February 12, 2012

Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 5

Posted in Charles H. Spurgeon tagged , , , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Previously, I have looked at how Spurgeon was able to speak peace to Arminians and Catholics, based on his false Gospel. I also looked at how Spurgeon theorized about God abandoning some of his own sovereignty, and how he made himself the objector to Paul’s doctrine of active reprobation. Last week, I also looked at Spurgeon’s doctrine of Creation.

This week features a guest article by Marc D. Carpenter, who critiques a famous sermon of Spurgeon’s, entitled “Salvation by knowing the Truth“:

Spurgeon Swallows It At Once


The following are excerpts (in red) from Charles H. Spurgeon’s sermon entitled “Salvation by Knowing the Truth” and my comments (in black).

“God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”–1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

MAY GOD THE HOLY GHOST guide our meditations to the best practical result this evening, that sinners may be saved and saints stirred up to diligence. I do not intend to treat my text controversially. It is like the stone which makes the corner of a building, and it looks towards a different side of the gospel from that which is mostly before us. Two sides of the building of truth meet here. In many a village there is a corner where the idle and the quarrelsome gather together; and theology has such corners. It would be very easy indeed to set ourselves in battle array, and during the next half-hour to carry on a very fierce attack against those who differ from us in opinion upon points which could be raised from this text. I do not see that any good would come of it, and, as we have very little time to spare, and life is short, we had better spend it upon something that may better tend to our edification. May the good Spirit preserve us from a contentious spirit, and help us really to profit by his word.

Why, of course, Mr. Spurgeon! You wouldn’t want to say anything controversial now, would you? After all, you have the biggest “church” in England, and you want to keep it that way! The Metropolitan Tabernacle got huge for a reason, didn’t it? It certainly wasn’t because you said anything that would offend those carnal minds sitting in your pews, was it? On the contrary — the ears need to be tickled, the carnal need to go away happy, the wicked hearts need to be soothed with words of peace. Now you wouldn’t want to rock the boat, would you? You wouldn’t want to say that those who believe that God wants every man without exception to be saved are unregenerate, would you? Of course not — you don’t believe that yourself. You speak peace to John Wesley, who said of this passage, “Who willeth seriously all men – Not a part only, much less the smallest part. To be saved – Eternally.” Yes, you agree with John Wesley, your brother in Satan. You’re one big happy family with the God-haters.

It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved. Terrible as the truth is, yet is it certain from holy writ that there are men who, in consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Savior, will go away into everlasting punishment, where shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will at the last be goats upon the left hand as well as sheep on the right, tares to be burned as well as wheat to be garnered, chaff to be blown away as well as corn to be preserved. There will be a dreadful hell as well as a glorious heaven, and there is no decree to the contrary.

So, if this will does not have “the force of a decree or a divine purpose,” then there is a less forceful, less purposeful will in God? There is a hierarchy of desires in God, such that there are some desires that have great irresistible force, while others are irresistible to some and can be thwarted by others? Well, Mr. Spurgeon, you don’t believe the same Bible I do. My Bible says, “But He [is] in one [mind], and who can turn Him? Yea, His soul desires, and He does [it].” (Job 23:13) “declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past those things which were not done, saying, My counsel shall rise; and, I will do all My desire” (Isa 46:10).

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.

Charles Spurgeon, you fool! And you claim to be a preacher of the Word? You are a joke. The Holy Ghost did not write “all men”! He did not write English! The Holy Ghost wrote Greek! The Holy Ghost wrote pantas anthropous! [Since the web browser doesn’t support Greek letters, I must put English letters for Greek.] Now the question is, what does pantas anthropous mean? Does it mean every single human being without exception? If it does, then would you say that John 12:32 means that Jesus will draw all men without exception to Himself? Hmmm, let’s check …

Well, well! You preached a sermon on this very passage entitled “The Marvelous Magnet”! So let’s see if this “Marvelous Magnet” draws every single individual without exception. Here’s what you say:

The text says that Jesus Christ will draw all men unto himself. Now, all men who hear of Jesus Christ at all are drawn, but they do not all yield. Some of them pull back, and the most awful thing that ever happens to a man is when he pulls back till Jesus lets him go. What a fall is that, when the drawing power is taken away, and the man falls backward into a destruction which he himself has chosen, having refused eternal life, and resisted the Saviour’s power! Unhappy is the wretch who strives against his own salvation. Every man that hears the gospel feels some measure of its drawing power. … Does not Jesus sometimes tug hard at your conscience-strings, and, though you have pulled back, yet has he not drawn and drawn again? … Do not pull back, lest his drawing should cease, and you should perish.

Incredible. There it is. You believe that Jesus Christ, “The Marvelous Magnet,” draws all without exception to Himself, but that drawing is not effectual for all without exception. Some can resist the Savior’s power. I guess the “magnet” that you believe in isn’t so “marvelous” after all, is it? Your god’s grace can be resisted. Your god is not my God, Mr. Spurgeon. My God has power over every single man without exception. When my God draws someone, that person has no power to pull back against the Almighty. Your god is the weakling god of Arminianism.

At least you’re consistent. Wherever the English Bible says “all men,” you believe it is every person without exception. So let’s see what this means when we come to Romans 5:18:

“Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.”

So, according to you, Mr. Spurgeon, God says in Romans 5:18 that by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, the free gift came upon every single human being without exception unto justification of life. You MUST interpret it that way, because, after all, according to you, the Holy Spirit said, “all men,” and if the Holy Spirit had wanted to say “all men whom Christ represented,” the Holy Spirit would have said so. So what are people doing in hell, Mr. Spurgeon? You must believe that God LIED when He said that the free gift came upon every single human being without exception unto justification of life!

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.

Since when do you have “due regard to truth,” Mr. Spurgeon, you liar?

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.

Yeah, those people who actually apply the rules of grammar in exegesis — who needs them when you have Mr. Spurgeon to give you the “real” meaning, which he claims to have been written by the Holy Spirit in English!

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.

Who are you, Mr. Spurgeon, to say that this man’s “observations are more than a little out of place”? You, who say that the Holy Ghost wrote “all men” instead of “all kinds of men”! And do I not note a bit of hypocrisy here? You said you don’t want to be controversial or get into wrangling, but when it suits your purpose, you will engage in wrangling against those who would interpret this verse in a way that gives all glory to God. Ah, I know where you’re coming from, you hypocrite. If someone wrangles against your brothers in Satan, the Arminians, then it is from a “contentious spirit.” But if you wrangle against someone who interprets a passage in an anti-Arminian way, then it’s okay. Yeah, I get it.

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.

Since when were your doctrinal views ever consistent? And if your doctrinal views are inconsistent with the Bible, then what does it say about your doctrinal views?

I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater.

Oh — so you think that orthodoxy and inspiration are sometimes incompatible. Since your “orthodoxy” takes a back seat to “inspiration,” then you are either saying that the inspired Word of God is not orthodox in some places or that you are really not orthodox. Which one is it?

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?

So that’s what you consider “orthodoxy,” Mr. Spurgeon? Consistent views with yourself? Well, Mr. Spurgeon, I have some news for you: orthodoxy is the STRAIGHT DOCTRINE that comes from SCRIPTURE, NOT FROM ANY MAN.

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 Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

So when the English Bible says “all,” it always means “all without exception,” eh, Mr. Spurgeon? After all, “the Holy Spirit said ‘all'”!

Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word “wish” gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus–“whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.”

And how would you know about the original, Mr. Spurgeon? You just said that “a very able doctor” had no business applying the rules of Greek grammar to this passage!

As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God’s wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.

Ah, Spurgeon, here’s your god — a god who wishes that everyone without exception would be saved. And you accurately say that your god is just like you — just as you wish that it should be so, your god wishes that it should be so. Your god is made in your own image. You fashion an idol that is like you.

Then comes the question, “But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so? ” Beloved friend, have you never heard that a fool may ask a question which a wise man cannot answer, and, if that be so, I am sure a wise person, like yourself, can ask me a great many questions which, fool as I am, I am yet not foolish enough to try to answer.

Of course you’re not able to answer it, you fool. Your god is a god of contradictions. Your god is a god who wishes something would happen yet does not make it happen.

Your question is only one form of the great debate of all the ages,–“If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not his power carry out to the full all his beneficence?” It is God’s wish that the oppressed should go free, yet there are many oppressed who are not free. It is God’s wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it?

I don’t just doubt it, I oppose it. It is not God’s wish that every single sick person without exception should not suffer. If a sick person is suffering right now, it is because God desires that he suffer. For whatever God desires, THAT HE DOES. That’s the God of the Bible. That’s not the touchy-feely poor excuse for a god that you believe.

Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God’s wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that?

I most certainly deny that it is God’s wish that every single one of his creatures should be happy. If a person is not happy right now, it is because God desires that he not be happy. That’s the God of the Bible. That’s not the touchy-feely poor excuse for a god that you believe.

He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made.

Okay, great! Mr. Spurgeon, you call me wicked! Excellent! Now I know I’m on the right track!

He has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so. It is the same old question as that of the negro who said, “Sare, you say the devil makes sin in the world.” “Yes, the devil makes a deal of sin.” “And you say that God hates sin.” “Yes.” “Then why does not he kill the devil and put an end to it?” Just so. Why does he not? Ah, my black friend, you will grow white before that question is answered. I cannot tell you why God permits moral evil, neither can the ablest philosopher on earth, nor the highest angel in heaven.

God does not permit evil; He decrees and causes evil. And He does it for His own glory. He caused sin to come into the world in order to (1) glorify Himself in the salvation of the elect, (2) humble His people and cause them to continually need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and (3) glorify Himself in the damnation of the reprobate.

This is one of those things which we do not need to know. Have you never noticed that some people who are ill and are ordered to take pills are foolish enough to chew them? That is a very nauseous thing to do, though I have done it myself. The right way to take medicine of such a kind is to swallow it at once. In the same way there are some things in the Word of God which are undoubtedly true which must be swallowed at once by an effort of faith, and must not be chewed by perpetual questioning. You will soon have I know not what of doubt and difficulty and bitterness upon your soul if you must needs know the unknowable, and have reasons and explanations for the sublime and the mysterious. Let the difficult doctrines go down whole into your very soul, by a grand exercise of confidence in God.

Oh, yeah, Mr. Spurgeon — don’t think about things that show your god to be a contradictory god. Just “swallow them by faith.” Don’t chew on them, because it will show your god to be a two-faced, “yes” and “no” god — just take a big gulp and believe contradictory things. Those “difficult doctrines” shouldn’t be contemplated, they should just be accepted. What a bunch of bull.

GOD IS A LOGICAL GOD AND NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF. If you believe in a god who wishes something would happen that he does not cause to happen, YOU BELIEVE IN A FALSE GOD. You are encouraging your listeners to swallow a contradiction — to not think about the fact that they believe in a contradictory god. You are encouraging them to just open wide and swallow heresy “by faith.” “Oh, don’t think about it,” you say, “Just accept it.” So all the unthinking dolts like you just swallow their blasphemous notion of god and go on their merry way, thinking that they have “just accepted” some profound truth that they don’t understand. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

I thank God for a thousand things I cannot understand. When I cannot get to know the reason why, I say to myself, “Why should I know the reason why? Who am I, and what am I, that I should demand explanations of my God?” I am a most unreasonable being when I am most reasonable, and when my judgment is most accurate I dare not trust it. I had rather trust my God. I am a poor silly child at my very best: my Father must know better than I.

I do not doubt, Mr. Spurgeon, that you are a most unreasonable being when you are most reasonable. I would go further to say that you are also a most unreasonable being when you are most unreasonable. But don’t expect the people of God to be like you. The people of God know that God is REASONABLE and that believing what He says in His word is REASONABLE and thus NON-CONTRADICTORY. You are saying that believers need to be unreasonable, and when they are unreasonable, that is when they are really “swallowing things by faith” and are thus the closest to the truth. But you know what? You have just turned the truth on its head. It is when believers are REASONABLE that they believe the truth, because the TRUTH is REASONABLE. And the TRUTH is NON-CONTRADICTORY.

An old parable-maker tells us that he shut himself up in his study because he had to work out a difficult problem. His little child came knocking at the door, and he said “Go away, John: you cannot understand what father is doing; let father alone.” Master Johnny for that very reason felt that he must get in and see what father was doing–a true symbol of our proud intellects; we must pry into forbidden things, and uncover that which is concealed.

So how does this story relate to the text at hand? What God says in His Word is NOT CONCEALED! So when God says that He wishes all kinds of men to be saved, this is not a “forbidden thing” or a “concealed thing” — it is a WIDE OPEN, OUT IN PLAIN VIEW thing! And yet you would call those of us who think on these things and who believe that God is non-contradictory to be proud. Oh, Mr. Spurgeon, you sound so humble to the carnal mind. “I’m a fool. I’m a silly child. I don’t know anything. I just swallow contradictory truths by faith.” Oh, how humble this sounds to the deluded minds of your unregenerate audience! But it is the height of pride. It is proud and arrogant to say that God is unable to convey His truth to His people in His Word without contradiction. You self-righteous arrogant hypocrite — it is YOU who are full of pride!

In a little time upon the sill, outside the window, stood Master Johnny, looking in through the window at his father; and if his father had not with the very tenderest care just taken him away from that very dangerous position, there would have been no Master Johnny left on the face of the earth to exercise his curiosity in dangerous elevations.

Oh, how quaint. A nice little story to go with the sermon. Tickle, tickle. And it is nothing but vain wind.

Now, God sometimes shuts the door, and says, “My child, it is so: be content to believe.” “But,” we foolishly cry. “Lord, why is it so?” “It is so, my child,” he says. “But why, Father, is it so?” “It is so, my child, believe me.” Then we go speculating, climbing the ladders of reasoning, guessing, speculating, to reach the lofty windows of eternal truth.

This is no speculation or guessing. God reveals His truth in His Word. And since God is a logical, non-contradictory God, all of the truth that He reveals is logical and non-contradictory. There IS, however, REASONING. Yet you, Mr. Spurgeon, would have the people to throw reasoning out the window, throw thinking out the window, and just take a big gulp of contradictions “by faith.” “Oh, it doesn’t matter if it’s contradictory,” says your god, “Don’t think about it. Just believe it.” That’s not my God.

Once up there we do not know where we are, our heads reel, and we are in all kinds of uncertainty and spiritual peril. If we mind things too high for us we shall run great risks. I do not intend meddling with such lofty matters. There stands the text, and I believe that it is my Father’s wish that “all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” But I know, also, that he does not will it, so that he will save any one of them, unless they believe in his dear Son; for he has told us over and over that he will not. He will not save any man except he forsakes his sins, and turns to him with full purpose of heart: that I also know. And I know, also, that he has a people whom he will save, whom by his eternal love he has chosen, and whom by his eternal power he will deliver. I do not know how that squares with this; that is another of the things I do not know. If I go on telling you of all that I do not know, and of all that I do know, I will warrant you that the things that I do not know will be a hundred to one of the things that I do know.

“I don’t know how my god wishes, desires, things to happen that he does not make come to pass. I don’t know how this god of mine, who says he is sovereign and accomplishes everything he desires, doesn’t accomplish everything he desires. But no matter, I will just swallow it all whole without chewing on it, because since it’s contradictory, it’s too high and lofty for me. I just know it’s true. So stop thinking about it so much. So what if it’s a contradiction. So what if some people think they have the true meaning by looking at the context. Don’t bother yourselves with such things. Just take it on faith. Faith is the opposite of reason, you know. If you do too much reasoning, you won’t be able to take things on faith. Take that leap of faith, wherever it takes you, even if it seems wrong and contradictory and unreasonable. Go on and leap. Go on and swallow. It won’t hurt a bit.”

And so we will say no more about the matter, but just go on to the more practical part of the text.

As if the truth that God wishes that all kinds of men be saved is not practical.


For more information, please see:

The Heterodoxy Hall of Shame

Common Grace?

Gospel Atonement

Sermon on Rom 10:1-4 (1)

February 5, 2012

Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 4

Posted in Charles H. Spurgeon tagged , , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Previously, I have looked at how Spurgeon was able to speak peace to Arminians and Catholics, based on his false Gospel. I also looked at how Spurgeon theorized about God abandoning some of his own sovereignty, and how he made himself the objector to Paul’s doctrine of active reprobation. Today, I want to look at Spurgeon’s doctrine of Creation.

Did you know that Spurgeon advocated the “old Earth” theory of Creation? This quote comes from a sermon entitled “Election”, delivered September 22, 1855:

Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvellous skill, before he tried his hand at man.” (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm)

Notice that this is a complete denial that God created the heavens and earth in six days (Gen 1:31, Exo 20:11). By positing the existence of thousands or millions of years as corresponding to the “days” of Genesis ch.1, Spurgeon makes the phrase “morning and evening”, which occurs six times in Genesis, chapter 1, meaningless. (Very ironic, for the guy who published a popular devotional named “Morning and Evening”.)

This, in turn, makes the fourth commandment meaningless as well:

Exo 20: (11) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.

This brings Spurgeon’s view of the inspiration of Scripture into serious question.

But there is more. Notice that Spurgeon explicitly said that God not only formed the earth “thousands of years” before creating man, but also that God put “races of creatures upon it, who might die …”. In other words, Spurgeon believed that death existed before the first sin of Adam!

Rom 5: (12) Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned. (13) For sin was in the world until Law, but sin is not charged where there is no law; (14) but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the coming One.

Rom 6: (23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1Co 15: (21) For since death is through man, also through a Man is a resurrection of the dead; (22) for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Heb 2: (14) Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might cause to cease the one having the power of death, (that is, the Devil);

If death actually preceded sin, then sin and death did not enter the world through one man, sin was in the world before law, death reigned before Adam, the wages of sin is not death, all do not die in Adam, and it was not the devil who had the power of death. In this view, the concepts of sin and death are completely separated, and therefore, righteousness entering the world through one man is meaningless; death is not the wages of sin, but a natural part of life that cannot be changed, even by the death of Christ; and the death of Christ did not destroy the work of the devil. The very need for Christ’s work would have been meaningless. The “old Earth” view of creation thus overthrows the entire Gospel.

And Spurgeon believed in it. Again, we see that Spurgeon consistently stood opposed to the true Gospel, an unregenerate enemy of God and Christ.

For more information, please see:

The Heterodoxy Hall of Shame

Common Grace?

Gospel Atonement

Sermon on Rom 10:1-4 (1)

January 29, 2012

Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 3

Posted in Charles H. Spurgeon tagged , , , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Two weeks ago, I looked at how Charles H. Spurgeon spoke peace to Arminians, based on the standard of “personal godliness” rather than on the standard of the Gospel. This clearly showed that Spurgeon was unregenerate, an enemy of the true God, the true Christ, and the true Gospel. Last week I looked at Charles H. Spurgeon’s unbiblical doctrine of ‘passive reprobation’.

Today’s post comes from two sermons by Marc D. Carpenter, the first on Romans 9:14, the second on Romans 9:22. Let’s briefly look at those verses:

Rom 9: (14) What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!

Rom 9: (22) But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction,

Both of these verses are answers to people who objected to Paul’s doctrine. In the following quotes Carpenter shows how Spurgeon puts himself in the place of the objector, and, by putting forth a bizarre theory of God’s diminished sovereignty, renders Paul’s answers to the objector meaningless.

=========================================================================

I spent the last three sermons on verses 9 through 13. Now let’s look at verse 14:

Romans 9: (14) What then shall we say? [Is there] not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!

Paul uses the question, “What then shall we say?” to introduce an objection. The word “then” is a connector word that shows that the upcoming objection is tied to what was just said. And what was just said? Well, we went over it last time, didn’t we? It was just said that before Jacob and Esau had done any good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. In light of this, what then would be the objection? What would people not like about this?

Think about it: Before Jacob had done anything good, God loved Jacob. And before Esau had done anything bad, God hated Esau. What would be the objection that some people would make when they hear this truth? It’s that God is being UNFAIR or UNJUST. People who want a god who is like them, who is in their own image, want a god who will love and hate people based on what these people DO. They want their god to love Mother Theresa because of all the good things she did for the poor, and they want their god to hate Adolph Hitler because of all the bad things he did to the Jews. They don’t want their god to love or hate anyone until those people did something good or something bad, or at least until their god looked down through time and saw that those people did something good or something bad. To just arbitrarily love one person and hate another person not based on anything good or bad these people did is, to them, unfair and unjust. This is the “unrighteousness” that God is being accused of in the objection. The Greek word for “unrighteousness” is ah-dee-KEE-ah, which is made up of the prefix “ah,” which is a negation, and DEE-kay, which means “justice.” Ah-dee-KEE-ah means “injustice.” So the question, “Is there not unrighteousness with God?” means, “Is God unjust?” Is God unjust for loving and hating people not based on anything they do? …

Suppose Romans 9:9-13 means this: God loved Jacob because of His sovereign grace, not because of anything in Jacob. Because God is infinitely gracious and sovereign in His dispensation of this grace, He chose Jacob as the object of His love. It was simply on the footing of His free grace that He chose Jacob. God hated Esau for the same reason He hates any man — because Esau deserved it. God does not arbitrarily create any man, including Esau, for the purpose of damning him. God has nothing to do with a person’s condemnation, except as the judge condemns the criminal. If you look at Esau’s character, he deserved that God should cast him away. Esau did not lose his birthright by decree, and God did not influence Esau to sell his birthright. Jacob got it by decree, but Esau lost it of his own free will. No man is saved by his own free-will, but every man who goes to hell is damned by his free will. No one constrains him.

Now in light of this, think of the objection in verse 14: “What then shall we say? [Is there] not unrighteousness with God?” If verses 9 through 13 meant that God loved Jacob because of His sovereign grace but hated Esau because Esau was wicked and deserved to be damned because of what he did of his own free will, then would there be an objection that God is being unfair or unjust or unrighteous? ABSOLUTELY NOT! In their minds, God loved Jacob because He is a God of grace and wanted to show grace to Jacob, and God hated Esau because Esau deserved to be hated. God didn’t hate Esau unconditionally from before the foundation of the world and did not cause or even influence Esau to sin; instead, God’s hatred of Esau was because Esau was a sinner. Where’s the objection that God is unfair? What, that He chose to have grace on Jacob and not on Esau? But why did He choose not to have grace on Esau? Because Esau deserved not to have grace shown to him! So everything is nice and fair, and we can’t charge God with arbitrarily choosing to hate and damn people before they’re born, and we can’t charge God with causing or influencing people to sin. In this scheme, there is NO OBJECTION that God is being unfair or unjust. This scheme would render the objection in verse 14 totally meaningless. And since we know that none of God’s Word is meaningless, we know that this is NOT what God is saying in verses 9 through 13. I’m sure by now, if you remember the last sermon, you would know who puts forth this heretical scheme. Yes, it’s the arch-heretic, Charles Spurgeon, the fashionable Calvinist, the prince of the preachers for the prince of darkness. But it’s important to remember that it’s not only him. Why am I using Charles Spurgeon? Am I just picking on Mr. Spurgeon? The reason I’m doing this is because this is what almost everyone who calls himself a “Calvinist” or “Reformed” or “Sovereign-gracer” believes. Spurgeon is a representation of them. This is NOT just a fringe part of Calvinism. This is MAINSTREAM Calvinism.

And you know what? It is the mainstream Calvinists, along with their prince, Charles Spurgeon, who would ACTUALLY BE THE OBJECTORS in verse 14! Did you realize that? Paul puts forth the objection that the heretics would bring – and Spurgeon with his minions of Calvinists who were before and after him, along with the Arminians and the open-theists and even the agnostics and atheists, are heading the charge against the true and living God. Listen to Spurgeon again, and see how he shows himself to be the heretical objector of verse 14: “Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly–it is the same thing–created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. … Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonour him.”

There you go. If you say that God hated Esau, unconditionally reprobated Esau before Esau had done anything bad, then this would be to think meanly of God, to libel God, and to dishonor God. Why? Because it would make God to be UNFAIR, UNJUST, UNRIGHTEOUS. Spurgeon and his ilk would say to us, “If you’re right, then there is unrighteousness with God!” And that’s exactly what the objectors were saying to Paul. They were saying, “Paul, if this is true that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had been born, not yet having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of the One calling, then God is unrighteous! Your God is unjust, because you put a man’s damnation into the hand of God’s sovereignty! As Spurgeon said, God’s sovereignty is just on the side of love; His sovereignty is not on the side of hatred. So Spurgeon’s god is sovereign in His love but not in His hatred. A partially sovereign god is not sovereign at all. Either you have God who sovereignly loves and hates, or you do not have God. The objectors do not have God. They say that a God who sovereignly loves and hates is unjust and unrighteous. They say that to say that God sovereignly loves and hates is to think meanly of God and to libel and dishonor Him. On the contrary, we who believe in the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone, which necessarily includes the absolute sovereignty of God, are the only ones who think highly of God and honor and worship Him. (Marc D. Carpenter, Sermon on Romans 9:14)

=========================================================================

But let’s focus on the main heresy in this quote. Spurgeon’s words fly directly in the face of our passage in Romans 9. Of course Spurgeon says some correct things, like fallen man deserves to be damned. Another thing I thought about was Spurgeon’s quote against those who say that God created the reprobate with no other intention than that of damning him. That’s just a straw man. We don’t say that God created the reprobate for the sole purpose of damning him. As we have seen in this sermon, God creates the reprobate to show His wrath and power. And as we will see in the next sermon, the Lord willing, God creates the reprobate for the good of the elect. So it’s TRUE that God did not create the reprobate JUST to damn him. There’s much more to it than just damnation. But Spurgeon and all who agree with him twist this passage in Romans 9 so much that they make THEMSELVES the objectors! They insert the EXACT OPPOSITE meaning into the passage! This passage is talking about God’s absolute, divine sovereignty in both election and reprobation; yet when it comes to the reprobation side of things, Spurgeon and company say that God cannot find fault with someone whom He caused to sin, that the thing formed can say to the one forming it, “Why did you make me like this?” if unconditional reprobation were true — that the potter does not have authority to unconditionally make a vessel to dishonor, and that the vessels of wrath fit themselves out for destruction. Spurgeon and most Calvinists CANNOT STAND the truth that is put forth in this passage. Spurgeon said that his soul revolts at this idea that Paul is putting forward. He thought that Paul libeled and dishonored God, thought meanly of God, and blasphemed God. Of course, he wouldn’t have said this about Paul; instead, he not only twisted Paul to say something that Paul didn’t say, but he turned what Paul said right on its head and said that Paul was saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Paul really said about the sovereignty of God in reprobation! How anyone could not see right through this is beyond me. I guess that’s a witness to the power of spiritual blindness. People can look right at a clear passage such as this and yet can make it say the OPPOSITE of what it clearly says, all to fit with their wicked notions of their god. They are truly making a god in their own image. They’re counting the potter as the clay, Isaiah 29 says. So we can say to Spurgeon and all who agree with him: WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, ANSWERING AGAINST GOD? Who do you think you are, Charles Spurgeon, to tell God that He would be unjust to unconditionally harden the reprobate for destruction? Who do you think you are, all you Calvinists and Arminians all over the world, to shake your fist at God and tell Him that He cannot do whatever He wants with His creation? YOU are the blasphemers. YOU are the ones who libel and dishonor God. YOU are the God-haters. (Marc D. Carpenter, Sermon on Romans 9:22)

=========================================================================

For more quotes from Charles H. Spurgeon (and many others) please see:

The Heterodoxy Hall of Shame

Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 1

Common Grace?

Gospel Atonement

January 22, 2012

Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 2

Posted in Charles H. Spurgeon tagged , , , , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Last week, I looked at how Charles H. Spurgeon spoke peace to Arminians, based on the standard of “personal godliness” rather than on the standard of the Gospel. This clearly shows that Spurgeon was unregenerate, an enemy of the true God, the true Christ, and the true Gospel.

This week, let’s look at Spurgeon’s denial of God’s active role in the damnation of his enemies. This quote comes from an article by Marc D. Carpenter, entitled “Unconditional Reprobation and Active Hardening: A Study on Romans 9:11-22”.

=========================================================================

It is a given that Arminians hate the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. But it might surprise the reader that most Calvinists hate this doctrine as well. They will claim to love unconditional election, yet when it comes to reprobation, they turn into conditionalists. They say that God reprobates a person based on something in the person. They say that God reprobated Esau based on something in Esau. And who better to represent and articulate this heretical notion than the most popular Calvinist himself, Charles H. Spurgeon? The following are quotes from Spurgeon’s sermon entitled “Jacob and Esau“:

“But now the second point of my subject is, WHY IS THIS? Why did God love Jacob? why did he hate Esau? Now, I am not going to undertake too much at once. You say to me, ‘Why did God love Jacob? and why did he hate Esau?’ We will take one question at a time; for the reason why some people get into a muddle in theology is, because they try to give an answer to two questions. Now, I shall not do that; I will tell you one thing at a time. I will tell you why God loved Jacob; and, then, I will tell you why he hated Esau. But I cannot give you the same reason for two contradictory things. That is wherein a great many have failed. They have sat down and seen these facts, that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, that God has an elect people, and that there are others who are not elect. If, then, they try to give the same reason for election and non-election, they make sad work of it. If they will pause and take one thing at a time, and look to God’s Word, they will not go wrong. “The first question is, why did God love Jacob? I am not at all puzzled to answer this, because when I turn to the Word of God, I read this text;–‘Not for your sakes, do I this saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways O house of Israel.’ I am not at a loss to tell you that it could not be for any good thing in Jacob, that God loved him, because I am told that ‘the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth.’ I can tell you the reason why God loved Jacob; It is sovereign grace.

“Now, the next question is a different one: Why did God hate Esau? I am not going to mix this question up with the other, they are entirely distinct, and I intend to keep them so, one answer will not do for two questions, they must be taken separately, and then can be answered satisfactorily. Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly–it is the same thing–created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonour him;

“Now, let us look at Esau’s character, says one, ‘did he deserve that God should cast him away?’ I answer, he did. What we know of Esau’s character, clearly proves it. Esau lost his birthright. Do not sit down and weep about that, and blame God. Esau sold it himself; he sold it for a mess of pottage. Oh, Esau, it is in vain for thee to say, ‘I lost my birthright by decree.’ No, no. Jacob got it by decree, but you lost it because you sold it yourself–didn’t you? Was it not your own bargain? Did you not take the mess of red pottage of your own voluntary will, in lieu of the birthright? Your destruction lies at your own door, because you sold your own soul at your own bargain, and you did it yourself. Did God influence Esau to do that? God forbid, God is not the author of sin. Esau voluntarily gave up his own birthright. And the doctrine is, that every man who loses heaven gives it up himself. Every man who loses everlasting life rejects it himself. God denies it not to him–he will not come that he may have life. Why is it that a man remains ungodly and does not fear God? It is because he says, ‘I like this drink, I like this pleasure, I like this sabbath-breaking, better than I do the things of God.’ No man is saved by his own free-will, but every man is damned by it that is damned. He does it of his own will; no one constrains him.”

According to Spurgeon, Esau was damned based on his own character, deserving that God should cast him away because of what he did during his life of his own free will. The astute reader would ask how Spurgeon reconciled this view with verse 11. Spurgeon used verse 11 to show that Jacob was loved before he had done anything good or evil, but he conveniently failed to mention verse 11 when speaking of Esau. Verse 11 is talking about both children. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Spurgeon said that God loved Jacob not based on anything good in Jacob, using verse 11 to do so. He then said that God hated Esau based on the evil that Esau had done during his life. What a fool he was. And what a fool any other Calvinist is who swallows this nonsense. How plain can it be? Before the children had done anything good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. The truth is simpler than the heresy! People like Spurgeon have to go through theological contortions to wriggle out of what the Bible plainly says. And if Spurgeon and his ilk were correct in their interpretation, there would not even be a need for a verse 14 answering the objection that there is unrighteousness with God:

“What then shall we say? [Is there] not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!” (Romans 9:14).

What would be the most common objection to the truth that before Jacob had done anything good, God loved Jacob, and before Esau had done anything bad, God hated Esau? It would be that God is being unfair or unjust. People who want a god who is like them, who is in their own image, want a god who will love and hate people based on what these people do. They do not want their god to love or hate anyone until those people did something good or something bad, or at least until their god looked down through time and saw that those people did something good or something bad. To just “arbitrarily” love one person and hate another person not based on anything good or bad these people did is, to them, unfair and unjust.

Suppose Paul had said in verses 11-13 that God loved Jacob because He knew that Jacob would believe in Him and would be a good person who did good things, and God hated Esau because He knew Esau would not believe in Him and would be a bad person who would do bad things. Would there be an objection that God was not being fair or just? Of course not. In this scheme, God loved Jacob because Jacob deserved to be loved, and God hated Esau because Esau deserved to be hated. The objection would be totally meaningless. Thus, it is certain that this is not what Paul was saying in verses 11-13.

Now suppose Paul had said the following in verses 11-13: God loved Jacob because of His sovereign grace, not because of anything in Jacob, and God hated Esau for the same reason He hates any man – because Esau deserved it. God did not hate Esau unconditionally from before the foundation of the world and did not cause or even influence Esau to sin; instead, God’s hatred of Esau was because Esau was a sinner. Would there be an objection that God was not being fair or just? Absolutely not. The objection would be totally meaningless. Thus, it is certain that this is not what Paul was saying in verses 11-13. Yet most Calvinists would espouse such a view.

Not only would most Calvinists espouse such a view, but they would actually be the objectors in verse 14! Paul puts forth the objection that the heretics would bring, and Spurgeon, with like-minded Calvinists who were before and after him, along with the Arminians and the open-theists and even the agnostics and atheists, are heading the charge against the true and living God. According to Spurgeon and his ilk, if one says that God hated Esau – unconditionally reprobated Esau before Esau had done anything bad – then this would be to think meanly of God, to libel God, and to dishonor God. Why? Because it would make God to be unfair, unjust, and unrighteous, which is exactly the objection that Paul addressed. The objectors say, “Paul, if this is true that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had been born, not yet having done any good or evil, then God is unrighteous! Your God is unjust, because you put a man’s damnation into the hand of God’s sovereignty!” As Spurgeon said, “God’s sovereignty is just on the side of love; His sovereignty is not on the side of hatred.” The truth is that a partially sovereign god is not sovereign at all. Either one has God who sovereignly loves and hates, or one does not have God. The objectors do not have God. They say that to believe that God sovereignly loves and hates is to think meanly of God and to libel and dishonor Him. They say that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, libels and dishonors God. This is damnable blasphemy.

=========================================================================

For more information about the doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation, please see:

The Christian Confession of Faith

Marc D. Carpenter’s Sermon on Romans 9:14 

Marc D. Carpenter’s Sermon on Romans 9:22

January 15, 2012

Charles H. Spurgeon vs. the Gospel, pt. 1

Posted in Charles H. Spurgeon tagged , , , , , , , at 4:00 AM by chriswadams

Charles H. Spurgeon was one of the most popular preachers of his time, indeed of all time. He was at least as popular in his day as Billy Graham is in our day, a fact which should at least be a little troubling to anyone who shares Spurgeon’s belief in the doctrines of Grace. Have you ever wondered how Spurgeon could believe in and preach about doctrines like Unconditional Election, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance, all while drawing crowds consisting of thousands of people at a time? Well, let’s take a closer look at what Spurgeon really believed and preached about, in his own words.

“A man may be evidently of God’s chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold that there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe in the doctrine of perseverance. We hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus.” (Effects of Sound Doctrine, April 22, 1860)

Well, here’s one reason Spurgeon might have been able to draw those huge crowds: he didn’t believe that those doctrines like Unconditional Election, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance, were essential parts of the Gospel. Oh, he still believed those doctrines were true, of course, but not that they were essential to the Gospel itself. This effectively removes the offensiveness of those doctrines from the mind of the audience, an approach which is noticeably different from the approach taken by Christ and the apostles (Mat 23; Gal 6:12-14).

Let’s look a little closer at Spurgeon’s arguments.

First, are there “many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling”? The Christian Confession of Faith has this to say about all those who believe the Gospel:

3. Conversion is that grace in which the Holy Spirit causes the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. The regenerate person is given a knowledge and understanding of the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone and the realization that he was unregenerate when he believed a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. He counts all of his former life and deeds, whether religious or irreligious, as dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death. Conversion is the immediate and inevitable fruit of regeneration; therefore, a person may not be regenerated without being converted. There has never existed and will never exist a regenerate person who is ignorant of the gospel. Scripture rejects the lie that an unregenerate person can be under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit only leads people to Jesus Christ and His righteousness as the only ground of salvation. [Deu 4:34-35; Isa 45:6,20-25; Mat 13:23; Mar 16:16; Joh 6:40; 8:32; 16:8-11; 17:3; Act 16:14-15; Rom 1:16-17; 3:26; 6:17,21; 7:6; 1Co 2:10-12; 2Co 4:2-6; Eph 1:13; Phi 3:7-8; 2Th 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Jo 5:20]

Here are some of the verses that the Confession refers to:

Isa 45:(22) Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (23) I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (24) He shall say, Only in Jehovah do I have righteousness and strength; to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him. (25) In Jehovah all of the seed of Israel shall be justified, and shall glory.

Joh 6:(40) And this is the will of the One sending Me, that everyone seeing the Son and believing into Him should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 8:(32) And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Rom 6:(17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

1Co 2: (10) But God revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (11) For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God. (12) But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God.

A sinner is caused to believe the Gospel by a work of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Christ, not the sinner. Thus, it is impossible that the Holy Spirit would cause a regenerate person to believe doctrines that glorify the sinner’s role in his own salvation. Conditional Election, and Ineffectual Calling are doctrines that glorify the sinner’s role in his own salvation; therefore, it is impossible that a regenerate person would believe in Conditional Election, Ineffectual Calling, or any other doctrine that denies the Gospel, or glorifies the sinner in any way. So, contrary to Spurgeon, all who are savingly called really do believe in effectual calling.

Second, Spurgeon argues that “the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads”. Now, this head/heart distinction is simply foreign to Scripture; the heart is what thinks, plans, and meditates (Psa 4:4, Psa 77:6, Pro 16:9, Pro 23:7). But more importantly, what Spurgeon is really putting forth here is the idea that there is more to the Gospel than merely knowledge or doctrine, and that this something more is what really separates the saved from the lost. Notice that Spurgeon makes precisely zero effort to define what that something more actually is, but apparently it cannot possibly be doctrine. This of course, is completely anti-Scriptural:

Joh 7: (16) Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but of the One who sent Me. (17) If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or I speak from Myself.

Rom 6:(17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Rom 10:(1) Brothers, truly my heart’s pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. (2) For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God. (4) For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone that believes.

2Jo (9) Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son.

The Gospel is pure doctrine, and nothing else but doctrine. Thus if a person believes doctrines that are contrary to the Gospel, then we do not simply assume the best about them. A Christian must judge them to be lost, and absolutely must “set their fallacies down to … wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus”.

Thus we see that Spurgeon was able to gather huge numbers of people to hear him, not in spite of the doctrine he preached, but because of his speaking peace to them, precisely when he should have been telling them that they were lost, and their deeds were evil.

“The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is extremely important, but it does not involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend on our holding either system of theology. … But, I think we are all free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitefield with equal fervor fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. … We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future or even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency of spirit, believing that we are doing God’s work and upholding most important truth.” (Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, April 11, 1861)

Here, Spurgeon makes it explicit that the element he sees as most important in judging the state of a soul is “the vital point of personal godliness”, ie. good works. Notice that at this point, Spurgeon could not even resort to the evasion that Christians are not to judge the spiritual state of others, because he has already judged the spiritual state of Wesley and his fellow Arminians: he has judged them to be saved.

“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 the truths, or at least, cannot see them in the way in which we see them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.” (The Man With the Measuring Line, December 11, 1864)

I have already had much to say about the “personal godliness” of John Wesley, but even if his “personal godliness” were as sterling as Spurgeon makes it out to be, he would still be judging Wesley by the wrong standard. The correct standard is doctrine, specifically the doctrine of the Gospel. Without that standard, there is really no limit to the kinds of people Spurgeon could speak peace to:

“In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest — for I believe he is a good man, — preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling the text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, — some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus. I saw, in that church, a box for contributions for the Pope; he will never grow rich with what I put into it.” (The Proceedings of the Great Meeting in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, August 21, 1860)

Here is the logical conclusion of Spurgeon’s wicked practice of speaking peace to anyone with a form of “personal godliness”. Yes, Spurgeon denounces certain “objectionable sentences” coming from “the strong wind of Popery”, but no actual papists. This is as uncertain a sound as it is possible to make (1Co 14:8), and it all comes down to Spurgeon’s unwillingness to judge according to doctrine.

=========================================================================

For more information about the Gospel as the standard for Right Judgment, please see:

Righteous Judgment

Some Form of Perfectionism?

Speaking Peace to God-Haters

Essential Gospel Doctrine

Next page

%d bloggers like this: