Featured Do you agree with Spurgeon?

Rev, "paradoxical" is your word. Spurgeon did not use it. I don't believe Spurgeon's view of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility rose to the level of paradoxical. To be a paradox the conclusion to the proposition needs to seem senseless or self-contradictory. Spurgeon was not saying that. He was making the point that the two things are difficult to understand. I completely agree. We are finite creatures. Some things we can understanding now, while others we will understand more fully in glory. Still others we may never understand. It is enough that I am convinced the Bible teaches divine election in the way I understand it.

What I must beware of is exceeding the clear biblical teaching on any subject or bending the Scripture to fit my presupposition. For instance, when the Bible says, "For God so loved the world" (John 3:16) I cannot change the word "world" to mean anything other than kosmos = world. My understanding of the word's usage, in context, will differ from my Arminian friends, but the word will never stop being "world".

Did you read my first post in this thread where I placed Spurgeon's words (from the OP) in context of his whole sermon? I'm sure we both agree that it's important not to obfuscate what Spurgeon truly believed.

As far as Calvin, I have read his Institutes of Christian Religion. I have taken a course on his life and teaching. I readily agree that he never made a clear and unambiguous statement on definite atonement. So, what are we to conclude from that? Well, if I was an Arminian I would look at his writings and be able to find statements that supported my contention that he wasn't a true "Calvinist", or least didn't believe in definite atonement. If I was a Calvinist I would look at his writings and be able to find statements that supported my contention that he was a true Calvinist, and did believe in definite atonement.

Is it possible that definite atonement was not the burning issue of Calvin's time? Remember that John Calvin came on the scene shortly after the death of Martin Luther. The Reformation was in its infancy. The burning issue of the early to mid 16th century was justification by faith. That is what led to the Reformer's rift with Rome. Definite (limited) atonement became a more debate issue in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It was formally addressed at the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) in Dordrecht, Holland, when TULIP became defined and codified. So, the fact that definite atonement was not a driving concern for John Calvin is not that important.

Another thing to consider is that Calvinism was not the term John Calvin used to describe his theology. In fact Calvin never named his own theology because it was not unique to him. It could be traced back to Augustine. Reformation theology was being debated and argued among theologians for about 100 years before the Synod of Dort. It's still being debated today. Arminian theology is still being debated today! The point is that the study of theology is never settled.

Let me conclude by saying that, while I lament the division among Christians over the issue of Arminianism vs. Calvinism, that division is necessary. Albeit because of sin, but necessary nonetheless. I don't labor against Arminians (although I will preach against it as the text I'm preaching dictates). They don't occupy my every waking thought. I pray that my motives are always driven by the desire to preach the Gospel to see sinners converted and the saints strengthened.

 

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.
​

 

The above is very good.

You're one of the rare breed of Calvinists who has admitted to such.

In shortened form I brought that out in an earlier post.

I really don't like what those Church Fathers of the early 17th century labored on as merely TULIP. That acrostic wasn't developed until 1905 by Cleland Boyd McAfee.

 

So, as Reformed pointed out : The meaning of paradoxical then CHS's belief in both truths are nonsensical and self-contradictory. Is that what you are saying RM?

You are wrong RM. Name some Calvinists who deny both of those truths. There are none on the BB, that's for sure. Any scholars/writers/pastors? Please furnish some names to substantiate your charge.

 

I am glad you took ownership of your term.

Contrary to what Calvinists teach today? Interesting. I'm in that other group then. The one that is teaching that. In fact I'm joined by dozens (and I do mean dozens) who believe as I do.

 

If God overrides the decisions of people, then it follows that the initial decisions were not predestined by God, unless God makes mistakes and changes His mind. Which of course He does not! Behold the incoherence of Calvinism.

 

amen to that!