Spurgeon and the Gospel

[Peters]

"Calvinism is the Gospel" - C.H. Spurgeon

Do you think he was right or wrong? Why?

 

[Arch2k]

In many ways, Calvinism is the gospel or at the very least, the logical conclusion of the gospel.

I've always thought of it like this:

T
U - the gospel according to God the Father
L - the gospel according to God the Son
I - the gospel according to the Holy Spirit
P

So it's in there. The gospel "proper" is in the limited atonement. The Son makes atoment effectually. HOW this happens is the gospel. How did Christ pay for sins, and how are we made righteous in the sight of God?

 

[alwaysreforming]

Well, I guess there would be many ways of analyzing that statement and people could make good arguments for or against depending on what kind of extrapolation they wanted to make.

However, taken at its face value, I would say it is true. I believe JI Packer said something similar in his introduction to "The Death of Death..."

Consistent thinking and expounding on the Gospel logically ends up in Calvinism, so whether you start with the word "Gospel" or start with the word "Calvinism", they are simply two ways of saying the same thing.

 

[street preacher]

If we deviate from Calvinismd do you really have the gospel? No! God's Word (and all of it to) is all about Him. Granted man is in the message but the message is about God. The Bible is totally God centered. This of course is true of the gospel. The Calvinistic gospel is the gospel because the Bible clearly teaches it and makes it totally clear that we were chosen before time began, and as it says in Hebrews 4:4 the works of God concerning our rest were done before the foundations of the world. Also the other gospels, which are not gospels at all, are based upon man's choice. God is obligated to save man if man demands it from Him so the Arminians say. Say the magical prayer and you will be saved. Hog wash. Blasphemy! If it is not a Calvinistic gospel then what is also said is that God's choice in salvation and how God runs the universe is based primarily on man's choice. Who is God here? It makes God a reactive God rather than a sovereign God. There is only ONE gospel and if anyone preaches any other gospel than the one that was once delivered to the saints according to Paul the Apostle, let them be accursed. C.H. Spurgeon was absolutely right. The true gospel is totally God-centered and God-focused. God makes all of His decisions without any help at all from man and He made them before the foundations of the world. God is completely sovereign over ALL things and man, unregenerate or regenerate, willingly fulfill that will whether they realize it or not.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Peters
"Calvinism is the Gospel" - C.H. Spurgeon

Do you think he was right or wrong? Why?

If that is all he said, and he specifically means TULIP, then he is wrong. TULIP contains law and Gospel, and certainly contains and helps us to understand the gospel, but it is not the gospel.

The gospel is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[Myshkin]

Where is this quote from?

I have seen other quotes where he said in essence that calvinism is a nickname for biblical christianity, which I would agree with, but to say TULIP or calvinism is the gospel itself is something I hear echoed in hyper-calvinist corners. He must have meant "gospel" in a very broad sense.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Peters
"Calvinism is the Gospel" - C.H. Spurgeon

Do you think he was right or wrong? Why?

No, I don't think TULIP is the Gospel. Honestly, I do not see that preached through the book of Acts and what Paul passed on as first importance. Also, we might find it in seed form throughout the early Church, but this is rarely identified as the Gospel. People were baptized into the Apostles Creed, but, hopefully, no one is ever baptized because they hold to TULIP.

And, obviously Reformed will want to fill it out a lot more, but I find TULIP to be very man centered. The resurrection, that oft neglected doctrine, isn't even mentioned. Keep in mind that it was a response to the Remonstrance.

openairboy

 

[ReformedWretch]

(OFF TOPIC) Hey STeve, is that you in your avatar? I was beginning to think you looked like the guy in your old avatar!

 

[Bryan]

Where is this quote from?

If memory serves me right it's from A Defense of Calvinism which is a great little article.

Bryan
SDG

 

[raderag]

Here is the quote in context:

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. Such a gospel I abhor.

At best I think this is hyperbole, but it is in context of defending against many heresies.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by raderag
Here is the quote in context:

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. Such a gospel I abhor.

At best I think this is hyperbole, but it is in context of defending against many heresies.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I think Spurgeon is right on. Calvinism, to me = the Reformed Faith. The gospel is at the heart of the Reformed Faith. The doctrines of grace make the Reformed gospel different from the Arminian gospel and every other variation of the gospel. Historically, French Huguenots (followers of Calvin) were once called Lutherans. The name is not the essential thing, though names are useful and the name Calvinist is an honorable one for which I am not ashamed. The important thing is what is signified. Calvinism or the Reformed Faith may be broader than the gospel of grace, but the gospel of grace is distinct to Calvinism.

Loraine Boettner:

There are in reality only two types of religious thought. There is the religion of faith, and there is the religion of works. We believe that what has been known in Church History as Calvinism is the purest and most consistent embodiment of the religion of faith, while that which has been known as Arminianism has been diluted to a dangerous degree by the religion of works and that it is therefore an inconsistent and unstable form of Christianity. In other words, we believe that Christianity comes to its fullest and purest expression in Reformed Faith.

R.L. Dabney:

HISTORICALLY, this title [the five points of Calvinism] is of little accuracy or worth; I use it to denote certain points of doctrine, because custom has made it familiar....

We Presbyterians care very little about the name Calvinism. We are not ashamed of it; but we are not bound to it. Some opponents seem to harbor the ridiculous notion that this set of doctrines was the new invention of the Frenchman John Calvin. They would represent us as in this thing followers of him instead of followers of the Bible. This is a stupid historical error. John Calvin no more invented these doctrines than he invented this world which God had created six thousand years before. We believe that he was a very gifted, learned, and, in the main, godly man, who still had his faults. He found substantially this system of doctrines just where we find them, in the faithful study of the Bible, Where we see them taught by all the prophets, apostles, and the Messiah himself, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Joseph Ringling]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I think Spurgeon is right on. Calvinism, to me = the Reformed Faith. The gospel is at the heart of the Reformed Faith. The doctrines of grace make the Reformed gospel different from the Arminian gospel and every other variation of the gospel. Historically, French Huguenots (followers of Calvin) were once called Lutherans. The name is not the essential thing, though names are useful and the name Calvinist is an honorable one for which I am not ashamed. The important thing is what is signified. Calvinism or the Reformed Faith may be broader than the gospel of grace, but the gospel of grace is distinct to Calvinism.

Loraine Boettner:

There are in reality only two types of religious thought. There is the religion of faith, and there is the religion of works. We believe that what has been known in Church History as Calvinism is the purest and most consistent embodiment of the religion of faith, while that which has been known as Arminianism has been diluted to a dangerous degree by the religion of works and that it is therefore an inconsistent and unstable form of Christianity. In other words, we believe that Christianity comes to its fullest and purest expression in Reformed Faith.

R.L. Dabney:

HISTORICALLY, this title [the five points of Calvinism] is of little accuracy or worth; I use it to denote certain points of doctrine, because custom has made it familiar....

We Presbyterians care very little about the name Calvinism. We are not ashamed of it; but we are not bound to it. Some opponents seem to harbor the ridiculous notion that this set of doctrines was the new invention of the Frenchman John Calvin. They would represent us as in this thing followers of him instead of followers of the Bible. This is a stupid historical error. John Calvin no more invented these doctrines than he invented this world which God had created six thousand years before. We believe that he was a very gifted, learned, and, in the main, godly man, who still had his faults. He found substantially this system of doctrines just where we find them, in the faithful study of the Bible, Where we see them taught by all the prophets, apostles, and the Messiah himself, from Genesis to Revelation.

Good stuff Andrew

 

[Scott Bushey]

In relation to what has already been presented, what was the content of the gospel message presented by the OT saint; was it Calvinism? Was the good news presented by Christ and the apostles Calvinism?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was the good news presented by Christ and the apostles Calvinism?

Judging from John 6 & 10, I would say yes. I also am particular to Mark 4, Matthew 11, and the first chapters of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians.

Scott, I know you are a Calvinist, and I know you know about these passages, so what exactly are you asking? I must be missing your question.


That which is not TULIP is not the Gospel.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
In relation to what has already been presented, what was the content of the gospel message presented by the OT saint; was it Calvinism? Was the good news presented by Christ and the apostles Calvinism?

Here is a another question. Is Total Depravity gospel or law? If it is law, and it is, how can TULIP be the gospel?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by raderag

Here is a another question. Is Total Depravity gospel or law? If it is law, and it is, how can TULIP be the gospel?

It is the foundation for the Gospel. As long as a person thinks he still has some inherent righteousness, he won't sense his true need and full need for the Gospel.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by raderag

Here is a another question. Is Total Depravity gospel or law? If it is law, and it is, how can TULIP be the gospel?

It is the foundation for the Gospel. As long as a person thinks he still has some inherent righteousness, he won't sense his true need and full need for the Gospel.

There is no question that law and gospel are concepts that can't be divorced from each other, but the point is that TULIP is not equivalent to the Gospel as it contains extra-gospel doctrine.

The gospel is much simpler than TULIP, and yet contained in TULIP. The gospel is so simple, even an Arminian can believe it. The point is that arminianism has a tendancy to mix law and gospel, thus the self-righteousness.

The gospel is Christ and Christ crucified, and that is not TULIP.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was the good news presented by Christ and the apostles Calvinism?

Judging from John 6 & 10, I would say yes. I also am particular to Mark 4, Matthew 11, and the first chapters of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians.

Scott, I know you are a Calvinist, and I know you know about these passages, so what exactly are you asking? I must be missing your question.


That which is not TULIP is not the Gospel.

Brain fart! I was at work and had some odd complex thought.......

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by raderag

Here is a another question. Is Total Depravity gospel or law? If it is law, and it is, how can TULIP be the gospel?

It is the foundation for the Gospel. As long as a person thinks he still has some inherent righteousness, he won't sense his true need and full need for the Gospel.

There is no question that law and gospel are concepts that can't be divorced from each other, but the point is that TULIP is not equivalent to the Gospel as it contains extra-gospel doctrine.

The gospel is much simpler than TULIP, and yet contained in TULIP. The gospel is so simple, even an Arminian can believe it. The point is that arminianism has a tendancy to mix law and gospel, thus the self-righteousness.

The gospel is Christ and Christ crucified, and that is not TULIP.

It sounds like you are limiting the gospel to the "bare minimum" belief that justifies. The gospel is more than that, and the bible declares it to be so. Look at the presentation in 1 Cor. 15:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you; unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
1Co 15:6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

I doubt that many people explain how Christ was "seen by Cephas" the twelve, and five hundred, etc. etc.

The first four books of the N.T. are called "gospels" because they recount the events surrounding and of the life of Christ. They certainly include more than the "bare minimum" propositions to be believed for justification.

Simply put, the gospel is the good news. The good news of what? Of Christ and his work specifically. TULIP or Calvinism is the good news. Nobody is debating that one must assent to TULIP to be saved, but is a faith that believes in a non-effectual atonement worth believing in? The answer is no. But that is exactly what Limited Atonement is!

TULIP truly is good news, and the good news of what God has done for sinful man.