Following comments in
Monday's story here at TBNN, the author of
What Saint Paul Really Said and
What Moses Really Saw, N.T. Wright quickly wrote his latest addition to the world of Christian literature entitled
What Spurgeon Really Said. Wright's book examines numerous quotes from the famed 19th-century baptist preacher seemingly indicating that he was a Calvinist. Wright argues that even though the mountain of evidence seems to indicate clearly that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, that we have somehow misunderstood what he was trying to say, that statements such as,
"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." have just been misinterpreted, and that Spurgeon was not necessarily defending the doctrine of particular redemption.
Be sure to pick up your copy of
What Spurgeon Really Said today and become even more confused about things that are clear and understandable.
17 comments:
Hmmm, where have I read something very similar to this recently???
A MUST READ!!!!
I just got my copy and I can't put it down... seriously, I have the pages all dog-eared already and I just got it yesterday....
I wonder if this phrase would be found in there- "NO" says one strong-doctrine man, " God never invites all men to himself..." Stop,sir...Did you ever read "MY oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready; come unto the marriage. And they that were bidden would not come. Now if the invitation is made only to the man that will accept it, how can the parable be true? The fact is the invitation is free."
Spurgeon in his book The New Park Street Pulpit, "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility"
The works of Spurgeon are not included in my inspired and infallible Bible. So perhaps he just got some things wrong, or was a bit inconsistent as suggested by Jerry's comment.
Jerry:
Yes, the invitation is free and is offered to all. It's not our job to pick and choose whom to share the Gospel with. We are to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to all. The Holy Spirit will then move some to accept it, and not others.
The first parable of the sower in Matthew describes the inclusiveness of the offer of the Word of God.
The second sower parable describes the patience that God has with each creature, allowing them to grow to their full wheat or tare beings.
Yup. Accepting the Gospel is not necessarily instantaneous. From when I first discerned God's call on my life (in hindsight) to when the Holy Spirit regenerated me was a span of 18 years, giving me lots of time to accumulate sins that I would later be convicted of and have to repent for.
A consistent Calvinist acknowledges both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Spurgeon was consistent.
-Tom
Eh. It gets even better.
Once the guests have arrived at the feast, the question non-calvinists have to answer is this:
For whom was the Lamb slaughtered?
Those attending the feast?
Or everyone who isn't even coming?
Let's see what Spurgeon said:
"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 be 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!"
Another from Spurgeon: 'If any man be saved, it is not because he purposed to be saved, but because God purposed to save him. Have ye never read the Holy Spirit’s testimony: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy"? The Saviour said to His apostles what He in effect says also to us, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you, that ye might bring forth fruit.” Some hold one and some another view concerning the freedom of the will, but our Saviour’s doctrine is, “Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” Ye will not come; your wills will never bring you; if ye do come, it is because grace inclined you. “No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” “Whosoever cometh to me I will in no wise cast out,” is a great and precious general text, but it is quite consistent with the rest of the same verse—“All the Father giveth me shall come to me.”
Our text tells us that our salvation is “according to his own purpose.” It is a strange thing that men should be so angry against the purpose of God. We ourselves have a purpose; we permit our fellow creatures to have some will of their own, and especially in giving away their own goods; but my God is to be bound and fettered by men, and not permitted to do as He wills with His own. But be this known unto ye, O men that reply against God, that He giveth no account of His matters, but asks of you, “Can I not do as I will with mine own?” He ruleth in Heaven, and in the armies of this lower world, and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, “What doest thou?”'
TBNN-
Some would say that for man to have a responsibility (role) in his salvation undermines Calvinism. I don't know where you stand, nor others, but it seems to me that for one to acknowledge a responsibility in their salvation would be to acknowledge they have a role in their salvation. I'll let the Calvinist argue that one out. I know where I stand. I think we know where Spurgeon stood when he spoke this- "For God does not come and convert the intelligent free agent into a machine."
As far as Spurgeon being consistant, this statement may clarify things- "Lord, hasten to bring in all thine elect, and then elect somemore" That is not consistant with uncondidtional election.
We could all dust of Spurgeon's writings and post for days and days. We all like the guy and would go hear him preach if we could. But as far as him being consistant- there is some wiggle room there. We all wish to be more consistant. We have all said and wrote things that we look at and say " WHAT?"
Jerry said
"We could all dust of Spurgeon's writings and post for days and days...."
tTHAT is pure hair-es-si! He dares to imply that dust would gather on Spurgeon!?!?!?!? Nay!
(just saying....)
Jerry,
Men are responsible (accountable, if you will) before God. They must obey him. This does not negate the fact that they will only do so if God sovereignly intervenes.
I also agree with Spurgeon that we are not "machines." Calvinism has never stated this. This is a straw man argument by non-Calvinists against the doctrine.
Be careful of pulling statements from Spurgeon to try to prove he wasn't a Calvinist. This statement is well-known. Spurgeon himself even commented to others about it later in life. It was not so much a theological statement as it represented his passion for lost souls. Spurgeon wanted to see people saved. Lest there be any question about this I refer you to the following...
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm
-Tom
Do doubt Spurgeon was indeed a Calvinist. I never said he was not. In his time he made some un-Calvinistic remarks, though. I belief in his zeal to remain true to the Word, he made statments that were contrary to the theory of Calvinism. More than once he was heard to pray what I last posted. The Prince of Preachers seemed to have had a very non-Calvinistic prayer life.
Spurgeon. Calvinist-yes. Consistant-no. It makes one wonder why not.
Jerry,
If you believe Calvinism to mean...
1. No passion for the lost
2. Man has no responsibility
3. That we are merely robots
...then I could see where you would take some of Spurgeon's comments to be uncalvinistic.
But true Calvinism is not that nor has it ever been that.
-Tom
I think the commentators are missing the point with the one-ups-manship with competing Spurgeon quotes (I am a Calvinist by the way so I understand the debate), but this edition of TTNN is just plain hilarous. Just enjoy it, debate Spurgeon's consistency on "L" at another place and another time. This is brilliant satire on the trend of looking at old views in a "new light." Funny, funny, funny!
I thought Dave Hunt already wrote this book!
Post a Comment