that arminians demand that God give every sinner a choice. When in fact, no where in Scripture do we read where God is under such an arrangement. No where is Genesis 1 or 2 do we read that Adam and Eve would be forgiven if they sinned. All they knew was that in the day they eat they would surely die. But in love to their never-dying souls God displayed His mercy!
Mercy Lord, give me mercy. Never justice. But God does demand justice. He cannot forgive sin capriously. His Holiness must be placated. His Justice must be upheld. So He demands justice from His Son!! Hallelujah! The price has been paid. The wrath has been turned away and forgiveness is mine through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!! Amen and Amen!!
Correct me if I am wrong, but in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress wasn't there a man who had lost his salvation shown to Christian in the house that had the lions guarding it? It's been a while since I've read the book, but for some reason that man is sticking in my head.
If that's the case then how does that fit into Calvinistic Theology?
That is true. I myself fall in between the two camps. I have been saved since 11/29/92 and I finally found out(realized?) that Spurgeon was(is?) a Calvinist.
*Gasp!* Say it ain't so Mom!
I would love to have been able to sit in on THAT Bible study. ;^)
I'm not sure that the comment of Paul's that we "reap what we sow" really applies to sin. If I reap what I sow, I'm in great trouble, because all I can do is sow according to the flesh. By God's mercy I do not reap what I sow, but what is reaped is the fruit of what Christ has done in my life -- what He's sown. (By the way, in Galatians 6, when Paul speaks of "reaping what one sows," take a look at the entire context of the book...I'm convinced Paul is referring to preachers and teachers who sow legalism in their teachings will reap death. Sow the grace of God into the hearts and minds of people, and what is reaped is life.)
Let me suggest that if you haven't read Piper, begin with his book The Pleasures of God and then to Desiring God and finally Future Grace. I think I can truthfully say that Piper is or is becoming one of the greatest theological minds since Johnathan Edwards. (who just happens to be one of Piper's heroes and mentors) He can be as simple as his writings A Godward Life and as deep as The Justification of God an in depth look at Romans 9. No matter where you start, you will appreciate his mind for truth and his heart for God.
That makes two of us brother.
If someone was to judge my walk with Christ solely on the basis of my contributions on FR, I am afraid that I would not look so good. Yet, what I do here is but a small (and often insignificant) part of me as a whole. My walk with Christ, my ministry, my study, etc. are the sum of all the parts. of which FR is but a tiny bit.
Yet, I need to remind myself that there are some who will only know me, and what I live and believe, through FR, and to them it is important that I be charitable and consistent.
On the other hand, when you are battling some of the aggregious heresy that turns up on this forum, it is easy to slip into "prophet" mode without the opportunity to revert to "pastor" mode as required.
Thansk for the reminders, especially the reminder to be balanced.
With Pilgrim's Progress?
If you haven't read it I would encourage you to find a copy and read it. I have heard a statistic that said other than the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress is either the best-selling or most widely owned book.
God relates to us according to his grace ("...according to His mercy He saved us..."). His grace saves us (in terms of forgiveness and redemption), but His grace also shows us how to walk once we're saved ("...we walk by faith, not by sight"...and "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter" [Rom. 7:6]). Praise God.
So, where is the practicality of the grace of God? How does it influence how we live our lives? We walk according to God's grace. God's grace isn't a club that we hit people over the heads with because they have a different (and even erroneous) doctrine. I've never been able to argue an Arminian away from his theology (and I've tried). But where I can demonstrate the grace of God in my life, the Arminian is without a response. The same sovereign grace that saved us, is the same sovereign grace that meets us at the greatest needs of our life (post-redemption). Paul says that Christ is adequate for our needs; I am never adequate for my own needs, even though I am now redeemed. The doctrine of works that we somehow have something to add to Christ's death in order to merit our salvation (even if that something we add is to condescend and "accept" Christ by the power of our own free wills) is a sterile doctrine that robs God of his glory, and His omnipotent grace. Similarly, the doctrine that says now being saved, I live for God under the power of my own strength and initiative is also a sterile doctrine that robs God of His glory. Where is the grace and glory of God in our lives? If I say that my life is the way it is because of all the great decisions I made for God, and all the works I performed for God, where is God in the mix? Is God even necessary, if I can walk, now, this side of redemption, in the power of my own choices and in a "redeemed flesh"?
Our Christianity must be practical. We must have a testimony of God's working in our lives; as having an intimate role in not only who we are, but what we do. While doctrine is important, and while we need to fight the good fight at times, the church cannot be reduced to a debating society. It needs to be practical. Again, I ask, how does the grace of God make a difference in one's life? It has to do more than simply change our opinions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.