Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
From C.H. Spurgeon's 'A Defense of Calvinism'...
What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.
Would you contradict any part of this statement? I ask because I would not contradict Spurgeon's message here, and yet, frankly, for whatever reason, I find it disturbing to think that Calvinists and Arminians do not 'share' the Gospel, that our differences aren't above and beyond a shared Gospel, that the Gospel is not 'the tie that binds' all conservative evangelicals -- Calvinists and Arminians -- together. This corollary troubles me, but I cannot reject Spurgeon's statement. I, like Spurgeon, recognize the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel -- or, at least, necessary components of the Gospel.
What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.
Would you contradict any part of this statement? I ask because I would not contradict Spurgeon's message here, and yet, frankly, for whatever reason, I find it disturbing to think that Calvinists and Arminians do not 'share' the Gospel, that our differences aren't above and beyond a shared Gospel, that the Gospel is not 'the tie that binds' all conservative evangelicals -- Calvinists and Arminians -- together. This corollary troubles me, but I cannot reject Spurgeon's statement. I, like Spurgeon, recognize the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel -- or, at least, necessary components of the Gospel.
Last edited: