Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?

Are you Sure Spurgeon? You Like

"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation works..."---C. H. Spurgeon

ALAN MABEN CURE STAFF WRITER

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 ofevangelism. But while the form ofSpurgeon ' s successful preaching is often studied by would-be pastors, the content of this Christian giant's preaching and teaching is often ignored. Spurgeon is popularly thought to have heartily approved of the same theology that is pres. ently 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. t

It is further argued that the success of his ministry in themid-to-late 19 th 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 Godto work only ifhewas "yielded." Most importantly, he was not an Arminian. He was a staunch Calvinist who opposed the dominant religious view of his day (and ofours), Arminianism. 2 Even toward the endofhis life he cold 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 fmnly to the doctrine of grace than do 1...'tS Reviewing Spurgeon's beliefs, one will see that this tremendously fruitful ministry was built upon the preaching ofthe 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 notbelieve we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, withoutworks; nor unless we preach the sovereignty ofGod in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love ofJehovah; nor do lthink 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 after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."6

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 hereirrrests the power ofthe 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 besaved'; Christ says you shall be. Hemakes your will tum round, and then you cry, 'Lord save, or 1 perish!'8

Regarding Unconditional Election

1 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 whoo confronted with the discomfort this doctrine would bring, he responded with little sympathy: '''I do not like it [divineelection],' saithone. Well, Ithought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?'''tO

Regarding Particular Atonement:

[I]fit 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 bumeth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit ofwoe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bough; with His blood. tt

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:

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 fmal 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 "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 ofChristian 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 ofGod 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 to-day, 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 fmd in Scripture any other doctrine than this. Itis the essence ofthe Bible .... Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be heresy ... "1s 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 ofcreation; scarcely a minister looks on us or speaks favorable ofus, because we hold strong vies upon the divine sovereignty ofGod, 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 sinfulpeople decide what kind ofgospel 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 ... .! 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 ofthe Puritans, whose works are full ofthem? HadamanbeenanArminian 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 ofmighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you fmd 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 for that matter), the response ofgratitude is the motive for holy living, not the uncertain status ofthe believer under the influence of Arminianism 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 salvaupon our work-that this is making our etemallife to depend upon something we do? itself, as Nay, the doctrine of justification 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 ofthe strongholds ofArminianism 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. "Ifyou 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 ofcurrent Arminianism is simply ignorance ofgospel doctrine. ''25 Further, "I do not serve the god ofthe Arminians atall; 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 to-day and denieth to-morrow, that justifieth to-day 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. Norwould he downplay the importance of the differences between the two systems:

This may seem to you to be oflittle consequence, but it really is a matter of life and death. I would plead with every Christianthink it over, my dear brother. Whensomeof us preach Calvinism, and some Arminianism, we cannot both be right; it is ofnotuse 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

Notes 1. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), s.v. "Spurgeon, Charles Haddon," by J. E. Johnson. 2. From sermon cited in lain Murray, The Forgo.tten Spurgeon, 2nd 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.

For Further Reading

MUrray, lain. The Forgotten Spurgeon, 2d ed. Carlisle, P A: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986; reprint. .

Spurgeon, Charles H. "A Defence of Cal vinism" in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography.

Edited by S. Spurgeon and J. Harrald. Rev ed. Vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859. . Carlisle,PA: Banner ofTruth 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. Continued from Packer on Page 14

that badness, twistedness, depravity and sinfulness inside. That certainly is how I feel about myself. CURE: How essential is this doctrine to our understanding ofsalvation in general? Packer: Well, if we aren't clear that God's election and God's lordly grace is responsible for our salvation-that is, if we aren't clear that it is God who saved us and not we who saved ourselves with His help, then we won't trust him as we should and we will rely on ourselves to keep ourselves going, whereas the Christian who knows God's grace relies on God to keep him going. Furthermore, we won't be praising God on a day-to-day basis for all that we ought to bepraising him for. He saved us and we ought to be thanking him for our conversion and for the fact that each day he keeps us in grace justas much as we thank him for sending his son to die for our sins. But it will only be 50 percent of the praise we ought to offer if we don't appreciate that it was he who saved us by bringing us to faith. CURE: So this is something really practicalfor the Christian andnot something that should be left in the seminary classroomfor theological debate. Packer: Oh, indeed no. I am not saying that we ought, when we preach and · teach in local churches, to be drilling people in the basics of historical theology with all ofits technical terms. But when it comes to the nitty gritty ofpractical Christianity, we certainly ought to be teaching people that all grace is God's free gift, and that none ofit is earned. We also ought to teach that all Christian life is the fruit of God's grace, none of which is our contribution. God has taken us in hand, God has chosen to save us, and we ought to be very thankful. This doctrine of election is a matter for worship rather than for debate and argument and it is only human pride, incidentally, that keeps people debating and arguing about it because deep down within us we want to be able to say, "Well, I saved myself at one point anyway. I did contribute something." The Christian can't say that, however. God has humbled him beyond that point, but that humility is part of his happiness actually. When the Christian knows that he can trust a faithful God he is suddenly liberated from the need to keep everything going by his own effort and he is free and joyful in the Lord and the paradox is that he then worships more wholeheartedly and runs faster in obedience. This doctrine which sounds as if it ought to impede human effort does in actual fact lead folk to run that much more vigorously in the path of obedience because they know how much they owe to God. CURE: Dr. Packer, ifthis doctrine is true, is there any reason to believe that the gospel invitation is genuine? Packer: Yes there is. The most obvious and basic reason is that Christ died to guarantee the truth ofthe gospel invitation, and the promise of salvation attached to it, wherever that gospel invitation goes. In other words, everybody who hears the word of invitation from God, "Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely ... " or, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life ... " can be sure that because Christ died, that word is true for him. So the decision he makes in response to or disregard for that word really is the decisive decision for his destiny. There is nothing phony about the gospel offer. It is true for everyone who hears it. And the death ofChrist guaranteed that that was so. The gospel is to go to all the world, and that means that all the world is to be invited to receive etemallife. CURE: But how can you reconcile "God so loved the world ... " with the idea that God elects to save some but not others? Packer: We have to understand that "world" in the Scriptures is a word which is sometimes used not statistically for the world in all its numbers, such as x billions of people, but for the world in its moral quality, that is, the world in all its badness. When it says that Christ is the savior ofthe world, part of the thought at any rate is that Christ saves men out of every race and kindred and tribe and tongue in all their badness and rebellion against God. CURE: Doesn't a doctrine like this help us to get beyond the shallow evangelism ofthe contemporary church? Packer: Yes, there is certainly more to Christianity than the Jesus trip.

Continued from Fire on Page 10

human determining. as fIre and water. 14 The two can unite as little

Warfield's point must not only be seen as a serious blow to the logic of Chafer's dispensational-evangelical "hodgepodge" view ofsanctification, for it applies equally to all ofthose in today's very popular nondenominational movements who also reject the confessionalism of Protestant orthodoxy and attempt to mix conflicting doctrinal elements into a kind oftheological stew that is supposed to have a broaderbased appeal for the masses, but instead leads only to doctrinal confusion. And as in Warfield's day, under the quite pretentious guise of rejecting "theology" and "head-knowledge," there are many who end up in a shallow sea oferror and confusion. U nfortunatel y, this error is still with us and in even greater measure than in Chafer's time. Take for an example the subject of Chafer's book: the Christian life. Here, as in all other aspects of our salvation, either God works in our sanctification through meanS1lI1d ourpart is purel y response and gratitude, or we are the prime mover in sanctification by "yielding," "seeking," "making Christ Lord," and so forth. While the Calvinist insists on active, energetic involvement in this process, either God is the one working in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, or sanctification is the product of our striving and yielding.

What Chafer has done is to combine two contrary elements. losing both the activism of human responsibility as well as the gracious character of sanctification by trying to achieve something "in between" the two.

Chafer insists upon the very untenable distinction between "carnal men and spiritual men," which Warfield notes is based upon Chafer's serious misreading of 1 Corinthians 2:9. According to Warfield, Chafer tells us "that the passage from the one [the carnal] to the other [the spiritual] is atouroption, whenever we care to 'claim' the higher degree by 'faith.'" Chafercommits the same error as other "victorious Christian life" advocates and it is easy to see that this immediately separates the body of Christ into those "who have it," and "those who don't." This has a divisive effect upon the church everywhere such teaching has gone. In addition, such unbiblical schemes make the human will, instead ofthe grace of God, the determining power in the Christian life. Thus, sanctification has little to do with the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), but is instead dermed in terms of" 'engaging' the Spirit (as weengage, say, a carpenter) to do work for us ... and we do explicitly hear of 'making it possible for God' to do things, a quite terrible expression."ls

The Arminian roots of Chafer's system are visible not only when he treats the subject of the Christian life, but when he discusses the doctrine ofsalvation. Chafer writes that "sinners are not saved until they trust the Saviour, and saints are not victorious until they trust the deli verer. God has made this possible through the cross ofhis Son. Salvation from the power ofsin must be claimed by faith as well" (italics in original). Again notice the separation of Christians who are only "saved" from those who choose to be "victorious." Since it depends upon an act of the will to be "saved" it likewise follows for Chafer that itdepends upon an actofthe will to become "victorious," too. Here Warfield concludes:

No doubt what we are rustled to say ofthis is that here is the quintessence of Arminianism. God saves no one-He only makes salvation possible for men. Whether it becomes actual or not depends absolutely on their own act. It is only by their act that it is made possible for God to save them. But it is equally true that here is the quintessence of the Higher Life teaching, which merely emphasizes that part ofthis Arminian scheme which refers to the specific matter of sanctification (italics in original). 16

Thus, "A haunting ambiguity is thrust upon Mr. Chafer's whole teaching by his hospitable entertainment of contradictory systems ofthought."17 For those who have struggled to become "victorious Christians," and never knew quite when that moment would arrive, this confusion and ambiguity is no mere academic quarrel, but a serious practical matter. For Reformation Christians, life in the Spirit, no less than justification itself, is a gift for all believers at the beginning of their Christian life, not a state of spiritual attainment reserved for the elite. Chafer's confusion

of Calvinism and Arminianism continues to · be reproduced in our day, with even higher levels of odd contradictions and ambiguities, demonstrating that the sort of clear-thinking, biblically sound, confessional evangelicalism ofthe Old Princeton school is in desperate need of being heard again.

Notes: 1. Mark A. Noll, The Princeton Theologian: 1812-1921 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), p.19 2. Ibid., p. 20 3. See Darryl G. Hart's fine essay, ''The Princeton Mind in the Modem W orId and theComm<:>D SenseofJ. Gresham Machen," The Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984), pp. 1-25 4. Warfield, "Calvinism" in Calvin and Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981),p. 362 5. Warfield, "A Review of Systematic Theology" reprinted in Selected Shorter Writings of Warfield, vol. 2, ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), p. 214 Miley's work has recently been reprinted by Hendrickson PUblishers. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Synergism means "working together," here taken in the sense of man and God working together (cooperating) in salvation. This was the position taken by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid., p. 314 10. Ibid., p. 315 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., p. 316 13. Ibid., p. 318 14. Warfield, "Review of L. S. Chafer's He That Is Spiritual," in The Princeton Theological Review (Vol.XVII, No.2 [April 1919], p. 322 ff. 15. Ibid. p. 322 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid.

For Further Reading Mark A. Noll, The Princeton Theology: 1812-1921 (Baker). B.B. Warfield, Col lectedWorks, 10 volumes (Baker); Studies in Perfectionism (Presbyterian and Re formed).