A defence of Calvinism

[Brother James]

From the prince of preachers! The fundy's like to garnish his tombstone but wouldn't fellowship with him today. Come to think of it, I don't think he'd have much to do with them either other than taking the time to rebuke them.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

 

[bjonson]

Brother James:

Waitaminute!! That can't be! Spurgeon was a soul-winner and therefore couldn't be a Calvinist, could he??

Just having fun, thanks for posting that sermon; it is a real thorn in the side of the Dave Hunt's of the world.

 

[4His_glory]

I like Spurgeon's defence of Calvinism, but I do not appreciate your blanket statement of fundamentalism. There are many of us whom he would indeed fellowship with.

If by fundy you mean the Jack Hyles, Clarence Sexton, KJVO, leaglistic type, then I would agree with you.

 

[webdog]

From the "Prince of Peace"...John 3:16. Spurgeon is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus.

 

[Scott J]

BTW, I am a fundy... but I think I know what you are saying.

Funny that the Sword of the Lord would find Spurgeon a favorite considering that he was a calvinist and not KJVO.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
From the "Prince of Peace"...John 3:16. Spurgeon is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus.

From the Good Shepherd... John 10:25-30 (in context rather than plucked from the context of new birth as John 3:16 so often is).

Never the less, Webdog is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus... in chapter 3 and chapter 10 and every where else He says something relevant to this topic.

 

[Ron Johnson]

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."—Charles H. Spurgeon

 

[genesis12]

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it..."

An dat's duh name uh dat tun! Amen!

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Brother James:
From the prince of preachers! The fundy's like to garnish his tombstone but wouldn't fellowship with him today. Come to think of it, I don't think he'd have much to do with them either other than taking the time to rebuke them.

You are revealing your ignorance of Spurgeon's life. In many ways he was the prototype Fundamentalist due to his battle against the "Downgrade Movement" in the Baptist Union, and his eventual ecclesiastical separation from the Baptist Union.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, I am a fundy... but I think I know what you are saying.

Funny that the Sword of the Lord would find Spurgeon a favorite considering that he was a calvinist and not KJVO.

John R. Rice (for the uninitiated, the founder of the SOTL), while not a Calvinist, was a great fan of Spurgeon's and printed his sermons so often that Pilgrim Publications gave him a complete set of them. I assume the current editor is simply following tradition, though I haven't received the SOTL for years.

As for the KJVO bit, that position did not exist in Fundamentalism prior to 1970. John R. Rice himself actively opposed Peter Ruckman and other KJVO types in the SOTL in the 1970's. It was not until the current editor that the KJVO position showed up in the SOTL. Furthermore, by my estimate fully half of 2006 Fundamentalism (including myself) is not KJVO. So personally, I resent it a little when Fundamentalism is thought to be, ergo, KJVO.

So, what is the purpose of this thread? Is there actually someone out there who doesn't know that Spurgeon was a Calvinist?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, I am a fundy... but I think I know what you are saying.

Funny that the Sword of the Lord would find Spurgeon a favorite considering that he was a calvinist and not KJVO.

Scott J, I just reread my own post, and I apologize. You did not say Fundamentalism is KJVO, only the SOTL, and that is true.

God bless!

 

[jw]

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, I am a fundy... but I think I know what you are saying.

Funny that the Sword of the Lord would find Spurgeon a favorite considering that he was a calvinist and not KJVO.

Interestingly enough, if you'll look at the Spurgeon sermons they publish every now and then in SOTL, then look them up somewhere else and you'll notice that SOTL edits out all the Calvinistic parts of Spurgeon's sermons.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
From the "Prince of Peace"...John 3:16. Spurgeon is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus.

From the Good Shepherd... John 10:25-30 (in context rather than plucked from the context of new birth as John 3:16 so often is).

Never the less, Webdog is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus... in chapter 3 and chapter 10 and every where else He says something relevant to this topic. </font>[/QUOTE]...and always ripped from it's correct context. The calvinist view of Jesus and God is barbaric and monsterous. I will liten to the TRUE Jesus of the Bible...not the Jesus fit into a "system"!

 

[bjonson]

webdog,

Bluster doesn't get you far here.

 

[webdog]

I am not sure who Bluster is...

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
From the "Prince of Peace"...John 3:16. Spurgeon is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus.

From the Good Shepherd... John 10:25-30 (in context rather than plucked from the context of new birth as John 3:16 so often is).

Never the less, Webdog is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus... in chapter 3 and chapter 10 and every where else He says something relevant to this topic. </font>[/QUOTE]...and always ripped from it's correct context.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. We welcome the context. The context only helps our position. It is those who would exalt man that must take a pen knife to scripture.

The calvinist view of . I will liten to the TRUE Jesus of the Bible...not the Jesus fit into a "system"!

Proof would be nice...

Yes we certainly make "Jesus and God is barbaric and monsterous" when we suggest that man is wicked while God is righteous... that man possesses no capacity to do or choose "good" that contributes one iota to God's loving grace... that God rightly punishes the wicked... but mercifully forgives those chosen according to His good pleasure though they deserved it no more than those who were condemned.

I suppose if Bill Gates went to the backwoods of Appalachia and gave 4 white trash families of his choosing a comfortable lifetime trust fund... in your eyes he would be "barbaric and monstrous" for not rescuing everyone whose own personal decisions and actions coupled with those of their ancestors put them in poverty.

Our system attempts to fit Jesus and I think does quite well... not force Him to fit it.

It is you that bring unbiblical presuppositions about what would be "fair" for God to do to the text. It is you that demands of scripture a God that respects the rights and sovereignty of man.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
From the "Prince of Peace"...John 3:16. Spurgeon is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus.

From the Good Shepherd... John 10:25-30 (in context rather than plucked from the context of new birth as John 3:16 so often is).

Never the less, Webdog is in error because he is human. Christ is not. I will listen to Jesus... in chapter 3 and chapter 10 and every where else He says something relevant to this topic. </font>[/QUOTE]...and always ripped from it's correct context.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. We welcome the context. The context only helps our position. It is those who would exalt man that must take a pen knife to scripture.

The calvinist view of . I will liten to the TRUE Jesus of the Bible...not the Jesus fit into a "system"!

Proof would be nice...

Yes we certainly make "Jesus and God is barbaric and monsterous" when we suggest that man is wicked while God is righteous... that man possesses no capacity to do or choose "good" that contributes one iota to God's loving grace... that God rightly punishes the wicked... but mercifully forgives those chosen according to His good pleasure though they deserved it no more than those who were condemned.

I suppose if Bill Gates went to the backwoods of Appalachia and gave 4 white trash families of his choosing a comfortable lifetime trust fund... in your eyes he would be "barbaric and monstrous" for not rescuing everyone whose own personal decisions and actions coupled with those of their ancestors put them in poverty.

Our system attempts to fit Jesus and I think does quite well... not force Him to fit it.

It is you that bring unbiblical presuppositions about what would be "fair" for God to do to the text. It is you that demands of scripture a God that respects the rights and sovereignty of man. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent brother Scott!

 

[bjonson]

Scott,

You are right on!

I think these non-Calvinists actually think every stinking dirty sinner who hates God deserves to go to heaven. We forget that we are His enemies until and unless we are drawn to salvation.

God is not unjust if He graciously gives to some what He is not obligated to give at all.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by bjonson:
Scott,

You are right on!

I think these non-Calvinists actually think every stinking dirty sinner who hates God deserves to go to heaven.

Thanks for the encouragement.

It would probably be a little more fair to say that they think if one person is granted salvation then all are deserving of the chance... but like you said, God isn't obligated to give salvation or even the opportunity for salvation to anyone.

 

[Ron Johnson]

There is no "man" at the end of my "trail of blood".