A Review of Spurgeon's "A Defense of Calvinism"

[Reformed]

I am not given to long-winded opening posts but in this case, I am going to make a rare exception. I am going to make multiple posts on Charles Spurgeon's famous work, "A Defense of Calvinism". In this work Spurgeon wrote, "Calvinism is the gospel". What did he mean by that? Was he excluding from the kingdom those who disagreed with Calvinism? Was he saying that a person must accept Calvinism in order to be saved? Let us see how Spurgeon answers those questions.

"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
​

Here are Spurgeon’s own words as we try to determine how he equated Calvinism with the gospel.

“Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."”

Spurgeon came to understand that God controlled everything that finally culminated in his conversion. Spurgeon started off his Christian life with a synergistic view of the gospel (Arminian). Through the scriptures, God revealed the truth of the gospel to Spurgeon, “Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all…”

Once convinced of the doctrine of election, Spurgeon wrote:

“John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards." I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine.”

​

 

[Reformed]

continuing...

Spurgeon understood that he possessed no merit that would have obligated God to elect him, so his election was due to God’s own reasons.

Spurgeon understood that God chose His elect before creation; before anything physical and tangible existed.

“In the very beginning, when this great universe lay in the mind of God, like unborn forests in the acorn cup; long ere the echoes awoke the solitudes; before the mountains were brought forth; and long ere the light flashed through the sky, God loved His chosen creatures. Before there was any created being—when the ether was not fanned by an angel's wing, when space itself had not an existence, when there was nothing save God alone—even then, in that loneliness of Deity, and in that deep quiet and profundity, His bowels moved with love for His chosen. Their names were written on His heart, and then were they dear to His soul. Jesus loved His people before the foundation of the world—even from eternity! and when He called me by His grace, He said to me, "I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."”

Spurgeon also understood that God’s effectual call prevailed against the refusals of his own dark and depraved heart. Yes. God called that sinner against his will.

“Then, in the fulness of time, He purchased me with His blood; He let His heart run out in one deep gaping wound for me long ere I loved Him. Yea, when He first came to me, did I not spurn Him? When He knocked at the door, and asked for entrance, did I not drive Him away, and do despite to His grace? Ah, I can remember that I full often did so until, at last, by the power of His effectual grace, He said, "I must, I will come in;" and then He turned my heart, and made me love Him. But even till now I should have resisted Him, had it not been for His grace. Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have been possible? Could that have been the origin of the Saviour's love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long before I believed. "But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."”

Here is where Spurgeon makes his most offensive statement to those who hold the various views of free will; whether it be Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism, corporate election, foreseen faith et. al:

“The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there 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 not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; 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; 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.”

 

[Reformed]

continuing...

While Spurgeon held tenaciously to Calvin’s soteriology, he was not so consumed with it that he excluded others who disagreed with him from the kingdom. He recognized there are god-fearing men even in Arminianism.

“There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.”

Spurgeon went on to criticize hyper-Calvinists, displaying that he was willing to hold the feet to the fire of those in his own camp.

“I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.”

So, what did Spurgeon mean when he said that Calvinism is the gospel? He meant that the doctrines of grace (divine election and predestination) are at the core of the gospel message along with justification by faith in Christ alone. Spurgeon came to his conclusion through study of the scriptures, not by worldly knowledge. But the affection and esteem in which he held Arminians such as John Wesley displays his Christian charity towards those who were of a different conviction.

Can Calvinists today say that Calvinism is the gospel? Yes. But not without major pushback from those who reject the doctrines of grace. If today’s Calvinists make that claim, they are best served by explaining that they think the scriptures clearly and unambiguously teach divine election and predestination; and while it is not necessary for an unbeliever to understand these things before conversion, learning them after conversion will help strengthen their faith and guard their hearts from despair.

 

[rockytopva]

Good topics to go along with fine pipe tobacco! I have read that D.L. Moody had long admired Charles Spurgeon’s sermons, and when Moody traveled to London, he went to meet the famous preacher. He was met at the door by Spurgeon himself, smoking a cigar. Moody was shocked. “How can you, a man of God, smoke that cigar?” Spurgeon was not offended, but he replied, “The same way that you, a man of God, can be that fat.”

 

[37818]

I do not see Calvinism to be contrary to:

1, Without the gospel message none can come to God.
2. God's election of those whom He saves are without any merit on the part of those whom He elects.
3. The atonement only secures the salvation of His elect, . . .
4. His elect ultimately do not resist God's grace.
5. The elect whom God saves, God keeps.

 

[Reformed]

I do not see Calvinism to be contrary to:

1, Without the gospel message none can come to God.
2. God's election of those whom He saves are without any merit on the part of those whom He elects.
3. The atonement only secures the salvation of His elect, . . .
4. His elect ultimately do not resist God's grace.
5. The elect whom God saves, God keeps.

While those things are true about Calvinism, the purpose of the thread was to discuss what Spurgeon meant by "Calvinism is the gospel". @Iconoclast made this statement in another thread and is, predictably, catching heat for it. At its core, the gospel is both the good news that Jesus Christ saves sinners and how Jesus Christ saves sinners. It is also a call to repent and believe (Mark 1:15). Most Christians will agree with this. The problem comes when discussing the "how" part. Spurgeon made his case by explaining his view of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. He believed the view he held was the most faithful to scripture. He did not say a person had to believe his view in order to become a member of the kingdom. Spurgeon did not believe he was adding to the gospel; he believed he was unpacking its glorious layers.

At Christmas-time my wife enjoys burying the real gift at the bottom of a box and covering it up with other gifts. All the gifts are nice but the real prize is usually at the bottom. It is a lot of fun to unwrap each gift as the anticipation builds to the main gift. The gospel is more than just the message of salvation. The gospel is our ever-present companion on our journey to glory. We are continually unwrapping new treasures and enjoying old ones. The final treasure will be when we see our Lord face-to-face and the promise of our salvation is realized. This is what Spurgeon saw in the gospel.

 

[Revmitchell]

One cannot say that Calvinism is the gospel and also that one does not have to hold that view to see the kingdom. I mean you can but then you are being inconsistent. Anyone who tries to explain that away is being absurd.

 

[Reformed]

One cannot say that Calvinism is the gospel and also that one does not have to hold that view to see the kingdom. I mean you can but then you are being inconsistent. Anyone who tries to explain that away is being absurd.

So, what do you think Spurgeon meant when he made that statement? How would you interpret it?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

So, what do you think Spurgeon meant when he made that statement? How would you interpret it?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Well there are several problems with it. I have a couple of his books to include his Letters to pastors. I enjoy much of what he has said and written but when he gets away from lifting up the gospel and Christ he gets a bit wonky. Like this quote of his which is being debated. He and others like him leave the gospel of salvation and of Jesus Christ when they instead lift up Calvinism. It is not the same thing and making Calvinism on equal footing as the gospel is not only a mistake but it is heretical in nature. Just because Spurgeon says something doesn't make it so.

Spurgeon said: "...there 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."

Here he lifts up Calvinism on equal footing as the gospel itself. Now he and others can claim that those who are not Calvinists are still saved but it is an inconsistent claim. Excuses are made for the inconsistency such as " They have not matured or learned yet" but the problem arises when one compares the differences between being ignorant ( as I have recently been wrongly accused of) and flat out denying it. If one denies the gospel can one truly be a Christian? I say you cannot for to deny the gospel is to deny the Savior. The gospel of Calvinism is not the gospel of Jesus Christ! Paul gave a stern warning in Galatians 1:8 to anyone who preached another gospel. I would agree with him and say that Calvinists should heed it.

Spurgeon goes on to give a clear definition to his personal gospel when he says: "....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".

Spurgeon meant just what is plain to all of us that his gospel was based on "particular redemption" in other words Calvinism and in opposition to anything that is not Calvinism. To then say that anyone who believes differently can still be a Christian is inconsistent at best and an outright lie at worst.

Calvinism is not the gospel. The good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah is. Nothing else. To preach anything other than Christ and Him crucified is a shameful thing and they will all answer for it.

 

[Scott Downey]

Well there are several problems with it. I have a couple of his books to include his Letters to pastors. I enjoy much of what he has said and written but when he gets away from lifting up the gospel and Christ he gets a bit wonky. Like this quote of his which is being debated. He and others like him leave the gospel of salvation and of Jesus Christ when they instead lift up Calvinism. It is not the same thing and making Calvinism on equal footing as the gospel is not only a mistake but it is heretical in nature. Just because Spurgeon says something doesn't make it so.

Spurgeon said: "...there 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."

Here he lifts up Calvinism on equal footing as the gospel itself. Now he and others can claim that those who are not Calvinists are still saved but it is an inconsistent claim. Excuses are made for the inconsistency such as " They have not matured or learned yet" but the problem arises when one compares the differences between being ignorant ( as I have recently been wrongly accused of) and flat out denying it. If one denies the gospel can one truly be a Christian? I say you cannot for to deny the gospel is to deny the Savior. The gospel of Calvinism is not the gospel of Jesus Christ! Paul gave a stern warning in Galatians 1:8 to anyone who preached another gospel. I would agree with him and say that Calvinists should heed it.

Spurgeon goes on to give a clear definition to his personal gospel when he says: "....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".

Spurgeon meant just what is plain to all of us that his gospel was based on "particular redemption" in other words Calvinism and in opposition to anything that is not Calvinism. To then say that anyone who believes differently can still be a Christian is inconsistent at best and an outright lie at worst.

Calvinism is not the gospel. The good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah is. Nothing else. To preach anything other than Christ and Him crucified is a shameful thing and they will all answer for it.

"Calvinism is not the gospel. The good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah is. Nothing else. To preach anything other than Christ and Him crucified is a shameful thing and they will all answer for it."

but your leaving out 'according to the scriptures', which allows for the door to be opened to preaching on these things.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by [a]Cephas, then by the twelve.

It is important to understand these things according to the scriptures.
Christ makes the same statement, according to the scriptures.

25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He [g]expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Calvinism is not the gospel. The good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah is. Nothing else. To preach anything other than Christ and Him crucified is a shameful thing and they will all answer for it."

but your leaving out 'according to the scriptures', which allows for the door to be opened to preaching on these things.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by [a]Cephas, then by the twelve.

It is important to understand these things according to the scriptures.
Christ makes the same statement, according to the scriptures.

25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He [g]expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

It does not leave open to holding that Calvinism is the gospel. "According to the scriptures" is only in reference to the gospel of Jesus Christ in those verses which is found in scripture.

 

[Reformed]

Well there are several problems with it. I have a couple of his books to include his Letters to pastors. I enjoy much of what he has said and written but when he gets away from lifting up the gospel and Christ he gets a bit wonky. Like this quote of his which is being debated. He and others like him leave the gospel of salvation and of Jesus Christ when they instead lift up Calvinism. It is not the same thing and making Calvinism on equal footing as the gospel is not only a mistake but it is heretical in nature. Just because Spurgeon says something doesn't make it so.

Spurgeon said: "...there 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."

Here he lifts up Calvinism on equal footing as the gospel itself. Now he and others can claim that those who are not Calvinists are still saved but it is an inconsistent claim. Excuses are made for the inconsistency such as " They have not matured or learned yet" but the problem arises when one compares the differences between being ignorant ( as I have recently been wrongly accused of) and flat out denying it. If one denies the gospel can one truly be a Christian? I say you cannot for to deny the gospel is to deny the Savior. The gospel of Calvinism is not the gospel of Jesus Christ! Paul gave a stern warning in Galatians 1:8 to anyone who preached another gospel. I would agree with him and say that Calvinists should heed it.

Spurgeon goes on to give a clear definition to his personal gospel when he says: "....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".

Spurgeon meant just what is plain to all of us that his gospel was based on "particular redemption" in other words Calvinism and in opposition to anything that is not Calvinism. To then say that anyone who believes differently can still be a Christian is inconsistent at best and an outright lie at worst.

Calvinism is not the gospel. The good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah is. Nothing else. To preach anything other than Christ and Him crucified is a shameful thing and they will all answer for it.

Brother, thank you for your response. I read every word.

When I posed the question in the OP, "What did he mean by that?" in relation to "Calvinism is the gospel", I understood that this famous work by Spurgeon is highly controversial with those who are not Calvinists. To be honest, it troubles many Calvinists who understand a person does not need to be a Calvinist to become a Christian. As you can probably guess, I am a fan of Spurgeon's writings. I have been blessed by them both devotionally and theologically. But I admit that Spurgeon was just a man and was as prone to error as we are today. Still, I want to share Spurgeon's answer to the question, "What did he mean when he wrote, "Calvinism is the gospel"?

In a sermon delivered on August 5th, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel, titled "Preach the Gospel", Spurgeon said:

"To preach the gospel is to state every doctrine contained in God's Word, and to give every truth its proper prominence."

The reason why Spurgeon could say that Calvinism is the gospel is that he had an expanded view of the gospel. The gospel was more than just the good news of forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ. To Spurgeon, the gospel of Jesus Christ was everything about Jesus Christ. It touched on every doctrine in the New Testament. But Spurgeon understood that the new birth did not hang on a person getting every doctrine right. In other words, not every doctrine was of equal weight. But in Spurgeon's mind, Calvinism was the most accurate expression of the gospel, according to the way in which he believed scripture defined the gospel.

I do believe that the Reformed view of predestination and election (Calvinism) is more faithful to scripture than any other view. That is why I hold to it. Forgive me for being redundant with my next statement. While I agree with Spurgeon in the main, I believe that having that "expanded view" is not necessary for a person to become a Christian. Acts 16:31 states, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved". It is not necessary to add anything to it. Growing in the knowledge of the Lord will expose a new believer to theology that will profit his soul and keep him from error. That is where that "expanded view" comes in.

Lastly, to be fair to Spurgeon, he ever once stated that it was necessary to declare Calvinism to a sinner. He understood the gospel was "Believe in the Lord Jesus". His teachings on Calvinism was to the profit of his sheep, not unbelievers. If there is any Calvinist today who believes in accepting Calvinism as a pre-requisite for salvation, I will join with my free will believing friends in condemning that teaching.

 

[Revmitchell]

In a sermon delivered on August 5th, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel, titled "Preach the Gospel", Spurgeon said:

"To preach the gospel is to state every doctrine contained in God's Word, and to give every truth its proper prominence."

The reason why Spurgeon could say that Calvinism is the gospel is that he had an expanded view of the gospel.

Well my view of the gospel is strictly tied to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah. To go beyond that is scripturally incorrect.

I do believe that the Reformed view of predestination and election (Calvinism)

In placing "Calvinism" in brackets like that it appears you are suggesting that election is only believed by calvinism. Surely that is not what you believe. So what was the true intended purpose by you?

 

[Reformed]

In placing "Calvinism" in brackets like that it appears you are suggesting that election is only believed by calvinism. Surely that is not what you believe. So what was the true intended purpose by you?

I only did that to qualify that "the Reformed view of predestination and election" is Calvinism. I understand that there are those who believe in a different type of predestination and election (namely, corporate). I just happen to believe they are wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

Brother, thank you for your response. I read every word.

When I posed the question in the OP, "What did he mean by that?" in relation to "Calvinism is the gospel", I understood that this famous work by Spurgeon is highly controversial with those who are not Calvinists. To be honest, it troubles many Calvinists who understand a person does not need to be a Calvinist to become a Christian. As you can probably guess, I am a fan of Spurgeon's writings. I have been blessed by them both devotionally and theologically. But I admit that Spurgeon was just a man and was as prone to error as we are today. Still, I want to share Spurgeon's answer to the question, "What did he mean when he wrote, "Calvinism is the gospel"?

In a sermon delivered on August 5th, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel, titled "Preach the Gospel", Spurgeon said:

"To preach the gospel is to state every doctrine contained in God's Word, and to give every truth its proper prominence."

The reason why Spurgeon could say that Calvinism is the gospel is that he had an expanded view of the gospel. The gospel was more than just the good news of forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ. To Spurgeon, the gospel of Jesus Christ was everything about Jesus Christ. It touched on every doctrine in the New Testament. But Spurgeon understood that the new birth did not hang on a person getting every doctrine right. In other words, not every doctrine was of equal weight. But in Spurgeon's mind, Calvinism was the most accurate expression of the gospel, according to the way in which he believed scripture defined the gospel.

I do believe that the Reformed view of predestination and election (Calvinism) is more faithful to scripture than any other view. That is why I hold to it. Forgive me for being redundant with my next statement. While I agree with Spurgeon in the main, I believe that having that "expanded view" is not necessary for a person to become a Christian. Acts 16:31 states, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved". It is not necessary to add anything to it. Growing in the knowledge of the Lord will expose a new believer to theology that will profit his soul and keep him from error. That is where that "expanded view" comes in.

Lastly, to be fair to Spurgeon, he ever once stated that it was necessary to declare Calvinism to a sinner. He understood the gospel was "Believe in the Lord Jesus". His teachings on Calvinism was to the profit of his sheep, not unbelievers. If there is any Calvinist today who believes in accepting Calvinism as a pre-requisite for salvation, I will join with my free will believing friends in condemning that teaching.

Do you believe Spurgeon was Christian?Can a Christian hold such views?
Do you believe Spurgeon was a baptist and believed such things?

Do you believe he alone held such scriptural beliefs?

Is there any scriptural belief that we can know is truth?

Is God given teaching just a theory or philosophy?

Do you think God gives truth so we cannot know it, but rather just speculate?

Certain teaching have been deemed as heresy, should we discount that and put everything back on the table?

So much to consider. I do not do much with politics these days Reformed. I have noticed though that many on the left who pretend to be progressive and enlightened, and so mature are until a conservative speaks up, then that speech gets demonized as hate speech with vitriol accompanied by labels.....have you seen that in politics?
Do you think.we see that here from time to time?

 

[Reformed]

Do you believe Spurgeon was Christian?

Of course!

Can a Christian hold such views?

What views do you mean? The views he expressed in his work that Calvinism is the gospel? Yes. A Christian can hold such a view. I also believe a Christian can hold to views you and I do not hold to like Dispensationalism and speaking in tongues. By themselves, those views do not have an effect on one's standing in Christ.

Do you believe Spurgeon was a baptist and believed such things?

Spurgeon was a Baptist's Baptist and he certainly believed what he claimed to believe.

Do you believe he alone held such scriptural beliefs?

No. He probably was in the minority like Calvinists today.

Is God given teaching just a theory or philosophy?

God-given teaching is a positive theory, not a potential fact. It may affect philosophy but it is not a philosophy.

Do you think God gives truth so we cannot know it, but rather just speculate?

God intends for us to understand the truth, although sometimes it takes prayerful dedication and study to mine scripture's treasures.

Certain teaching have been deemed as heresy, should we discount that and put everything back on the table?

The "H" word is loaded with dynamite. I believe Dispensationalism is wrong. However, I do not think it rises to the level of big "H" heresy. Believing it does not damn someone to hell. Denying the virgin birth or the resurrection is different. Those things do qualify as big "H" heresy. How about monergistic vs. synergistic soteriology? I think there are depths to an error in this area. Being a monergistic Calvinist, I believe synergistic theology is wrong. The garden variety synergism we see in broad evangelicalism has tentacles that engulf other areas of theology. This is what Spurgeon was getting at when he said Calvinism is the gospel. He understood that no part of theology stands alone. But before I would accuse a brother-in-Christ of being a big "H" heretic, I would have to see a lot more than just a belief in a free will soteriology.

Should we discount heresy? No. The proper way of dealing with real heresy is through the local church. If a church member starts teaching known false teaching, scripture details how we are to handle that. But on the Internet? On a message board? There is no ecclesiastical accountability in these venues. The best we can do is make a positive case for what we believe scripture teaches and do so in a way that puts scripture in the foreground and us in the background. We have to let God do His work in His perfect timing.

So much to consider. I do not do much with politics these days Reformed. I have noticed though that many on the left who pretend to be progressive and enlightened, and so mature are until a conservative speaks up, then that speech gets demonized as hate speech with vitriol accompanied by labels.....have you seen that in politics?
Do you think we see that here from time to time?

These days politics is fueled by hate of the other side. That is why I am an unaffiliated voter (Independent). I have no use for party politics. As far as the Baptist Board goes, there are some who paint with a broad brush and impugn motives. They look for the negative in everything. They are more troll than content contributor. They are found on both sides of most issues. The question we all need to ask is, "What do we do about them?" You already know my suggestion. Do not respond to them. They are looking for a confrontation. If you do not give it to them they eventually move on to something or someone else. This works just as well with someone you just do not see eye-to-eye with. If you find yourself always getting into an argument with the same person(s), for the sake of your own well-being, is it not better than to wish them godspeed and part ways? I am not saying you need to block them, just do not engage with them in conversation.

Anyway, just my 1.4 cents (2 cents after taxes).