Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) served as the pastor of London’s New Park Street Church (formerly pastored by the renowned Baptist theologian, John Gill). His pastorate began there when he was only 20. His fame as a preacher grew rapidly. The congregation grew rapidly as well, moving to Exeter Hall and then to Surrey Music Hall to accommodate the crowds, usually numbering over 10,000. In 1861, the congregation moved permanently to the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Spurgeon, known to this day as an extraordinary evangelistic pastor, wrote a fantastic book entitled, The Soul Winner. It was required reading for seminary students who took my course in contemporary evangelism, and I recommend it highly to you. Here is an excerpt from the first chapter, “What Is It to Win a Soul?”:
“We do not regard it as soul-winning to steal members from other established churches and train them to say our peculiar creed. We aim rather to bring souls to Christ than to make converts to our churches. . . . The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. . . . We would labor earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth and not upon the sand of imagination. At the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We should bring men to Christ, not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep are gathered to the great Shepherd. There will be time enough afterward to secure them for our various folds. . . .
In the next place, we do not consider soul-winning to be accomplished by hurriedly inscribing more names upon our church rolls in order to show a good increase at the year’s end. This is easily done, and there are those who use great pains, not to say arts, to effect it. . . . By all means, let us bring true converts into the church, for it is a part of our work to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded them. But still, this is to be done with disciples, and not with mere professors. If care is not used, we may do more harm than good at this point. To introduce unconverted persons to the church is to weaken and degrade it. Therefore, an apparent gain may be a real loss. . . . It is a serious injury to a person to receive him into the number of the faithful unless there is good reason to believe that he is really regenerate. I am sure it is so, for I speak after careful observation. Some of the most glaring sinners known to me were once members of a church and had been, as I believe, led to make a profession by pressure, well-meant but ill-judged. Do not consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms and the swelling size of your church. What do these dispatches from the battlefield mean? ‘Last night fourteen souls were under conviction, fifteen were justified, and eight received full sanctification.’ I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretense of certifying in a half-a-minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime. Hope for the best, but in your highest excitements be reasonable. . . .
Nor is it soul-winning, friends, merely to create excitement. . . . Do not aim at sensation and ‘effect’. . . . It very often happens that the converts who are born in excitement die when the thrill is over. . . . I delight not in religion which creates a hot head. Give me the godliness which flourishes upon Calvary rather than upon Vesuvius. The utmost zeal for Christ is consistent with common sense and reason; raving, ranting, and fanaticism are products of another zeal which is not according to knowledge. We should prepare men for the communion table, not for the padded room of Bedlam. No one is more sorry than I such a caution as this should be needed. However, remembering the vagaries of certain revivalists, I cannot say less. . . .
The Gospel is news: there is information and instruction in it concerning matters which men need to know, and statements in it calculated to bless those who hear it. . . . Hence, if we do not teach men something, we may shout, ‘Believe! Believe! Believe!’ but what are they to believe? Each exhortation requires a corresponding instruction, or it will mean nothing. . . . We are not to try to save men in the dark. Rather, in the power of the Holy Ghost we are to seek to turn them from darkness to light. Do not believe, dear friends, that when you go into revival meetings or special evangelistic services, you are to leave out the doctrines of the Gospel, for you ought then to proclaim the doctrines of grace rather more than less. Teach gospel doctrines clearly, affectionately, simply, and plainly, and especially those truths which have a present practical bearing upon man’s condition and God’s grace.
Some enthusiasts seem to have embraced the notion that, as soon as a minister addresses the unconverted, he should deliberately throw away his usual doctrinal messages, because supposedly that there will be no conversions if he preaches the whole counsel of God. It just comes to this: supposedly, we are to conceal the truth and utter half-falsehoods in order to save souls. We are to speak the truth to God’s people because they will not hear anything else, but we are to wheedle sinners into faith by exaggerating one part of truth and hiding the rest until a more convenient season. This is a strange theory, yet many endorse it. According to them, we may preach the redemption of a chosen number of God’s people, but universal redemption must be our doctrine when we speak with the outside world. We are to tell believers that salvation is all of grace, but sinners are to be spoken with as if they were to save themselves. We are to inform Christians that the Holy Spirit alone can convert, but when we talk with the unsaved, the Holy Ghost is scarcely to be named. We have not learned Christ thus. Others have done these things. Let them be our warning signals, not our examples. . . .
The preacher’s work is to throw sinners down in utter helplessness, so that they may be compelled to look up to Him who alone can help them. To try to will a soul for Christ by keeping that soul in ignorance of any truth is contrary to the mind of the Spirit; to endeavor to save men by mere claptrap, excitement, or oratorical display is as foolish as to hope to hold an angel with bird lime or lure a star with music. The best attraction is the Gospel in its purity. The weapon with which the Lord conquers men is the truth as it is in Jesus.”
“We should prepare men for the communion table, not for the padded room of Bedlam…This is a strange theory, yet many endorse it. According to them, we may preach the redemption of a chosen number of God’s people, but universal redemption must be our doctrine when we speak with the outside world. We are to tell believers that salvation is all of grace, but sinners are to be spoken with as if they were to save themselves.”
Compare: “We would labor earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth and not upon the sand of imagination. At the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We should bring men to Christ, not to our own peculiar views of Christianity.”
Spurgeon’s balance should be noted and stressed. For some take the second portion I have listed and make it the complete portion and neglect, as he said, the full counsel. Spurgeon did not set aside the DoG in preaching. Quite to the contrary, he made them the warp and woof of the evangel. Interestingly, he does not say that he is not about not stealing sheep, but that he is about raising confessors above false belief. His goal is regenerate membership, not necessarily local church membership, and the means by which he approaches it is by the very doctrines that some cast aside as worthless for that purpose. His means is to: “proclaim the doctrines of grace rather more than less. Teach gospel doctrines clearly, affectionately, simply, and plainly, and especially those truths which have a present practical bearing upon man’s condition and God’s grace.”
How unfortunate that so much of what we know as evangelicalism has turned away from the DoG as the means of evangelism. For those of us who long for the revival of such in the SBC, we face the majority that has been weened upon the revivalist mentality. What it has produced is two thirds of signatories that cannot be found and those who can so weak in their knowledge of the Gospel to be as Spurgeon would say, people who “have not learned Christ” but continue to seek upon their own account their relief.
Spurgeon contrasted the DoG with the doctrine of free will saying that the second is no Gospel at all, “the sand of imagination.” For all those in the SBC that like to quote CHS in defense of their free-will doctrines and the consequent denial of salvation by grace, they really need to repent and confess to having withheld what they have not told the people who they shepherd.
But then, when it is merely a matter of opinion so that both can stand under the same banner, then what we have done to Spurgeon’s teaching, is to cast it aside like yesterday’s newspapers, Good News that today no longer is valid.
please comment on this for me
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com:80/2008/06/t4g-welcomes-hardshell-pastor.html
thanks
Charles
James,
I found this at a library, BB Warfield, Plan of Salvation, 1942 p-93-96
I hurridedly wrote it down and typed it into word. (so many errors) This is just a segment of that: “I say, Post-redemptionism is logically inconsistent Calvinism. For, how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men, when he gave His Son to die, he already fully intended that his death should avail for all men alike and equally, but only for some which he would select (which, that is, because he is God and there is no subsequence of time in his decrees, he had already selected) to be its beneficiaries? But as much as God is God, who knows all things which he intends from the beginning and all at once, it is impossible to contend that God intends the gift of his Son for all men alike and equally and at the same time intends that it shall not actually save all but only a select body which he himself provides for it. The schematization of the order of decrees presented by the Amyraldians, in a word, necessarily implies a chronological relation of precedence and subsequence among the decrees, the assumption of which abolishes God, and this can be escaped only by altering the nature of the atonement. And therefore the nature of the atonement is altered by them, and Christianity is wounded at its very heart.”
Can it be said that Spurgeon may have lost some of his sharp edge in the downgrade period when he allied with non-Calvinist against modernist in the Baptist Union?
I am aware that John Rice edited Spurgeon’s sermons to make him appear to be a “soul winner” of Rice’s persuasion. This has contributed to a wide acceptance of Spurgeon in anti-Calvinist circles. This is based upon dishonest editing.
I get the same feeling with Murray’s book on Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism. It is too easy to read the “free offer” into Spurgeon that is not there or to assume that if Spurgeon had evolved into hypo-Calvinism then Spurgeon was after all a good Gospel preacher! Hypo-Calvinism is pure and simple abreviated Arminianism. Anti-Calvinism (Arminianism) is aberrant theology.
James Kennedy was a good gospel preacher and his Evangelism Explosion is an example of the success of the “free offer” Does that make hypo-Calvinism good gospel?
John MacArthur confuses the chronological order of conviction and conversion and then trivializes the sequence so as to make it what you want. Repentance precedes regeneration/regeneration precedes repentance, take your pick! All roads lead to calvary! NOT!!!
In my opinion the battle for good Gospel preaching is waging and can hardly be found in America.
Charles – I don’t believe Spurgeon lost any of his sharp edge during the Down-Grade at all. He counted non-Calvinists as brothers in Christ (though in error). He realized fully the dangers of abandoning doctrine, particularly the authority of Scripture.
Spurgeon could well be classified a “hypo-Calvinist,” as could Kennedy and MacArthur.
As to the ‘Calvinist Flyswatter’ post… Bob Ross has done a tremendous service in republishing Spurgeon’s works. The blog, on the other hand, isn’t tremendous in the least. It is typically over-the-top, harsh, mean-spirited, and generally seeks to ruin the reputations of others (namely Tom Ascol and James White). It does this under the guise of “pointing out error.”
It’s quite possible to be pointed and sharp in theological debate without being inflammatory and shrill. It doesn’t appear Ross has learned that yet.
James
I appreciate your objective analysis of Bob Ross’ blog give me your ‘truth may hurt’ analysis of my blog.
In another vein -ha! Would you consider John Gill a hyper-Calvinist? Wells called Spurgeon’s gospel ‘mongrel Calvinism’ and many were calling Gill’s gospel ‘aberrant theology’ – p.48 “Spurgeon v hyper-Calvinism” Would you call RC Sproul hyper?
Who are the hypers that the SBC is afraid will destroy the church?
By definition a hyper would care less if the SBC goes Calvinism. They would have no desire to infiltrate the church and do any destruction. They would believe that it will destroy itself eventually. Which incidently causes me to be inclined to hyper with the exception that “I witness more than ye All”
James
Would this statement from John Murray’s “Redemption Accomplished and Applied”
be directed toward Spurgeon’s “hypo-Calvinism?
“If we universalize the the extent we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wroght perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character. We shall have none of it. The doctrine of “limited atonement” which we maintain is the doctrine which limits the atonement to those who are heirs of eternal life, to the elect. That limitation insures its efficacy and conserves its essential character as efficient and effective redemption.”
Would Spurgeon gladly accept this correction?
A. C. Underwood, in A History of English Baptists, writes that Spurgeon’s “rejection of a limited atonement would have horrified John Calvin.”
According to Underwood, Spurgeon often prayed, “Hasten to bring in all Thine elect, and then elect some more.” (also the worn our Adrianism) The mature Spurgeon confided in Archbishop Benson, “I’m a very bad Calvinist, quite a Calvinist–I look on to the time when the elect will be all the world.
“The further decline of Calvinism among some of the Particular Baptists – the influence of the Wesleyan Revival, and the thinking that the logical corollary of universal proclamation was a universal atonement, meant that Fullerism became only a stepping stone for many to adopt Arminianism.”
Underwood A. C. A History of the English Baptists, Unwin Brothers Ltd, London, 1947
p. 202-213
James
Back to Bob Ross. Apart from his republishing Spurgeon’s work would you say on all matters affecting biblical doctrines Ross is unreliable? ie. his blog
If you can’t say that, elaborate why?
respectfully
Charles
Charles: IMO, Gill was definitely a “high Calvinist,” hyper-Calvinistic in some respects (yet evangelistic). Sproul is not a hyper-Calvinist by any means. I don’t know who the “hypers” are in the SBC, quite frankly.
I don’t believe Murray’s comment touches upon Spurgeon. Spurgeon had some strong comments regarding the atonement. See this, for example (Underwood is wrong about Spurgeon rejecting particular redemption). Is he right about “Fullerism”? Perhaps to some extent.
As to Bob Ross – I wouldn’t say he is unnecessarily unreliable on all matters affecting biblical doctrine, but his bombastic style is troubling and faulty logic is disturbing. If I were writing a research paper, Ross would not be one of my resources. He hates a host of Reformed folk and defends Joel Osteen (despite the fact Osteen has made such outlandish comments to the effect, “Mormons are Christians”).
I like Sproul very much. Sproul is Prysbyterian and Gill Baptist. How is Sproul different from Gill? (Baptism excluded)
The fact that you don’t know who the hypers are in the SBC is an indicator that there are no hypers in the SBC, at least any who are major spokesmen for hyper-Calvinism.
Unlike your opinion of Ross, Murray has a subjective bias that Spurgeon is deffinitely Calvinist and A.C. Underwood questions that premise. Murray’s footnote for Underwood is that “on all matters affecting biblical doctrine Underwood is unreliable” p. 49 This is blatantly ‘argumentum ad hominem’. “Underwood is unreliable in this because he is wrong on all matters doctrinally!” What Underwood says undercuts the thesis of Murray’s book.
This has to be a serious challenge to anyone taking seriously the discussion of hyper-Calvinism. Has Spurgeon adulterated Calvinism? Underwood seemed to think so.
So if the SBC is so scared of their own straw man then shouldn’t we be equally scared of their evangelism? Afterall evangelism seems to be the only criteria for whatever a hyper is. Maybe we should begin attacking all aspects of “mega” “mass” “finney- esque” efferts to spread the message of Christ?
Sproul is right about hyper being anti-Calvinism (non-Calvinism) and the samething may be said of hypo-Calvinism. Where is unadulterated Calvinism in the SBC?
I’m glad to hear you like Sproul, Charles. It gives me a sense of optimism that there is hope for you yet.
Sproul would differ with Gill in that he (like Spurgeon and others) believe the “universal/free offer” is to be proclaimed to all. There is no eternal justification with Sproul, either.
I agree, there are no major spokesmen for hyper-Calvinism in the SBC. I only know of one guy in the SBC I consider a hyper- (a very well known pastor who is doctrinally a hyper-Calvinist), but he and the church he pastors are strong supporters of missions and evangelism.
You must know, Charles, that Murray and I share the same bias – we both believe Spurgeon is definitely a “Calvinist.” Did you check out the link I provided in a previous comment? Read Spurgeon on particular redemption, not to mention his other sermons. Check out A Defense of Calvinism by Spurgeon, my friend. If you read Spurgeon, you’ll agree with Bro. Iain and myself.
James, explain this statement from Sproul
“The question is, however, when does this miracle take place?According to Hodges it occurs when the Word is received in faith. Faith precedes regeneration and is the necessary condition for it. This places Hodges squarely in the semi-Pelagian camp.”
R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, (GrandRapids: Baker Books, 2000), 194
Also I have been listening to a series of Sproul’s teaching and he takes a stand on free will different from Edwards. This indicates to me he opposes thre free offer.
He uses John 6:44 where the word ‘draw’ is interchanged with drag rather than ‘woo’
Arminians and free grace believers think that the sinner is wooed and entreated to come, consistent with free choice. The word drag is consistent with limited atonement and irrestible grace.
Besides that God has had to drag me to where I am now, otherwise I would not be where I am now! wink! wink! I am a sinner dragged to grace.
Charles – On the one hand, I believe Sproul overstates the case when he speaks of Hodges as a semi-Pelagian on the matter of faith preceding regeneration. What makes one a semi-Pelagian is believing faith is not imparted divinely, that it is somehow inherent in fallen human beings. On the other hand, I don’t see how Sproul differs from Edwards on the issue of free will / the free offer. Edwards (and Spurgeon and I. Murray and myself) are all in agreement with Sproul regarding John 6:44.
My mother taught me to think for myself so I am not too impressed with authority of men as a solid criteria for truth. My mother also taught me to rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit (Pentecostalism) Like Jehoshaphat I always ask for one more prophet when everyone else is satified with the majority. Usually that prophet is the one that no one likes. He usually says what no one wants to hear! wink! wink!
The truth we are searching for is hidden deep in the wilderness. The tentacles (kudzu) of men’s interpretation have overgrown it and it will be difficult to find. Literally, James, we have lost this piece of information and everyone thinks THEY have found it
James
How can a free grace advocate be a five point Calvinist? I just can’t grasp that.
They can be four point but my problem is can a four point be a Calvinist?
Sproul is a five point Calvinist.
Charles: To be honest with you, I’m not sure how to answer your question. In my line of thinking, I don’t know how a five-point ‘Calvinist’ can’t be a free grace advocate. Sproul is a 5P. So are Kennedy, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, Calvin. All free grace advocates as well.