Sermons On Sovereignty CHS

[Rippon]

A long time ago I bought this book which was a collection of sermons Charles Spurgeon made between 1856-1883 . These are not the only messages he delivered on this expansive subject and doctrines akin to it . But as it has been expressed on other threads , Charles Spurgeon was indeed a strong Calvinist . He did not hide the fact . He didn't mention God's sovereignty only occasionally . He did not view it as a minor matter . He was not an Arminian by any stretch . I personally do not see how anyone who claims to be honest and yet a Spurgeon admirer , can claim that the Prince of Preachers was anything but a proclaimer of free grace and against free will .

I will cite selections from some of these sermons for your edification .The first is from : A Defense Of Calvinism .

...there is no such 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 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 ...

 

[Rippon]

From Misrepresentations Of Calvinism Cleared Away ( preached 3/25/1861).

A yet further charge against us is , that we dare not preach the gospel to the unregenerate , that , in fact , our theology is so narrow and cramped that we cannot preach to sinners . Gentlemen , if you dare to say this , I would take you to any library in the world where the old Puritan fathers are stored up , and I would let you take down any one volume and tell me if you ever read more telling exhortations and addresses to sinners in any of your own books . Did not Bunyan plead with sinners , and whoever classed him with any but the Calvinists ? Did not Charnock , Goodwin , and Howe agonize for souls , and what were they but Calvinists ? Did not Johnathan Edwards preach to sinners , and who more clear and explicit on these doctrinal matters ? The works of our innumerable divines teem with passionate appeals to the unconverted . Oh , sirs , if I should begin the list , time should fail me . It is an indisputable fact that we have laboured more than they all for the winning of souls . Was George Whitefield any the less seraphic ? Did his eyes weep the fewer tears or his bowels move with less compassion because he believed in God's electing love and preached the sovereignty of the Most High ? It is an unfounded calumny . Our souls are not stony ; our bowels are not withdrawn from the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellow-men ; we can hold all our views firmly , and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed .

 

[Rippon]

These fragments are from Divine Sovereignty , which was delivered 5/4/1856 . He wasn't even 22 yet .

... but when God ascends His throne , His creatures then gnash their teeth ; and when we proclaim an enthroned God , and His right to do as He wills with His own , to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well , without consulting them in the matter , then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us , for God on His throne is not the God they love .

Oh , but some say is it not written that " He giveth to every man a measure of grace to profit withal ? " If you are like to repeat that wonderful quotation so often hurled at my head , you are very welcome , for it is no quotation from Scripture , unless it be an Arminian edition . The only passage at all like it refers to the spiritual gifts of the saints and the saints only . But I say , granted your supposition , that a measure of grace is given to every man to profit withal , yet He hath given to some a measure of particular grace to make that profit . For what do you mean by grace , which I put out , to profit ? I can understand a man's improvement in the use of grease , but grace improved and made use of by the power of man I cannot understand . Grace is not a thing which I use ; grace is something which uses me .


And we say to all of you who gnash your teeth at this doctrine , whether you know it or not , you have a vast deal of enmity towards God in your hearts ; for until you can be brought to know this doctrine , there is something which you have not yet discovered , which , makes you opposed to the idea of God absolute , God unbounded , God unfettered , God unchanging , and God having a free will , which you are so fond of proving that the creature possesses . I am persuaded that the Sovereignty of God must be held by us if we would be in a healthy state of mind . " Salvation is of the Lord alone . " Then give all the glory to His holy name , to whom all glory belongs .

 

[Rippon]

The Infallibility Of God's Purpose (8/25/1861 )

They who think that predestination and the fulfillment of the divine purpose is contrary to the free-agency of man , know not what they say , nor whereof they affirm . It was no miracle for God to effect His own purpose , if He were dealing with stocks and stones , with granite and with trees ; but this is the miracle of miracles , that the creatures are free , absolutely free , and yet the divine purpose stands ! Herein is wisdom ! This is a deep unsearchable truth . Man walks without a fetter , yet treads in the very steps which God ordained him to tread in , as certainly as though miracles had bound him to the spot . Man chooses his own seat , selects his own position , guided by his will he chooses sin , or guided by divine grace he chooses right , and yet in his choice , God sits as sovereign on the throne ; not disturbing , but still over-ruling , and proving Himself to be able to deal as well with free creatures as with creatures without freedom , as well able to effect His purpose when He has endowed men with thought , and reason , and judgment , as when He had only to deal with the solid rocks and with the imbedded sea .

 

[Brother Bob]

Are you all still trying to convince yourselves?

 

[JackRUS]

From Misrepresentations Of Arminianism Cleared Away (preached 4/17/2006)

Arminians and Baptists such as myself that believe in the eternal security of the saints, believe that God is sovereign, and that it is His sovereign will that we be free moral agents.

Not Stepford Wives. He decides who is saved (Rom. 9:15), but He expects us to be like the publican of Luke 18:1-4, and adhere to Isa. 66:2 and to give honor to His Son by believing on Him (John 6:40).

John 12:48

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
Not Stepford Wives.

Ooh, sneaky. You got the old "robots" straw man in there without actually using the word "robots".

 

[Rippon]

Election ( delivered on Sept.2,1855 )

There seems to be an inveterate prejudice in the human mind against this doctrine , and although most other Christian doctrines will be received by professing Christians , some with caution , others with pleasure , yet this one seems to be most frequently disregarded and disgarded . In any of our pulpits , it would be reckoned a high sin and treason to preach a sermon upon election , because they could not make it what they call a " practical " discourse . I believe they have erred from the truth therein . Whatever God has revealed , He has revealed for a purpose . There is nothing in Scripture which may not , under the influence of God's Spirit , be turned into a practical discourse : for " all Scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable " for some purpose of spiritual usefulness . It is true , it may not be turned into a free-will discourse ; and free-grace practice is the best practice , when the true doctrines of God's immutable love are brought to bear upon the hearts of saints and sinners .
Now, I trust this morning some of you who are startled at the very sound of this word , will say , " I will give it a fair hearing , I will lay aside my prejudices ; I will just hear what this man has to say . " Do not shut your ears and say at once , " It is high doctrine . " Who has authorized you to call it high or low ? Why should you oppose yourself to God's doctrine ? Remember what became of the children who found fault with God's prophet and exclaimed , " Go up , thou bald-head ; go up , thou bald-head . " Say nothing against God's doctrine , lest haply some evil beast should come out of the forest and devour you also . There are other woes besides the open judgment of Heaven -- take heed that these fall not on your head . Lay aside your prejudices ; listen calmly , listen dispassionately : hear what Scripture says : and when you receive the truth , if God should be pleased to reveal and manifest it to your souls , do not be ashamed to confess it . To confess you are wrong yesterday , is only to acknowledge that you are a little wiser today ; and instead of being a reflection on yourself , it is an honor to your judgment , and shows that you are improving in the knowledge of the truth . Do not be ashamed to learn , and to cast aside your old doctrines and views , but take up that which you may more plainly see to be in the Word of God .

[ April 18, 2006, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Rippon ]

 

[npetreley]

Galatians 5:11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

The cross was an offense to people who wanted to earn their salvation (in this case, through things like circumcision). I believe true Grace is an offense for the same reason, which is why election is "most frequently disregarded and discarded".

Of course the free willers will insist they aren't saying they earn their salvation. But that's really what free willism is all about. It's all about "the difference between me and the unsaved is that I was _insert_attribute_here_ enough to choose to make the right decision." Only a few free willers are honest enough to put it that way, but that's the unspoken foundation of salvation by free will. If that isn't earning salvation, I don't know what is.

I forget where I read this (I think it might have been Chuck Swindoll but I really can't say for sure), but it went something like "If you aren't offending a significant portion of your audience, then you aren't preaching Grace."

 

[Rippon]

Continuing with excerpts from CHS's sermon on Election .

It is no novelty , then , that I am preaching ; no new doctrine . I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines , what are called by nickname Calvinism , but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus . By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past , and as I go , I see father after father , confessor after confessor , martyr after martyr , standing up to shake hands with me . Were I a Pelagian , or a believer in the doctrine of free will , I should have to walk for centuries all alone . Hear and there a heretic , of no honorable character , might rise up and call me brother . But taking these things to be the standard of my faith , I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren . I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do , and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church .


Methinks , my friends , that this overwhelming mass of Scripture testimony [ CHS cites many passages which validate the doctrine of election ]must stagger those who dare laugh at this doctrine . What shall we say of those who have so often despised it , and denied its divinity , who have railed at its justice and dared to defy God and call Him an almighty tryant , when they have heard of His having elected so many to eternal life ? Canst thou O rejector ! cast it out of the Bible ? Canst thou take the penknife of Juhudi and cut it out of the Word of God ? wouldst thou be like the woman at the feet of Solomon , and have the child rent in halves , that thou mightest have thy half ? Is it not here in scripture ? And is it not thy duty to bow before it , and meekly acknowledge what thou understandest not ? -- to receive it as the truth even though thou couldst not understand its meaning ?

[ April 18, 2006, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Rippon ]

 

[Rippon]

Election

In like manner , to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith , which is salvation in the germ , would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment . Faith is the gift of God . Every virtue comes from Him . Therefore it can not have caused Him to elect men , because it is His gift . Election , we are sure , is absolute , and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterward ...Our only hope , our only plea , still hangs on grace , as exhibited in the person of Jesus Christ . And I am sure we must utterly reject and disregard all thought that our graces which are gifts of our Lord , which are His righthand planting , could have ever caused His love .

 

[npetreley]

Excellent stuff. Where are you getting all these quotes? Do you have a link?

 

[Rippon]

Particular Redemption ( 2/28/1858 )

We hold -- we are not afraid to say that we believe -- that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving " a multitude which no man can number ," and we believe that as a result of this , every person for whom He died must , beyond the shadow of a doubt , be cleansed from sin , and stand , washed in blood , before the Father's throne . We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned ; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved , and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ , according to some men's account , died to save them .

 

[Rippon]

Continuing with Particular Redemption ...

I must now return to that controverted point again . We are told ( I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists -- and we are not very much ashamed of that ; we think Calvin , after all , knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived , uninspired ). We are often told that we limit the atonement of christ , because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men , or all would be saved . Now , our reply to this is , that , on the other hand , our opponents limit it : we do not . The Arminians say , Christ died for all men . Ask them what they mean by it . Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men ? They say , " No, certainly not . " We ask them the next question -- Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular ? They answer " No ." They are obliged to admit this , if they are consistent . They say , " No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if " -- and then follow certain conditions of salvation .
We say, then , we will go back to the old statement -- Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody , did He ? You must say " No;" you are obliged to say so , for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned , he may yet fall from grace , and perish . Now , who is it that limits the death of Christ ? Why , you . You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody . We beg your pardon , when you say we limit Christ's death ; we say , " No , my dear sir , it is you that do it ." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number , who must be saved , and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved . You are welcome to your atonement ; you may keep it . We will never renounce ours for the sake of it .

 

[Rippon]

R.P.

Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement , you may tell him this . General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch ; it does not go across the stream : it only professes to go half way ; it does not secure the salvation of anybody . Now , I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford , which went all the way across , than on a bridge that was as wide as the world , if it did not go all the way across the stream .

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Rippon:
A long time ago I bought this book which was a collection of sermons Charles Spurgeon made between 1856-1883 . These are not the only messages he delivered on this expansive subject and doctrines akin to it . But as it has been expressed on other threads , Charles Spurgeon was indeed a strong Calvinist . He did not hide the fact . He didn't mention God's sovereignty only occasionally . He did not view it as a minor matter . He was not an Arminian by any stretch . I personally do not see how anyone who claims to be honest and yet a Spurgeon admirer , can claim that the Prince of Preachers was anything but a proclaimer of free grace and against free will .

I will cite selections from some of these sermons for your edification .The first is from : A Defense Of Calvinism .

...there is no such 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 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 ...

Any idea of why Charles Spurgeon wasn't a Presbyterian, or any others here that believe in Calvinism?

 

[Rippon]

Ituttut , he was raised by his grandfather for the most part . His father and grandfather were Congregational I think . But very early in CHS's conversion he came to baptistic convictions .

Just because he was a strong advocate of Reformed doctrine it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism as such . There have been many non-Presbyterian or non-Dutch Reformed folks who have embraced the doctrine of grace . The convictions stem from the teachings of the Bible itself , not from manmade documents . Although some manmade documents have been excellent guidepots to the degree that they are careful to measure-up to the Word of God in summarizing Bible teachings .

 

[Rippon]

Plenteous Redemption ( 12/23/1860 )

And hear me distinctly again , lest any should mistake me . I always like to preach so that you will say in the judgment of charity , he could not have meant what he said . Now , I mean solemnly again to say what I have said -- that I do believe that none others were redeemed than those who are or shall be redeemed from the guilt , the punishment , and the power of sin , because I say again , it is abhorrent to my reason , much less to my views of Scripture , to conceive that the damned were ever washed in the Saviour's blood , or that His blood was ever shed with an intention of saving them .

 

[Rippon]

Can you non-cals envision an evangelist delivering a sermon with the title " Human Inability "? Well , Charles Spurgeon preached this dandy on March 7, 1858 . He used the text from John 6:44 : No man can come to me , except the Father which hath sent me draw him .

I wish that a certain memorable line was in the paragraph I will cite . It appeared a page earlier : Let me put a thunderbolt beneath the seat of your sloth .

How , then , does the Holy Spirit draw him ? Why , by making him willing . It is true He does not use " moral suasion ;" He knows a nearer method of reaching the heart , and He knows how , by some mysterious operation , to turn the will in an opposite direction , so that , as Ralph Erskine paradoxically puts it , the man is saved " with full consent against his will ; " that is , against his old will he is saved . But he is saved with full consent , for he is made willing in the day of God's power . Do not imagine that any man will go to Heaven kicking and struggling all the way against the hand that draws him .

 

[Rippon]

I'm sorry . I had a class and couldn't finish the previous paragraph in the sermon : " Human Inabliity " . So here is the rest of it ...

Do not conceive that any man will be plunged in the bath of a Saviour's blood while he is trying to run away from the Saviour . Oh, no . It is quite true that first of all man is unwilling to be saved . When the Holy Spirit hath put His influence into the heart , the text is fulfilled -- " draw me and I will run after thee ." We follow on while He draws us , glad to obey the voice which once we had despised . But the gist of the matter lies in the turning of the will . How that is done no flesh knoweth ; it is one of those mysteries that is clearly perceived as a fact , but the cause of which no tongue can tell and no heart can guess .