Spurgeon: Dispensationalist or Covenant Theology?

[Reformed]

Interesting quote from Charles Spurgeon:

Now, wherever you read of the God of Jacob in the Bible, you should remember the covenant with Jacob. Christians love to think of God's covenant. All the power, all the grace, all the blessings, all the mercies, all the comforts, all the things we have, flow to us from the well-head, through the covenant. If there were no covenant, then we should fail indeed; for all grace proceeds from it, as light and heat from the sun. No angels ascend or descend, save upon that ladder which Jacob saw, at the top of which stood a covenant God. Christian, it may be that the archers have sorely grieved you, and shot at you, and wounded you, but still your bow abides in strength; be sure, then, to ascribe all the glory to Jacob's God.

 

[Deacon]

From the Morning and Evening Devotional

I'm not certain where Spurgeon fits into a timeline of dispensationalist theology but I know there was no love lost between him and Darby. I don't believe dispensationalism had been fully articulated and publicized by Schofield yet.

As a dispensationalist myself I find little about the statement that I wouldn't teach myself - perhaps a bit softer - certainly with less authority :tongue3:

Rob

 

[Reformed]

I'm not certain where Spurgeon fits into a timeline of dispensationalist theology but I know there was no love lost between him and Darby. I don't believe dispensationalism had been fully articulated and publicized by Schofield yet.

As a dispensationalist myself I find little about the statement that I wouldn't teach myself - perhaps a bit softer - certainly with less authority :tongue3:

Rob

That quote was from 1877. By then Scofield was 34 years old. He certainly was influenced by Darby's writings as well as by being taught dispensational theology by James Brookes, a Presbyterian from St. Louis. So, when Spurgeon wrote that quote he was well aware of Dispensationalism's existence and growing influence.

Much guessing has been done as to what Spurgeon believed regarding systematic theology. These things we do know:

1. He had a deep affection for the Puritans, and especially John Bunyan. The majority of Puritans subscribed to Covenant Theology.
2. He was an unashamed Calvinist.
3. The majority of Calvinists throughout post-Reformation history were not Dispensationalists (NOTE: I said "the majority", which means there have been Dispensational Calvinists, although they are in the minority). The majority of Christians post-Darby have not been in the Dispensationalist camp.
4. Spurgeon has, on different occasions, written about God's covenant, which is commonly known in Reformed Theology as the Covenant of Grace or the Covenant of Redemption.

Spurgeon's writings can be appreciated by Monergists and Synergists alike, as well as Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians. I believe it is because Spurgeon held the preaching of the Gospel as his greatest priority.

 

[evangelist6589]

That quote was from 1877. By then Scofield was 34 years old. He certainly was influenced by Darby's writings as well as by being taught dispensational theology by James Brookes, a Presbyterian from St. Louis. So, when Spurgeon wrote that quote he was well aware of Dispensationalism's existence and growing influence.

Much guessing has been done as to what Spurgeon believed regarding systematic theology. These things we do know:

1. He had a deep affection for the Puritans, and especially John Bunyan. The majority of Puritans subscribed to Covenant Theology.
2. He was an unashamed Calvinist.
3. The majority of Calvinists throughout post-Reformation history were not Dispensationalists (NOTE: I said "the majority", which means there have been Dispensational Calvinists, although they are in the minority). The majority of Christians post-Darby have not been in the Dispensationalist camp.
4. Spurgeon has, on different occasions, written about God's covenant, which is commonly known in Reformed Theology as the Covenant of Grace or the Covenant of Redemption.

Spurgeon's writings can be appreciated by Monergists and Synergists alike, as well as Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians. I believe it is because Spurgeon held the preaching of the Gospel as his greatest priority.

Perhaps he was a Monergist dispensationalist (one who holds to Calvinist soteriology and Calvinist doctrines except on eschatology).

 

[OldRegular]

Perhaps he was a Monergist dispensationalist (one who holds to Calvinist soteriology and Calvinist doctrines except on eschatology).

He was not a pre-trib-dispensationalist!

The issues of a "normal hermeneutic" and the "purpose of God in human history" are beyond the scope of this thesis; but the key issue of the distinction of Israel and the Church is not, and it is on this issue that Spurgeon distances himself from Dispensational Premillennialism.

Spurgeon rejected any notion which separated the people of God into separate camps, as taught by Darby and dispensational teaching. In a clear reference to the teaching of Dispensationalists on this point, he clearly rejected this notion in a sermon when he said:

Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall [emphasis ours].​

http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm#ans3

*************************************************************************************************

 

[Reformed]

He was not a pre-trib-dispensationalist!



*************************************************************************************************

*thumbs up*

What is important to note is that Spurgeon lived during the early years of Dispensationalism, or what is commonly referred to as Classical Dispensationalism. The separation of Old Covenant believers and New Covenant Believers was a bedrock teaching of Darby, Scofield, and Chafer. Progressive Dispensationalism has back peddled on that aspect of Dispensationalism but they find themselves at odds with the Dispensationalism they desperately try to hold onto.

 

[robustheologian]

It is possible for one not to exclusively hold to covenant theology, dispensationalism, or new covenant theology.

 

[OldRegular]

*thumbs up*

What is important to note is that Spurgeon lived during the early years of Dispensationalism, or what is commonly referred to as Classical Dispensationalism. The separation of Old Covenant believers and New Covenant Believers was a bedrock teaching of Darby, Scofield, and Chafer. Progressive Dispensationalism has back peddled on that aspect of Dispensationalism but they find themselves at odds with the Dispensationalism they desperately try to hold onto.

Interesting observation. I believe eventually most progressive dispensationalists will find that they are either covenant or historic premillennialists or possibly amillennialists!

*****************************************

 

[Reformed]

Interesting observation. I believe eventually most progressive dispensationalists will find that they are either covenant or historic premillennialists or possibly amillennialists!

*****************************************

Or they will just return to classical Dispensationalism.

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting quote from Charles Spurgeon:

This quote says nothing about covenant theology. All theologies (dispensationalism included) admit that there were covenants in the Bible, both conditional and unconditional. What covenant theology does is postulate two (sometimes three) covenants not mentioned specifically in the Bible: a covenant of works between God and Adam, and a covenant of grace between God and the sinner (or variously, within the trinity, or with God and the elect).

So, Spurgeon was certainly not a covenant theologian by this quote.

 

[Reformed]

This quote says nothing about covenant theology. All theologies (dispensationalism included) admit that there were covenants in the Bible, both conditional and unconditional. What covenant theology does is postulate two (sometimes three) covenants not mentioned specifically in the Bible: a covenant of works between God and Adam, and a covenant of grace between God and the sinner (or variously, within the trinity, or with God and the elect).

So, Spurgeon was certainly not a covenant theologian by this quote.

All I said was "interesting quote". I made a better inference as to Spurgeon's theology in post #3. You read that, right? Apparently not.

 

[John of Japan]

All I said was "interesting quote". I made a better inference as to Spurgeon's theology in post #3. You read that, right? Apparently not.

Yeah, but--personally I always try to make the first post explanatory of the OP. Just sayin'. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Reformed]

Yeah, but--personally I always try to make the first post explanatory of the OP. Just sayin'. :smilewinkgrin:

Sometimes thoughts flow after an OP. Just sayin'.

 

[John of Japan]

Sometimes thoughts flow after an OP. Just sayin'.

Don't mind me. I just taught a course on this stuff and am now grading papers, so I'm full of it right now.

Carry on.

 

[Reformed]

Don't mind me. I just taught a course on this stuff and am now grading papers, so I'm full of it right now.

Carry on.

No harm. No foul.

 

[Yeshua1]

This quote says nothing about covenant theology. All theologies (dispensationalism included) admit that there were covenants in the Bible, both conditional and unconditional. What covenant theology does is postulate two (sometimes three) covenants not mentioned specifically in the Bible: a covenant of works between God and Adam, and a covenant of grace between God and the sinner (or variously, within the trinity, or with God and the elect).

So, Spurgeon was certainly not a covenant theologian by this quote.

He also seemed to have held to a pre mil viewpoint on the Second Coming....

NOT saying a Rapture, but a definite second coming and then Jesus ushering in Kingdom Age her eon the earth, where both the OT/NT saved were to be part of...

 

[John of Japan]

He also seemed to have held to a pre mil viewpoint on the Second Coming....

NOT saying a Rapture, but a definite second coming and then Jesus ushering in Kingdom Age her eon the earth, where both the OT/NT saved were to be part of...

It is entirely possible for someone to be premil while being covenant in theology. I believe that is what Spurgeon was.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is entirely possible for someone to be premil while being covenant in theology. I believe that is what Spurgeon was.

He was something, as it was hard to get him "pinned down" regarding theology, as though a strong calvinist, did hold to Kingdom Age in the future, and the real need to preach to both saved and lost with fervant zeal!

 

[Rippon]

He was something, as it was hard to get him "pinned down" regarding theology, as though a strong calvinist, did hold to the real need to preach to both saved and lost with fervant zeal!

It is not hard to classify him regarding his theolgy at all. As you yourself just acknowledged, he was a strong Calvinist. But then you made an apparent contrast. You said he held to "the real need to preach to both saved and lost with fervant [sic] zeal." But, in reality, there is no adversive aspect at all here.

 

[Reformed]

It is entirely possible for someone to be premil while being covenant in theology. I believe that is what Spurgeon was.

John, I am sure you know there is a difference between historical premillennialism and Dispensational premillennialism.