Spurgeon and Calvinism

[Daryl Bales]

I am A baptist, but relatively new to the study of reformed doctrine and historical Christianity. Recently, I have heard A couple of people make comments that they would consider themselves "five point Spurgeonist " instead of five point Calvinist.
So far I have not been able to distinguish what is different from Spurgeons view and that of five point Calvinism.
Can anyone tell me what it was that Spurgeon didn't agree with,if there was anything at all.
Thanks.
GOD BE GLORIFIED!!!

 

[Steve Curtis]

At least as regards the "five points" of Calvin, Spurgeon had this to say:

"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me."

That being said, Spurgeon was a Baptist, and would have disagreed with Calvin on issues other than soteriology.

 

[Daryl Bales]

Steve,
Thanks for the information.

 

[Marrow Man]

A couple of things could be being referenced. First, some folks might considered Calvinists to be non-evangelistic. Since Spurgeon preached in a manner they would consider evangelistic, they infer that he must be something other than a Calvinist.

It is more likely, however, that they are making a distinction based upon Spurgeon's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4, where Spurgeon said that God really does desire for all men to be saved, rather than the standard Calvinist interpretation (i.e., all kinds of men) of the verse.

 

[dudley]

A couple of things could be being referenced. First, some folks might considered Calvinists to be non-evangelistic. Since Spurgeon preached in a manner they would consider evangelistic, they infer that he must be something other than a Calvinist.

It is more likely, however, that they are making a distinction based upon Spurgeon's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4, where Spurgeon said that God really does desire for all men to be saved, rather than the standard Calvinist interpretation (i.e., all kinds of men) of the verse.

I agree in essence with my PB brother Pastor Tim Phillips.

I would like to add a few things I have read and that C. H. Spurgeon said regarding the Doctrines of Grace “I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God. 2584.402”

I believe my study and reading about both C H Spurgeon and John Calvin; I personally consider myself now a Calvinist Presbyterian, that Spurgeon’s thinking would be that if he thought God had a chosen people, he would not need to preach. I tend to think that is exactly why Spurgeon while a Calvinist did find it a reason to do his preaching and evangelizing.

CH Spurgeon also said “I believe that God will save his own elect, and I also believe that, if I do not preach the gospel, the blood of men will be laid at my door.” 2303.171
Spurgeon further went on to say “Our Saviour has bidden us to preach the gospel to every creature; he has not said, “Preach it only to the elect;” and though that might seem to be the most logical thing for us to do, yet, since he has not been pleased to stamp the elect in their foreheads, or to put any distinctive mark upon them, it would be an impossible task for us to perform; whereas, when we preach the gospel to every creature, the gospel makes its own division, and Christ’s sheep hear his voice, and follow him“. 2937.262

Many Arminianists claim that Spurgeon was an Arminian. He was a Baptist but I think the above quote tends to make me think that Spurgeon was really a firm Calvinist.

Many Ariminians claim that Calvinism destroyed the point of evangelism. Spurgeon however I also believe was one of the greatest modern evangelists, and I believe also that he was a Calvinist! I am also a Calvinist however a Presbyterian and not a Baptist like Spurgeon. I also believe Jonathan Edwards helped fuel a Great Awakening, and I think of him also as a Calvinist.

I have said I am a Calvinist and I believe John Calvin was one of the greatest Reformers of the Protestant Reformation. I think John Calvin was one of the greatest theologians in Christian history. I think he is one of the great ones. My theology is thus as a Reformed Protestant , Calvinistic.

I also admire Spurgeon and much of his writings. Spurgeon also said in one of his Quotes on the Doctrines of Grace, “Grace does not choose a man and leave him as he is“. 801.162
I think I agree here also with Spurgeon.

I also reiterate what I said in my opening remarks and believe myself as Spurgeon said ““I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God.” 2584.402”

 

[eqdj]

I heard that recently but didn't think too much about it. I thought they were just being cute.

Sent from my Google Android using the Tapatalk Forum App on the Now Network!

 

[Daryl Bales]

Thanks, to everyone who has replied.
Through my studies, and prayer, I believe my family ,and I ,have only one way to go in serving God with our lives.That would be the way of, what I would describe as,A Reformed Southern Baptist.Even though we attend A southern Baptist church now, I can already see some theological differences that are going to come up.The thing that is most confusing to me is, how did Baptist, as A whole ,get so far away from the historical reformed doctrine?
The only goal I want for my family and I, is to know God in the greatest way possible, and serve Him totally for who He is, no matter what.Understanding these "Doctrines of Grace" I believe, are going to be key, in seeing the power of God work in our lives.
Just really not sure what the extent of the differences in doctrine will be,or what they will bring about in my church.
If anyone has any experience in this type of move, maybe you could give me A heads up.
Thanks ,
Daryl Bales
Reformed Southern Baptist
Salina, Oklahoma
TO GOD ALONE,BE THE GLORY

 

[Herald]

Daryl,

Phil Johnson linked to a wonderful sermon by Spurgeon on Calvinism. A Defense of Calvinism

Spurgeon's view of Calvinism, of which I heartily agree to, was fervently evangelistic. Dudley provided this quote from Spurgeon:

“I believe that God will save his own elect, and I also believe that, if I do not preach the gospel, the blood of men will be laid at my door.”

The latter part of that statement is why Arminians claim Spurgeon for their own; but they do so out of a misunderstanding of Spurgeon's motivation for preaching the gospel. As a minister of the Gospel, Spurgeon felt bound to proclaim the good news to all who would listen. In fact, he believed it was his sacred duty. He did not believe for one moment that the salvation of souls rested upon his preaching. However, he did believe that his stewardship as a herald of the Gospel depended on his faithfully proclaiming that message. If he willingly refused to do so he believed he would give a somber account for that failure.

Now, forgive me for a little preaching of my own. Shouldn't that be the attitude of every preacher; whether Baptist or Presbyterian? Is there any good reason not to proclaim the Gospel to all who will listen? Is there any preacher who believes he will not give account for the Gospel being mute from his pulpit?

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

 

[Scott1]

I recall the famous quote attributed to Mr. Spurgeon,

Calvinism is the gospel.

We also have swerved into a basic objection, based on misunderstanding, of the "five points."

We preach/teach/share the gospel because we are commanded to do so. We do not know who the elect are, or when God might call them.

It's not viewed conditionally from man's point of view as those misunderstanding this often assume. That is, we do not share the Gospel because we think someone will get saved, any more than we do not share it because we think someone may not be saved. God commanded we do it, and that is enough.

God establishes both the ends (whether someone gets saved), as well as the means (ordinarily, through the Word of God).

Scripture, and the "five points" teaches us that it is not in any sense initiated by man's decision, or vow, or anything in man- but is entirely, 100% the work of a sovereign God who changes the nature by regeneration a sinner first, so that he might savingly believe.

From all accounts, Mr. Spurgeon was one who understood, and taught this well.

 

[Daryl Bales]

Thank you for helping me affirm these things I believed to have found in scripture and the writings of Spurgeon ,and these other men that were greatly used of God.
Being raised an Arminian ,it truly does take the Spirit of God to reveal to us that it is all His work.i like the statement that John Macarthur made when he said"If he didn't believe in the doctrine of election,he would quit the ministry immediately."That makes total since to me now.I must say, that with my studies and findings so far,by what God has revealed to me,I fully agree with the views of the last two post.
Thank you.

 

[coramdeo]

Dudley, forgive my ignorance...what are the references to in your quotes?

 

[Daryl Bales]

To: Scott1 AMEN!!!!! I agree 100%!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Who can deny Spurgeon's commitment to the sovereignty of God after reading this:

Src: Divine Sovereignty

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”​

AMR

 

[earl40]

It is more likely, however, that they are making a distinction based upon Spurgeon's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4, where Spurgeon said that God really does desire for all men to be saved, rather than the standard Calvinist interpretation (i.e., all kinds of men) of the verse.

Excellent point!

---------- Post added at 08:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------

Who can deny Spurgeon's commitment to the sovereignty of God after reading this:

Src: Divine Sovereignty

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”​

AMR

As to how Spurgeon believed 1 Timothy 2:4 taught that God did not get what He wants evades me after reading the above.

 

[dudley]

Dudley, forgive my ignorance...what are the references to in your quotes?

The references are from Spurgeons quotes.