Featured Congratulations to the Arminians

You are mistaken. The sermon was preached way back on Dec.2,1855. The Down-Grade controversy started 32 years later. And that later controversy was not an issue of Spurgeon fighting against Arminians. The Baptist Union was lax doctrinally in denying the Deity of Christ,renouncing faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ's death,denying human depravity and the authority of Scripture. --among other things. They even allowed a Unitarian minister to preach at one of their gatherings.

 

Rippon,

You are absolutely correct. Thank you.

I went back into my library and confirmed that. I conflated two separate times in Spurgeon's ministry. You rightly pointed out the downgrade controversy which caused a rift between Spurgeon and the Baptist Union. The other was an almost relentless attack against Calvinism and his preaching specifically. It was the latter that I meant to address but I was too lazy to check my facts. I am grateful for the correction.

 

Gentleman and professional indeed. He is a consistent voice against the liberalism that assaults the church today.

 

A gracious response.

I have done my share of Arminian-bashing on the BB. But since the D-G controversy has been mentioned, I will repeat what Charles H.Spurgeon had to say about them with respect to that late 1880's development.

"Certain antagonists have tried to represent the Down-Grade controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminianism. It is nothing of the kind. Many evangelical Arminians are as earnestly on our side as men can be. We do not conceal our Calvinism in the least;but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers." (Sword and Trowel Dec.1887)

"The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism,but of the truth of God versus the invention of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that 'modern thought' which is its deadly enemy." (Sword and Trowel April 1887)

 

Briefly now...what is the Down Grade contrivercy?

 

EWF, the downgrade controversy centered on Spurgeon's dispute with the Baptist Union over their rejection of historic Baptist doctrines. Instead of standing historic and confessional truths from Scripture, the Baptist Union began to give way to the "new thought"; doctrines such as annihilationism and universal atonement et. al. It was not one downgraded doctrine but many of them that erroded biblical truth.

 

Yea...went on line and googled it. Spurgeon was magnificent and he was very right. Unfortunately he lost the battle. There are no evangelical churches...they are extinct. Maybe not everywhere, but give it time.

 

With Spurgeon, as with any man, you must take the good with the bad. This is some GOOD advice from Spurgeon for some of the Calvinists in the room:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

 

The issue is harmonization. The term "all" should be defined by its context. For example, who among us would interpret "all" in John 6:37 to mean all men without exception from Adam to the last man living? I don't think any of us would force that idea upon it due to its context because the "all" in that context do in fact come to Jesus and none are lost.

It is true that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked although it is equally true that he is glorified in their just punishment. Hence, there is a distinction between what pleases God and what glorifies God, but yet no contradiction or conflict. Even the wrath of men will glorify God but that does not mean their wrath pleases him.

Thus likewise, the eternal just consequences against sinners and sin does not please God but it does glorify Him. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and thus controversly God would be pleased if all sinners without exception would repent and be saved. Of course that would please Him, just as it would please him if no man violated His revealed will -that too would please Him.

However, all sinners will not repent but all sinners will freely choose to continue in their rebellion - Psalm 14:2-3; Rom. 3:9-23; 8:7-8 because their fallen nature IS enmity and IS not submission and that kind of nature CANNOT please God because that nature cannot repent and believe because with that kind of nature it IS not possible without changing the very character of that nature due to what it IS.

Thus all sinners equally deserve eternal wrath and mere justice demands they all become objects of that wrath. However, God has sovereignly chosen that His justice will glorify Him in the condemnation of some and His mercy will glorify him in the salvation of others when all are equally sinners who equally deserve eternal wrath - Rom. 9:19-24.


Why he would not condemn all to wrath is a great question, but why he would choose any to save is the greater question as all equally do not deserve or seek it.

Finally, C.H. Spurgeon agrees with my interpretation as you well know he was not an Arminian. Spurgeon would have condemned Skandelon's view as error.

 

As Spurgeon was on the side of truth He won the war even if it seemed as if a battle or two was lost..

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


As true saving knowledge must be Divinely revealed we can know that His ministry reached many savingly ,and still does.

The lessons learned from the Downgrade controversy are still instructive for those of us who understand the desire of many to water down truth.

 

Spurgeon did not believe in a free will but a free agency. We must be given a new will and that will comes from the word of God through the Holy Spirit. We must as Jesus said must say not my will which is evil. Why is it evil because the good we do with our will is for yourself. To hear people say how a good person I am.We have bad motives when we don't do things for God but to try to out weigh our bad with good we do. It is for self motive when we don't do it for God and God alone. As I was saying we must say as Jesus said not my will but the Fathers will in Heavens will be done. That will does not come from our self but from God through His word. I pray every day what I do is not to get praise from man as the Pharisees but from God and that God is the one praised in my new life He has given me.. We are responsible free agency. We should never get rid of our responsibility found in His word but it is His will not ours because it has come from His word.