Featured Do you agree with Spurgeon?

Charles Hadden Spurgeon was mistaken

One way to get around the mistaken views of Calvinism is to claim the Calvinism view and the Biblical view are both true. No, one is mistaken.

1) Is the non-Calvinism view that God cannot override any and all decisions of man? Nope, so Spurgeon uses a strawman argument.

2) Is the Calvinism view that God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass? Yes, yet Spurgeon says that view is bogus.

3) Anyone can see God predestines some events and circumstances, yet allows other events and circumstances to occur as a result of the autonomous decisions of people.

 

This is the "buy the pig in the poke" argument for Calvinism, never mind it is nonsense, just trust me that when we get to heaven, it will make sense.

1) No where do we find [in scripture] that everything is fore-ordained [predestined]. We do not find that God predestines our each and every sin, making Him the author of sin.

2) No where do we find [in scripture] that humans are responsible for all their actions, for example sometimes a person will be responsible for hardening his or her own heart by the practice of sin, but at other times we see that God hardens a person's heart for His purpose.

3) Thus, when scripture is viewed through the prism of Calvinism, it is contradictory, but when looked at biblically it all fits together perfectly.

 

Typical "finding fault with others" post, devoid on any on topic content. This is how Calvinism is defended, not with truth, honest discussion and brotherly love.

The OP asked the question, was Spurgeon wrong, and I responded with yes, and here is why. But rather than discuss the merits of my observation, we get a slanderous personal attack.

1) Is the non-Calvinism view that God cannot override any and all decisions of man? Nope, so Spurgeon uses a strawman argument.

2) Is the Calvinism view that God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass? Yes, yet Spurgeon says that view is bogus.

3) Anyone can see God predestines some events and circumstances, yet allows other events and circumstances to occur as a result of the autonomous decisions of people.

4) No where do we find [in scripture] that everything is fore-ordained [predestined]. We do not find that God predestines our each and every sin, making Him the author of sin.

5) No where do we find [in scripture] that humans are responsible for all their actions, for example sometimes a person will be responsible for hardening his or her own heart by the practice of sin, but at other times we see that God hardens a person's heart for His purpose.

6) Thus, when scripture is viewed through the prism of Calvinism, it is contradictory, but when looked at biblically it all fits together perfectly. ​

 

Rev, how so?

 

No, he did not. Spurgeon did not believe in free will. Have you ever read his sermon Free-will a Slave? He did not believe there was any such thing as true free will. He said that human responsiblity and God's sovereignty are hard to reconcile in our finiteness. But those two truths have no need to reconcile --they never had a falling out! ;-)

Scholars such as Paul Helm, Jonathan Rainbow, Roger Nicole and J.I. Packer say Calvin most certainly held to definite atonement. They have studied his works thoroughly.

 

RM, you apparently want to make it a duel between Spurgeon and Spurgeon. What I had paraphrased from Spurgeon is the truth. He opposed the doctrine of Arminian free will , as Calvinists today do as well. He upheld God's sovereignty. All people are accountable for their sins --they are held responsible. That is not the same thing as free will.

C.H.S. believed that the two truths are hard for the human mind to fathom. But both are true. Just because we can't completely wrap out puny minds around the immensity of the subject doesn't negate the fact that both are taught in God's Holy Word.

My appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Come on. Get real. Most BB members --including Calvinists claim to have read littkle to nothing of Calvin's works. I have. I see no need of running away from reading his writings because a stigma has developed over his name associated with the doctrine(s) of grace.

Those who have diligently studied his works know what they are talking about. "Appeal to authority" Ha,Ha. Of course! Should I appeal to detractors who would rather disparage at a distance and haven't the honesty to read his material as a discipline? That would be nonsensical.

 

Oh, you are appealing to authority to negate the appeal to authority that I used. How contradictory of you. :laugh:

 

And I did not say you were a Calvinist, I said your constant fault finding with behavior is like the way Calvinism is defended. So again, your fictional charge against me is what is known as a red herring fallacy.

Spurgeon was wrong, and was peddling his bogus view using strawman arguments, logical fallacies, and misdirection.

1) Is the non-Calvinism view that God cannot override any and all decisions of man? Nope, so Spurgeon uses a strawman argument.

2) Is the Calvinism view that God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass? Yes, yet Spurgeon says that view is bogus.

3) Anyone can see God predestines some events and circumstances, yet allows other events and circumstances to occur as a result of the autonomous decisions of people.

4) No where do we find [in scripture] that everything is fore-ordained [predestined]. We do not find that God predestines our each and every sin, making Him the author of sin.

5) No where do we find [in scripture] that humans are responsible for all their actions, for example sometimes a person will be responsible for hardening his or her own heart by the practice of sin, but at other times we see that God hardens a person's heart for His purpose.

6) Thus, when scripture is viewed through the prism of Calvinism, it is contradictory, but when looked at biblically it all fits together perfectly. ​

 

Of course it is.

In ordinary day-to-day life I am sure you have read up on information by experts --because they know what they are talking about. They know whereof they speak. Would you dismiss their knowledge --as an appeal to authority? Your position is nonsensical.

The subject of so-called "limited atonement" was not a pressing issue in the era of John Calvin. With repect to John Gill, the subject of so-called "duty-faith" was not an issue. Although I don't think a legitimate case can be made for him to deny the duty of everyone to repent and believe the gospel.

But getting back to Calvin and specific redemption, or definite atonement --scholars who have devoted many arduous hours to the study of his theology have come to the conclusion that he did not hold to unlimited atonement. Why would you be so dismissive of their findings? Should those who have not done nearly their level of scrutiny be trusted?

Spurgeon and Calvin are at one with each other in many areas of theology --including their mutual belief in specific redemption. C.H.S. regarded Calvin as a hero of sorts. And he also admired John Gill as a great theologian.

 

I see you are driven by philosophy.

 

Think that calvinists would not have an issue seeing a difference between Man free will, and God being sovereign, as we would see it more along lines of man still being responsible/accountable with God being still soveregn...

As we do not see the need to defend full/real free will of man, has some here seem to want to do!