The Truth on Spurgeon Please.

[Lorelei]

Ransom,

I think Dave Hunt did an excellent job revealing Spurgeon's doctrine.

That is, however, not the topic of this thread.

Any reason why you insist on arguing? You yourself said that any fool could go to the library and see for themselves. I agree and until everyone has actually read what both the parties have said, they can not make a fair judgement.

So let anyone who cares do just that. Are you afraid that without your intervention someone might come to another conclusion?

Make whatever judgements about me you want, but I find this sort of argumentation fruitless, so I delcine to continue.

~Lorelei

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Ransom,

I think Dave Hunt did an excellent job revealing Spurgeon's doctrine.

That is, however, not the topic of this thread.

Any reason why you insist on arguing? You yourself said that any fool could go to the library and see for themselves. I agree and until everyone has actually read what both the parties have said, they can not make a fair judgement.

So let anyone who cares do just that. Are you afraid that without your intervention someone might come to another conclusion?

Make whatever judgements about me you want, but I find this sort of argumentation fruitless, so I delcine to continue.

~Lorelei

Sounds as if you’re trying your best to discredit Spurgeon….. I bet he would be glad to know that his doctrine is still being attacked a hundred years after his death…. He’s in good company….. The Word of God has always been attacked and always will be… There was no greater preacher of the WORD than Spurgeon…..

 

[Chet]

(In fact, it was Spurgeon's forceful defense of limited atonement that was instrumental in my becoming a five-point Calvinist myself.)

Typical of a Calvinist to say that.

Sadly, Spurgeon is desired by many Calvinist, non Calvinist and Arminians. I have personally witnessed all sides fight over what this man believed. Perhaps Spurgeon is much less consistent than his fans want to believe. Thankfully my growing in the wonderful graces of God does not depend on what Spurgeon believed, or trying to figure out what he believed.

 

[Chet]

Lorelei,

I agree with all that you have written.

It seems that when it comes to the name Spurgeon you might want to take off your sandals, might be treaded on holy ground.

 

[kman]

A good book on Spurgeon for those interested:

The Forgotten Spurgeon by Ian Murray.

Deals with 3 controversies and how Spurgeon handled them:

1) A diluted Gospel (against Arminianism)
2) Baptismal Regeneration
3) The Down Grade (the rise of higher criticism in protestant churches, etc)

peace,
kman

 

[Ransom]

Lorelei said:

I think Dave Hunt did an excellent job revealing Spurgeon's doctrine.
That is, however, not the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is: "The Truth on Spurgeon Please."

The first post of this thread reads:

Was he or wasnt he a Calvinist?

It seems Dave Hunt's book "What Love is this" is causing a controversy concerning Spurgeon's beliefs in this area. My pastor says that he started out a Calvinist but changed his views later on in his ministry. Any Spurgeon experts out there? (boldface in original, italics added)

It seems to me that despite your insistence to the contrary, Dave Hunt on Spurgeon's is part and parcel of what this thread is all about.

I agree and until everyone has actually read what both the parties have said, they can not make a fair judgement. So let anyone who cares do just that.

As it happens, I have read much of Spurgeon, and his "Defense of Calvinism" in particular, as well as Dave Hunt's new book.

I do care, and I have done just that.

So when I take Hunt to task for misrepresenting Spurgeon's doctrine, am I making a "fair judgment" or aren't I?

Are you afraid that without your intervention someone might come to another conclusion?

No. Are you afraid that without your intervention they won't?

 

[Ransom]

Chet:

Typical of a Calvinist to say that.

It happens to be true. What of it?

It might interest you to know that I came to Spurgeon originally after hearing him quoted favourably by all the Arminian pastors I have had over the years. At least one of them would probably have a cow if he found out his endorsement of Spurgeon led to the logical conclusion of my adopting Spurgeon's doctrine.

Perhaps Spurgeon is much less consistent than his fans want to believe.

That may be the case, but in this particular instance, it is not Spurgy's fault that Dave Hunt is unable to read.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Ransom:
No. Are you afraid that without your intervention they won't?

Nope. I just wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see what Dave Hunt said. I think in a conversation where people are questioning his motives and methods, they should at least hear what he said.

Do I think Dave was wrong, No. Do I care if you believe or agree with me, no not really. I find my time is better spent defending the Word of God, not the word of man.

We could argue about these two theologians all day and guess what. We would both be able to find fault with what the other has said at one time or another. Know why that is? They are men. As greatly as Spurgeon is esteemed by some, he was also just a man. If you want to argue the infallability of this man, you are going to fail.

Now, if you would like to discuss the Biblical aspects of what one or the other has said, I might care to join in, but I think the points have been presented and I will let everyone judge for themselves.

~Lorelei

 

[DocCas]

Okay, let's stop all the nonsense. Spurgeon was a 5 point Calvinist from the day he began his ministry at age 19 until the day he died in 1892. I have his complete works, plus his 4 volume autobiography. I have ready his autobiography several times and all of his messages/articles at least once. Nobody with an IQ greater than his hat size could ever say Spurgeon was not a Calvinist or that his Calvinism was ever inconsistant. I have read Dave Hunt's book and checked the cites. He takes Spurgeon's words out of context so often that I began to suspect Hunt was really Gail Riplinger in a suit!

Hunt is wrong. Spurgeon was a consistant 5 Point Calvinist for his entire ministry. Hunt blundered badly in his book and does not have the Christian character to admit it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
I think Dave Hunt did an excellent job revealing Spurgeon's doctrine.

Did you read JAmes White's response to Hunt's misrepresentations of Spurgeon's doctrine? By showing the complete pages of Hunt's citations, he shows Hunt to have unethically twisted teh words of Spurgeon to portray him as believing something he didn't believe.

The article is found at Dave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Do some reading from What Love Is This?

These types of errors are inexcusable when the evidence is so readily accessible.

 

[Ps104_33]

Does anyone know at what point in his ministry Spurgeon wrote this?

Defence of Calvinism click here

From what I read Spurgeon found a fine balance between Calvinism and freewill.

"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."
Spurgeon, Defence of Calvinism

[ September 07, 2002, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

[russell55]

From what I read Spurgeon found a fine balance between Calvinism and freewill.

Actually, the paragraph you quoted is not something BETWEEN calvinism and freewill, but rather an explanation of calvinistic freewill. True calvinism always includes the free agency and moral responsibility of man.

What Spurgeon is speaking against in this paragraph is not any sort of actual calvinism, but the heresy of hypercalvinism, a heresy that was more prevelant in his day than in ours.

In that article you linked to, Spurgeon is defending calvinism against what he believes are errors on both sides of it--hypercalvinism on the one side and arminianism on the other.

[ September 07, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Ps104_33]

What is th edifference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. How can God be just " a little bit sovereign"?

 

[russell55]

The difference between calvinism and hypercalvinism hasn't anything really to do with how sovereign God is, and everything to do with how responsible man is.

Hypercalvinism emphasises the sovereignty of God side of the coin and either downplays or does away with the human responsibility side of the coin.

So here are a couple of things that a hypercalvinsist might believe:

There is no general call or offer of the gospel.

It doesn't matter whether the elect believe or not, they will be saved anyway.

[ September 07, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Ps104_33]

Ok, What did John Calvin believe and provide documentation.

I read one poster who said that Jesus did not die for the souls now in hell. Did Calvin believe that? Did Spurgeon? Did Boettner?

[ September 07, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

[russell55]

What did Calvin believe about what? Do you mean was Calvin a calvinist or a hypercalvinist? He was a calvinist, not a hypercalvinist.

I read one poster who said that Jesus did not die for the souls now in hell. Did Calvin believe that? Did Spurgeon? Did Boettner?

I think what they meant was that Jesus did not die for the purpose of saving the souls now in hell. Spurgeon definitely believed that. Here's a quote right from the article you posted:

If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain.

Did Calvin believe that? I think he did.

Here is a quote from his commentary on 1 John 2:2:

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? ..... the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.

Boettner too, but I'm not sure where to find a quote to quote to you for him.

 

[grateful4grace]

You know, the man that really ought to be on here is Ken Hamilton.... I perceive him to be an expert on Spurgeon, and could add alot to this string. He has a quote from Calvin that is totally blunt confessing to limited atonement. Its on the string in the Calvinist/Arminian Debate board under "Limited Atonement... Unanswerable Question". However, Ransom has done an excellent job just the same of making the truth apparent. I haven't read Hunt, and don't intend to waste my time. If he says that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist, or a Five Pointer, he's simply content to throw his credibility as an author in the trash. Anyone who knows anything about the subject will not be deceived by him... problem is, there are just too few of those around.
People have been fighting over Spurgeon for over a century now, and only because they want the credit of his ministry to go to their false doctrine... and wish to rob it from a doctrine they detest....but be careful... God will not give HIS glory to another.. to a false doctrine, and when people aspire to do that, they are courting His judgments.

G4G

 

[Ps104_33]

russell,
Do know at what point in his ministry Spurgeon wrote his "Defence on Calvinism."

 

[russell55]

No, but if you looked around the net you might be able to come up with the date. I am not sure but I think "A Defence of Calvinism" comes from his autobiography, so I would guess that it comes from later on in his life.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
What is th edifference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. How can God be just " a little bit sovereign"?

Hyper-Calvinism is not a matter of being an enthusiastic Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism is a distortion of Biblical doctrines, just like Arminianism is.

Some sources on the Internet:

www.evangelical-times.org/articles/july%2095/jul95a06.htm (on Spurgeon vs. hyper-Calvinism)

www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm (on hyper-Calvinism; you should go here to see the drawing of a preacher at the beginning

)

www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/hyper.html (on why a Biblical Calvinist is not "hyper")

And the best place to read Spurgeon on the web is www.spurgeon.org .

There is also a great place on the Internet to buy just about anything related to Spurgeon's sermons and writings. If anyone is interested you can email me privately and I'll give you the URL.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 08, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]