The Truth on Spurgeon Please.

Look at Election: Its Defences and Evidences" 1Th 1:4-6 2920 1905

"Election:" 2Th 2:13, 14 41-42 1855

From 1855 to 1905 he was preaching Election

 

If anyone is saying Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist either they know very little about Spurgeon, or they know little about Calvinism. Dave Hunt, despite the fact he wrote a book on the subject, probably falls in the second category.

 

I'm not an expert and I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm 99% sure that Spurgeon was a Calvinist. I don't like it, but that doesn't change the way it is.

 

Yes, he was a 5 pointer, and he preached it too. Read his sermons, and its everywhere.

 

Dave Hunt did not declare that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist, he just pointed out a quote by Spurgeon that was indeed contradictory to one of the 5 points of Calvinism. He never said Spurgeon was not a Calvinist, but rather showed how his statements were not always in line with what he declared to believe.

You will find his explanation at the following link which is his rebuttal to White's accusations against him. In short he said:

http://www.thebereancall.org/calbook.htm

I don't think too many people would disagree that Spurgeon is indeed a Calvinist. What you have now is people trying to turn the focus from the one who made contradictory statements in support of his belief to the one who is guilty of nothing else but exposing that error.

~Lorelei

 

No, Spurgeon's quote was not contradictory to one of the five points of Calvinism. It was an absolutely classic explanation of limited atonement as most Calvinist hold it.

Dave Hunt just doesn't REALLY understand what the doctrine of limited atonement is, and so he didn't recognize the doctrine when Spurgeon explained it. Limited atonement NEVER limits the merit of the atonement, it limits the intent, and this is exactly what Spurgeon says in his explanation!

[ September 04, 2002, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

From 1855 to 1905 he was preaching Election

Methinks Spurgeon did well considering he was buried at Norwood, February 11, 1892.

Spurgeon said a number of things that made one think:
When he once prayed, "Lord, save the elect and elect some more"

In his last days, Spurgeon said: "I am as firm a beliver in the doctrine of grace as any man living, and a true Calvinist after the order of John Calvin himself....But, if it be thought an evil thing to bid sinners lay hold on eternal life, I will be yet more evil, and herein not only imitate Calvin, but also my Lord, who though he taught salvation is of grace, and grace alone,, feared not to speak to men as responsible agents, and bid them enter in at the straight gate." (The Shadow of the Broad Brim, Richard Ellsworth Day, 1934.)

Spurgeon's picture of the great arch in heaven's gate: On the outer arch the words, "Whosoever will may come" and on the inside of the same arch, "Elect from before the foundation of the earth". The human side and the divine side of the same act of saving grace.

I am of the opinion Spurgeon died a full Calvinist, and have yet to read to the contrary in any of either his works or his biographies.

Jim

 

We disagree with Calvinist's definition of sufficient. Sufficient but not available, makes it insufficient for those who it is not available to.

You can come the hospital with a gaping wound and I can have a sufficient amount of supplies and knowledge to heal it, but unless I actually apply them, my care was insufficient enough to save your life. Here on earth, we call that malpractice.

Anyway...the question...is Spurgeon a Calvinist, for Hunt's statement has made others think otherwise. Of course he is a Calvinist and Hunt never insinuated he was not.

~Lorelei

 

Don't confuse the issue. Whether or not Calvinists and Arminians understand "sufficiency" in the same way is not the same as saying Spurgeon was an inconsistent Calvinist, as Hunt asserts.

In fact, Hunt's original assertion was that Spurgeon "unequivocally" denied limited atonement. "Unequivocally," of course, means "clearly and unambiguously." Contrary to what you are saying, that "Hunt never insinuated that he was not" a Calvinist, it is clear that Hunt was trying to say Spurgeon isn't as much of a Calvinist as his fans make him out to be.

Spurgeon was "unequivocal" in his beliefs, of course, but not in the direction Hunt claimed he was. (In fact, it was Spurgeon's forceful defense of limited atonement that was instrumental in my becoming a five-point Calvinist myself.)

It was only after Hunt's glaring error of reading comprehension was exposed, that he began saying Spurgeon was guilty of "contradictory statements." (Gee, Dave, what happened to "unequivocal"?)

Bottom line: Spurgeon was a Calvinist, yes. But Hunt denied this until he was called on it, then he backpedalled to a different, but still wrong, position.

 

I will let Dave's words speak for themselves. This is again taken from the following link http://www.thebereancall.org/calbook.htm

Would you like to speak about confusing the issue? That is what Calvinist's are doing in trying to turn the focus from how Calvinism misrepresents God, to how Dave Hunt allegedly misrepresented Spurgeon.

Does anyone deny that Spurgeon said these words? No, that is not the issue. The issue is, Calvinist's do not want people to read the scriptural evidence that Dave Hunt presented in His book, so they will grasp at anything to keep people from doing so.

~Lorelei

 

Silly me, I saw a thread called "The Truth on Spurgeon Please" and the very first post saying that Dave Hunt's book had caused some controversy concerning Spurgeon's beliefs.

Obviously I should have seen right away that the topic of the thread was not, as I had falsely assumed, Dave Hunt's allegations concerning Spurgeon's beliefs. No, it was really the biblical evidence Calvinists are afraid to interact with.

Thank you for setting me straight.



[ September 04, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

No Calvinist, at least any I know, says the atonement is not available to absolutely anyone who believes.

Your example misrepresents limited atonement. It would be more like this:

You have a veterans hospital. You have sufficient supplies to treat the whole city, but they are intended only for vets. However, you would of course treat absolutely any patient who shows up at your door with a gaping wound, but it is only vets who do actually show up at your door.

Likewise, limited atonement says that Christ's atonement is sufficient for every person who has ever lived, or ever will live, but is intended for those God brings to Himself. It will be applied to absolutely anyone who comes, but only those God brings ever actaully come.

[ September 04, 2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

BTW, when Spurgeon speaks of those who limit the MERIT of the atonement, he is not refering to Calvinists, which Dave Hunt should have recognized if he had really read what Spurgeon wrote.

I don't mind at all that Hunt argues against Calvinism, but the scholarship in this book is embarassing...

 

I do keep trying to get back to the point of this thread. That Spurgeon is indeed Calvinist. I then showed that the controversy over Hunt's book was about Spurgeon's consistency with his beliefs, not whether or not he called himself a Calvinist.

To try and keep this on track, I will start another thread on the sufficiency aspect. I want to repsond to the comments that were made, but the more I do, the more this takes the thread off track.

~Lorelei

 

He said, several times, "I am a Calvinist and I am a Baptist". One doesn't contridict the other (necessarily).

 

Lorelei said:

I then showed that the controversy over Hunt's book was about Spurgeon's consistency with his beliefs, not whether or not he called himself a Calvinist.

Sorry, but this is not the case; it's just another red herring.

The controversy over Hunt's book in general is due to its many factual inaccuracies, of which his misrepresentation of Spurgeon is but one, and the most glaring.

Hunt's portrayal of Spurgeon as first "unequivocally" against limited atonement, and then (when Hunt had to backpedal) making "contradictory statements" on that issue, has been soundly refuted by many people better than me.

Any fool with a library card can look up Spurgeon's Autobiography, read it for himself, and find out how confused Hunt is. Spurgeon was a committed 5-point Calvinist for his entire career. He did not "unequivocally" deny limited atonement; on the contrary, he affirmed it as strongly as any article of his faith. Nor was he "contradictory" in his statements concerning limited atonement. Any apparent inconsistency on Spurgy's part is due to Hunt's wishful thinking and his inability to distinguish between Spurgeon's views on the merits of the Atonement and the scope of it.

[ September 04, 2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Exactly, so let everyone else do that. I have no problem letting the evidence speak for itself.

Anyone can also open the Bible and see for themselves who was really confused. I don't care if you read Hunt's book or Spurgeon or anyone else's. There is only one book that has all the truth that we need. That would be the Bible.

~Lorelei

 

Tell me, is there any particular reason you see a need to deflect the subject away from Dave Hunt's treatment of Spurgeon's doctrine?