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:When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish!"8

Regarding Unconditional Election:I do not hesitate to say, that next to the doctrine of the crucifixion and the resurrection of our blessed Lord--no doctrine had such prominence in the early Christian Church as the doctrine of the election of grace.9 And when confronted with the discomfort this doctrine would bring, he responded with little sympathy: "'I do not like it [divine election],' saith one. Well, I thought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?"10
Regarding Particular Atonement:[I]f 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.11

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:I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe in the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort.13 The selections above indicate that C. H. Spurgeon was without a doubt an affirmed, self-professing Calvinist who made his ministry's success dependent upon truth, unwilling to consider the "Five Points of Calvinism" as separate, sterile categories to be memorized and believed in isolation from each other or Scripture. He often blended the truths represented by the Five Points, because they actually are mutually supportive parts of a whole, and not five little sections of faith added to one's collection of Christian beliefs. Spurgeon never presented them as independent oddities to be believed as the sum of Christianity. Rather, he preached a positive gospel, ever mindful that these beliefs were only part of the whole counsel of God and not the sum total. These points were helpful, defensive summaries, but they did not take the place of the vast theater of redemption within which God's complete and eternal plan was worked out in the Old and New Testaments.

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,Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), s.v. "Spurgeon, Charles Haddon," by J. E. Johnson. 2. From sermon cited in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, 2d ed., (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1986), 52. 3. "A Defense of Calvinism," by C. H. Spurgeon, in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography, eds. S. Spurgeon and J. Harrold, Rev ed., vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976: reprint), 165. 4. J. E. Johnson, 1051 5. Spurgeon, "A Defense of Calvinism," 173. 6. Ibid. 168. 7. Ibid., 168. 8. As cited in Murray, 93. 9. From a sermon cited in Murray, Ibid., 44. 10. Ibid., 60. 11. Spurgeon, 172. 12. From a sermon cited in Murray, 245. 13. Spurgeon, 169. 14. Ibid., 162. 15. Ibid., 168. 16. Murray, 168. 17. Spurgeon, 174. 18. Ibid. 19. Murray, 79. 20. Ibid., 81. 21. Murray, 53. 22. spurgeon, 168. 23. Ibid., 164. 24. Murray, 111. 25. Ibid., 68. 26. Spurgeon's Sermons, vol. 6 (Baker, 1989), p.241 27. Murray, op. cit., 57.
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
?1992, 1999 Reprinted by permission of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA19103. http://www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles.html

A Seeker Sensitive Inquiry

A few days ago, the eight presuppositions I listed as the basis for the Seeker Friendly Movement were published at another blog site. The host invited those who posted there to comment on whether they believed the devotees of the Seeker Friendly/Seeker Sensitive Movement actually subscribed to these presuppositions. A few responded; some were favorable in their comments, others recoiled violently from the idea that anyone in the movement actually held to such preposterous presuppositions. In my heart, I honestly wish I could believe they are right. I would like nothing better than to believe these folks are not trying to do an end run around the purposes of God. What a wonderful blessing it would be if those who are being reached by this movement were actually being nourished by the precious truths revealed in the Bible. If this is the case, here is your opportunity to set me straight. Just respond to the following questions based on the presuppositions I suggested. As much as possible, please give biblical references [from a real translation of the Bible, not a paraphrase] to support your comments. I am excited about reading what you have to say.

1. If you don’t believe church growth is your responsibility, why do you spend so much time and energy studying modern marketing strategies and devising exciting new programs designed to swell the size of your churches? Rick Warren wrote, “The church that doesn’t want to grow is saying to the world: ‘You can go to hell.’” Is it about the church getting bigger or about the church growing deeper so that the Lord adds those who are being saved?

2. If you don’t believe God’s program for evangelism needs a major overhaul, and needs marketing help from us, why all the emphasis on new ways to market the gospel? Do you believe the number and identity of those whom God intends to save will be increased or diminished by anything we do? If you truly don’t believe anything you are doing is going to change the ultimate outcome, why are you changing things?

3. If you don’t really believe the assembly of God’s people is the proper forum for evangelism, why is it that everything in your “church services” seems geared to the preferences of the unconverted? In what forum do you seek to deepen believers by indoctrinating them in the foundational truths of the Christian faith?

4. Do you believe fewer people will be converted if we continue to “do church” in the traditional way? If you don’t believe that, why change? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

5. Do you believe paraphrases of Scripture, even ones that are not faithful to the text, are authoritative? If not, why do you use them as your authority? If not as your authority, then why use them?

6. If proclaiming the whole counsel of God [I take that to mean everything God has revealed in the Scripture] is important to you, why is it you seem to conceal major doctrines of the Bible? Paul wrote, “. . .We believe, therefore we speak.” If you believe preaching all the counsel of God is important, why do you seem to confine your preaching to mending human relationships and to money? Why so much emphasis on convincing the unconverted that they can have fun in church? Is that what it is really all about?

7. If you don’t truly believe “if it is working, it must be good,” why is it that some of your devotees argue against those who preach doctrine and seek to practice biblical principles based on the fact that the latter are loosing adherents? If revealed truth is the standard of right or wrong, success or failure, does whether people flock to it or not make any difference?

8. If biblical conversion is important, why is it that your leaders address unbelievers as though they were believers, applying biblical promises to them as though these promises belonged to them? Tell me how I am wrong in my impression that you believe if a sinner hangs around Christians long enough, Christianity will just sort of rub off on him. Where is the call for a radical break with sin in the literature of this movement? Do you as a SS advocate believe conversion will only occur in response to God doing a work of sovereign regeneration in the sinner’s heart, giving him the ability to believe and turn from his sins?

Please make your comments pithy but complete.

Randy Seiver, Author

By This Shall Everyone Know

By This Shall Everyone Know . . . .

Some of the last words Jesus spoke during his pre-crucifixion, earthly ministry were about the new commandment that was to be the Law of the New Covenant community. It went beyond the Old Covenant requirement to love God and neighbor in that it added a higher requirement. Not only are the heirs of the New Covenant expected to love one another; we are expected to love one another as Jesus has loved us.

This commandment occurs in a context in which Jesus, by an acted out parable, has demonstrated his love for his own. During dinner he has risen from supper, laid aside his outer garments, girded himself with a towel, filled a basin with water and washed the disciples’ feet. When he had finished this work, he put on his outer garment again and reclined again at the table. By this act of self emptying he demonstrated his love for his disciples [note, this self-emptying did not involve laying aside anything he was essentially, but, instead, it involved taking something on himself, the form of a servant]. What an astounding manifestation of Jesus' love for his first disciples to take their dirty feet in his holy hands and wash them clean! But, how much greater was the emptying and subsequent spiritual washing that occurred when the WORD became flesh and pitched his tent among us. Having emptied himself by taking on himself a body of flesh, he laid aside his outward garments of glory, the external insignia of his deity, and took on himself a servant form. Then, in this state of humiliation, he humbled himself to the ultimate extent by giving himself to death, even to death by crucifixion. It was amazing to see the Son of God take the filthy feet of his disciples in his hands and wash away the soil, but how much more astonishing to learn that he has taken our filthy souls, so soiled with sin, in his holy hands and washed them clean in the blood of Calvary. Before taking again the garments of glory and sitting down at his Father’s right hand, he left us this commandment that we should love one another in this self-sacrificing way.

In the following verse, John 13:35, Jesus informs his disciples that everyone will recognize they are his followers if they should keep on loving one another. Wm. Hendricksen, commenting on his verse, has written, “Genuine, deep-seated, constant, and self-sacrificing love for one another is the distinguishing trait of the Christian. It is by the outward manifestation of this glorious quality that disciples of the Master can expect to exert an influence upon the world, so that men will begin to recognize. . .that to Christ. . .and to no one else these believers belong.”1

Around the year 200 A.D., Tertullian wrote, “But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. ‘See,’ they say, ‘how they love one another,’ for they themselves are animated by hatred; ‘see how they are ready even to die for one another,’ for they themselves will rather put to death.”2

I believe it is not going too far to say if we do not have this kind of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, it matters not how orthodox we may be, then we have never come to know Christ in a saving way. Still, we need to ask whether this kind of love requires us to remain silent when we notice that our brethren have dirty feet. Certainly, if we possess any self-knowledge at all, we will understand we all need to have our feet washed from time to time. May God grant us grace at such times willingly to remove our sandals and submit to the correction we need.

I am not alone in seeing that all is not as it should be in much of what passes for Christianity in our day. There s a deep concern among many who love Christ’s church over modern trends in Christendom. Instead of listening to these concerns with an approachable spirit, some devotees of the Seeker Sensitive Movement have reacted with vitriol. Often, when some of us have tried to draw attention to these deficiencies, we have been castigated as “legalistic prudes who care nothing for evangelizing the lost,” but “are spiritual ostriches, always with [our] heads in books, including [horror or horrors] the Bible.”

A clear theme that often emerges from the those who embrace the Seeker Sensitive movement is that believers don’t really need any more doctrinal instruction; what is really important are relationships. One follower of this school of thought, in seeking to rebut a statement I had made, wrote a very telling comment. I had written, “Without a theological basis for our evangelism, we really have no good news to proclaim,” to which he replied, “RELATIONSHIP, not Scriptural knowledge, is the cornerstone of the Christian life.”

John 13:35 has been used by some of these people to show that what we believe about the Bible no longer matters; what is really important are relationships. But, can this verse bear the tremendous weight they have placed on it? Does it really mean what they say it means? Did Jesus really mean for his disciples to understand it didn’t matter at all what they believed about his nature, character and work? Based on these word, should we completely ignore what the Bible teaches about the attributes of God? Did Jesus mean it is unimportant whether we believe that being declared right in the sight of our holy God is based on his sacrifice alone or on his sacrifice plus our works of obedience? What about the Holy Spirit? Do we need to know anything about him at all? Obviously, we could go on and on with such questions.

We will examine these questions in a moment, but first let’s ask what Jesus is teaching in this verse. The simple meaning of the verse is that Jesus’ disciples are those who obey his commandments. If we do not obey his commandments, we have no reason to claim we are his disciples. His new commandment is that we love one another just as he has loved us. What is the evidence that we are his? It is our love for other believers in obedience to Jesus’ new commandment. The focus of the verse is not so much on relationships as it is on obedience to Jesus’ command. If we love other believers as he has commanded, everyone will know we are his disciples; if we don’t, they will know we aren’t truly his disciples. Love identifies us, but it does not define Christianity or our experience as believers.

Let me illustrate what I mean. If the leader of movement concerned about a pressing social issue should instruct his followers to wear a purple ribbon, then said to them, “everyone will know you are following me if you wear this ribbon,” would he mean that nothing else they thought or did matters? Would we understand him to mean that purple ribbon wearing was the cornerstone of the movement? Of course not! We would be foolish to understand him to mean the only matter of importance is ribbon wearing and, you need no understanding of what is driving the movement. Just wear the ribbon, keep a silly grin on your face, and everyone will want to be a part of our movement. You see, the ribbon identifies the followers but it gives no definition to the movement and its beliefs. In fact, there may be others wearing a purple ribbon who have nothing to do with the movement at all. It is only by asking them to articulate the reason behind the ribbon that we can ascertain whether the are really part of the movement.

Now, where in this verse, or in any other verse for that matter, does Jesus suggest that relationship is the cornerstone of the Christian life or that having fulfilled this commandment, we do not need to know anything more or do anything more? Those who believe this verse is “the be all and end all” of the Christian faith often imply it doesn’t really matter what we believe about theological truth because the world doesn’t care what we believe about theology; it only cares if we love each other. Is theological understanding important or are we wasting our time studying the theological passages of the Bible? I think Jesus had something to say about this issue that should guide our thinking.

As part of the same parting discourse we have been considering, Jesus spoke to his disciples about truth he intended to reveal to them when he sent the Spirit to them. The following were his words,

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:12-15).

One would have thought that having told his disciples about their duty to love one another, he would have had nothing more to say to them. After all, we are told its all about relationship; what we believe about theology is unimportant. Jesus clearly did not believe this. He said he had many more things to say to them and that the when the Spirit of truth came he would guide them into all the truth. He does not promise infallibility in theological understanding to individual believers. If he had, we would not only always be right; we would also all be in full agreement with each other. This promise is the basis for our confidence that the Apostle’s writings are the inerrant Word of God. Now, if after telling his disciples about their duty to love one another, Jesus said he still had many things left to say to them, shouldn’t we get the idea that truth might just be important to Jesus? Please notice, this was not truth about relationships; it was truth about Jesus’ person and work, etc. It was truth that gave content to the Apostles’ evangelistic efforts. It is truth apart from which Peter could not have preached his great sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Peter didn’t preach about relationships. He preached about the death, burial, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ. He preached about sin, righteous, and coming judgment. He preached about God’s covenant promises. His message was supported by theological truth throughout the whole. Based on this, I repeat my contention that without a theological basis for our evangelism, we really have no good news to proclaim.

In 2 Cor 11:4, the Apostle Paul expresses his concern that there might come after him someone who preached another Jesus whom he had not preached, or that his hearers might receive another spirit which they had not received or that they might accept another gospel different from what he had preached to them. The question I wish to leave you with is this, apart from a clear theological understanding of who Jesus is and what he has done, who the Spirit is and what he is doing and what the gospel is and how it can be distinguished from false gospels, etc., how will believers ever avoid being duped by every cult member that comes to their door?


1 Wm. Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:Baker Book House,1972). Pp. 253-54.
2 Apology XXXIX