# Did Spurgeon Misunderstand Arminianism?



## JM (Mar 22, 2009)

Arminian Today: Spurgeon's Misunderstanding of Arminianism

I've noticed a rise in Arminians bloging about "Reformation" Arminianism.


----------



## Theognome (Mar 22, 2009)

> From the above quotes it is clear that Spurgeon believed that Arminianism was fundamentally man-centered and that Arminians believed that man works to be saved. He obviously had not read the works of Arminius nor John Wesley to come to such a conclusion. Had Spurgeon read and studied the works of Arminius, he would have clearly seen that Arminius taught that we are justified by faith in Christ and not by works and that the only way to salvation is by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for our sins.



I suspect that the author of the article is the one who hasn't read Arminius. 

Also, the Arminianism of Spurgeon's day is nothing like the modern model. Dispensationalism brought quite the twist to American Arminianism but alas, the days of Darby, Mackintosh and Moody are long gone and the tenets they held to have been summarily disregarded. Modern American Arminianism is whatever you want it to be- as long as you mention the name of Jesus in the process.

Theognome


----------



## Herald (Mar 22, 2009)

I looked at that blog and the author's conclusion is Spurgeon doesn't understand Arminianism because he hasn't read many Arminian writers. He offers no evidence other than the absence of such sources in Spurgeon's writings. Apparently he hasn't read Spurgeon on the downgrade controversy. The author of the blog you linked is displaying his misunderstanding of Spurgeon.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 22, 2009)

I agreed with Spurgeon on every point.  But then again, I try to be charitable and agree that I _don't_ understand Arminians. How can one seriously study the Bible, accept it as truth, and come to such false conclusions?

As far as reading Arminian works is concerned, why should have Spurgeon wasted so much time studying men who did not believe clear truths of Scripture? I think he had better things to do. You know, like teaching the Word of God? Oh yeah and smoking cigars, but I _tried_ to back you up, man!


----------



## Timothy William (Mar 22, 2009)

Spurgeon demonstrates that Arminianism is contradictory, that it claims that salvation is by faith alone but that a sinner must choose to believe (or "co-operate with God's choice" which amounts to the same thing). They think he misunderstood them because he demonstrated the logical results of one part of their beliefs to be in contradiction with another.


----------



## charliejunfan (Mar 22, 2009)

How could that author say that about the geon! He had one of fullest libraries of his time most likely!


----------



## Ivan (Mar 22, 2009)

charliejunfan said:


> How could that author say that about the geon! He had one of fullest libraries of his time most likely!



I believe his library was something like 20,000 volumes, but I may be off on that. I do know that we could remember what he read, almost page and line. He was actually a brilliant man.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2009)

> Had Spurgeon read and studied the works of Arminius, he would have clearly seen that Arminius taught that we are justified by faith in Christ and not by works and that the only way to salvation is by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for our sins.



If one consults the works of Arminius himself, one reads this (Works, 2:474):



> But some persons charge me with this as a crime — that I say the act itself of faith, that is, believing itself, is imputed for righteousness, and that in a proper sense, and not by a metonymy. *I acknowledge this charge*, as I have the apostle St. Paul, in Romans iv, and in other passages, as my precursor in the use of this phrase.



Arminius consciously maintained and owned that faith is literally accounted for righteousness, and rejected the reformation teaching that Paul made use of a figure of speech in which faith is put in the place of the object of faith. Thereby he taught that faith itself is righteousness. His followers took this further and made "faith" a representative of all the Christian graces, so that all the Christian graces were considered the righteousness of those who have faith in Christ.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 23, 2009)

Ivan said:


> I do know that we [did you mean he?] could remember what he read, almost page and line. He was actually a brilliant man.



If you meant "he could remember," I can't help but be slightly envious of the man. Having such great memory would have so many benefits...ugh! I can't remember most things (especially manners )!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 23, 2009)

Roger Olson’s _Arminian Theology: Myth and Realities _(IVP, 2006) claims to be a definitive justification of Arminianism as a legitimate evangelical theology — supposedly answering the mean-spirited and ill-founded charge of “Semi-Pelagian” by Calvinists. 

He contends that poor old Jacob Arminius has been misunderstood and libeled by Calvinist theologians past and present. He maintains that the teachings of Arminius, while suggesting a departure from the Belgic Confession, were completely evangelical and rooted in the principles of the Reformation.

However, in the final analysis Olsen admits that Arminianisn is fundamentally synergistic and therefore attempts to define an evangelical synergism that is biblical (sic).

However, if Arminianism is admittedly synergistic, man's will becomes the determining factor and Spurgeon is exonerated in his criticisms. In Arminianism, God has done his part, and it is now up to man to do his -- i.e. the gospel becomes man-centered.


----------

