Was Spurgeon being an Arminian here?

[earl40]

"[Paul] had preached ALL the counsel of God. By which I think we are to understand that he had given to his people the entire gospel. He had not dwelt upon some one doctrine of it, to the exclusion of the rest; but it had been his honest endeavour to bring out every truth according to the analogy of faith. He had not magnified one doctrine into a mountain, and then diminished another into a molehill; but he had endeavoured to present all blended together, like the colours in the rainbow, as one harmonious and glorious whole… He had, doubtless, sins to confess in private, and faults to bemoan God. He had, doubtless, sometimes failed to put a truth as clearly as he could have wished, when preaching the Word; he had not always been earnest as he could desire; but at least he could claim this, that he had not wilfully kept back a single part of the truth as it is in Jesus…

To declare the whole counsel of God-to gather up ten thousand things into one-I think it is needful that when a minister gets his text, he should say what that text means honestly and uprightly. Too many preachers get a text and kill it. They wring its neck, then stuff it with some empty notions and present it upon the table for an unthinking people to feed upon. That man does not preach the whole counsel of God who does not let God's Word speak for itself in its own pure, simple language…

The apostle Paul knew how to dare public opinion, and on one hand to preach the duty of man, and on the other the sovereignty of God… [But if you] become such a Calvinist that you shut your eyes to one half the Bible, and cannot see the responsibility of the sinner, [then] men will clap their hands, and cry Hallelujah! and on the backs of many you shall be hoisted to a throne, and become a very prince in their Israel. On the other hand, begin to preach mere morality, practice without doctrine, and you shall be elevated on other men's shoulders; you shall, if I may use such a figure, ride upon these asses into Jerusalem; and you shall hear them cry, Hosanna! and see them wave their palm branches before you. But once preach the whole counsel of God, and you shall have both parties down upon you; one crying, "The man is too high," the other saying, "No, he is too low;" the one will say, "He's a rank Arminian," the other, "He's a vile hyper- Calvinist."… How many there are kept in bondage through neglect of gospel invitations. They are longing to be saved. They go up to the house of God, crying to be saved; and there is nothing but predestination for them. On the other hand, what multitudes are kept in darkness through practical preaching. It is do! do! do! and nothing but do! and the poor souls come away and say: "Of what use is that to me? I can do nothing. Oh, that I had a way shown to me available for salvation.
Of the apostle Paul we think it may be truly said, that no sinner missed a comfort from his keeping back Christ's cross; that no saint was bewildered in spirit from his denying the bread of heaven and withholding precious truth; that no practical Christian became so practical as to become legal, and no doctrinal Christian became so doctrinal as to become unpractical."



Now of course he was not so but what I have learned is to be percise or at least qualify what you say on Sunday morning because many hear what they only "want' to hear.

 

[Herald]

Earl,

Spurgeon was being painstakingly clear in presenting the right balance between the sovereignty of God, and human responsibility. All men everywhere are called to repent. The preacher should proclaim the clear message of the gospel as though all are able to repent. It should not be so high-browed that it's sin forgiving message escapes all but the most learned in society. The ability to believe is given only to those whom God has called; the elect. But thank God that we don't know who the elect are. That is where the Calvinist preacher sometimes fails. He fails when he preaches as though he knows who is elect.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Earl,

Spurgeon was being painstakingly clear in presenting the right balance between the sovereignty of God, and human responsibility. All men everywhere are called to repent. The preacher should proclaim the clear message of the gospel as though all are able to repent. It should not be so high-browed that it's sin forgiving message escapes all but the most learned in society. The ability to believe is given only to those whom God has called; the elect. But thank God that we don't know who the elect are. That is where the Calvinist preacher sometimes fails. He fails when he preaches as though he knows who is elect.

Hmmm... even if we knew who the elect were, it should not change one iota of what we do. To the elect we should proclaim the truth to their salvation. To the reprobate we should proclaim the truth to their damnation. The end of what we proclaim in love is up to God eternal decree. That we should proclaim is based on the command of Christ.

We may or may not be giving the message of salvation or the message of damnation to a person, but we are told to deliver the message.

 

[earl40]

Earl,

Spurgeon was being painstakingly clear in presenting the right balance between the sovereignty of God, and human responsibility. All men everywhere are called to repent. The preacher should proclaim the clear message of the gospel as though all are able to repent. It should not be so high-browed that it's sin forgiving message escapes all but the most learned in society. The ability to believe is given only to those whom God has called; the elect. But thank God that we don't know who the elect are. That is where the Calvinist preacher sometimes fails. He fails when he preaches as though he knows who is elect.

I hear you. Just saying that at our PCA church we don't hear enough on predestination other than "we believe it". Quite an assumption, no?

 

[LawrenceU]

He was striking against the hyper-Calvinist preaching of his day. It is something that we had better watch for in our day as well. I am seeing two distinct streams begin to form among many of the younger folks that 'discover' Reformed theology. The first want to contextualise it and become some sort of emergent Christian. The other become Hyper Calvinistic in their doctrine. So far neither of these are the majority, but the HC stream is growing larger.

 

[Pergamum]

Earl,

Spurgeon was being painstakingly clear in presenting the right balance between the sovereignty of God, and human responsibility. All men everywhere are called to repent. The preacher should proclaim the clear message of the gospel as though all are able to repent. It should not be so high-browed that it's sin forgiving message escapes all but the most learned in society. The ability to believe is given only to those whom God has called; the elect. But thank God that we don't know who the elect are. That is where the Calvinist preacher sometimes fails. He fails when he preaches as though he knows who is elect.

I hear you. Just saying that at our PCA church we don't hear enough on predestination other than "we believe it". Quite an assumption, no?

Is this "omission" because they are ashamed of predestination, or have they, rather, just moved on beyond these doctrines and assumed them as true?

I am among many who even have "sovereign grace" mentioned in the names of their church and during annual conferences, it often becomes a re-rehearsal of the 5 points. Ironically, in advocating the preaching of "the whole counsel of God" we can actually narrow our focus so much and over-emphasize some doctrines so much, that we also do not preach the whole counsel of God.

-----Added 12/13/2009 at 06:59:47 EST-----

He was striking against the hyper-Calvinist preaching of his day. It is something that we had better watch for in our day as well. I am seeing two distinct streams begin to form among many of the younger folks that 'discover' Reformed theology. The first want to contextualise it and become some sort of emergent Christian. The other become Hyper Calvinistic in their doctrine. So far neither of these are the majority, but the HC stream is growing larger.

What about a third stream of healthy, evangelistic calvinism? Are you also seeing that?

 

[earl40]

He was striking against the hyper-Calvinist preaching of his day. It is something that we had better watch for in our day as well. I am seeing two distinct streams begin to form among many of the younger folks that 'discover' Reformed theology. The first want to contextualise it and become some sort of emergent Christian. The other become Hyper Calvinistic in their doctrine. So far neither of these are the majority, but the HC stream is growing larger.

True. This is a battle I am on guard for.

 

[LawrenceU]

Earl,

Spurgeon was being painstakingly clear in presenting the right balance between the sovereignty of God, and human responsibility. All men everywhere are called to repent. The preacher should proclaim the clear message of the gospel as though all are able to repent. It should not be so high-browed that it's sin forgiving message escapes all but the most learned in society. The ability to believe is given only to those whom God has called; the elect. But thank God that we don't know who the elect are. That is where the Calvinist preacher sometimes fails. He fails when he preaches as though he knows who is elect.

I hear you. Just saying that at our PCA church we don't hear enough on predestination other than "we believe it". Quite an assumption, no?

Is this "omission" because they are ashamed of predestination, or have they, rather, just moved on beyond these doctrines and assumed them as true?

I am among many who even have "sovereign grace" mentioned in the names of their church and during annual conferences, it often becomes a re-rehearsal of the 5 points. Ironically, in advocating the preaching of "the whole counsel of God" we can actually narrow our focus so much and over-emphasize some doctrines so much, that we also do not preach the whole counsel of God.

-----Added 12/13/2009 at 06:59:47 EST-----

He was striking against the hyper-Calvinist preaching of his day. It is something that we had better watch for in our day as well. I am seeing two distinct streams begin to form among many of the younger folks that 'discover' Reformed theology. The first want to contextualise it and become some sort of emergent Christian. The other become Hyper Calvinistic in their doctrine. So far neither of these are the majority, but the HC stream is growing larger.

What about a third stream of healthy, evangelistic calvinism? Are you also seeing that?

Not as much as I would like. But, it is there.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I appreciate what Spurgeon is saying here. Owen says much the same thing in portion of his works on Sin and Temptation.

In fact, some accuse the Puritans of being too heavy on the Law because when they preached on the weightiness of the Law they preached it in such a way as to make men despair of themselves. It's not that they forgot the Gospel when they taught such things but there is a tendency among some to qualify every other sentence in a way that flattens out or mutes the full weight of some teaching.

The author of Hebrews does "re-double" at certain points in his exhortation to his audience but, for very long portions, warns against shrinking back. He doesn't leave the hearer with any sense other than it will be his own full responsibility before God if he neglects this great salvation. We can put this together, in the Analogy of Scripture, to understand how the pieces fit together but within certain pericopes and other immediate contexts we need to let the Scriptures speak at times and not mute the full weight of reproof that exists within them.

 

[jogri17]

we don't need to hear about predestination in every sermon. It's one doctrine out of many. We are to proclaim that Christ calls ALL to repentance and that anyone who comes to him will not perish. Anyone who wants salvation will get it nomatter how evil they are. In Christ, the atonement is sufficient for all.

 

[rbcbob]

The apostle Paul knew how to dare public opinion, and on one hand to preach the duty of man, and on the other the sovereignty of God… [But if you] become such a Calvinist that you shut your eyes to one half the Bible, and cannot see the responsibility of the sinner, [then] men will clap their hands, and cry Hallelujah! and on the backs of many you shall be hoisted to a throne, and become a very prince in their Israel. On the other hand, begin to preach mere morality, practice without doctrine, and you shall be elevated on other men's shoulders; you shall, if I may use such a figure, ride upon these asses into Jerusalem; and you shall hear them cry, Hosanna! and see them wave their palm branches before you. But once preach the whole counsel of God, and you shall have both parties down upon you; one crying, "The man is too high," the other saying, "No, he is too low;" the one will say, "He's a rank Arminian," the other, "He's a vile hyper- Calvinist."… How many there are kept in bondage through neglect of gospel invitations. They are longing to be saved. They go up to the house of God, crying to be saved; and there is nothing but predestination for them. On the other hand, what multitudes are kept in darkness through practical preaching. It is do! do! do! and nothing but do! and the poor souls come away and say: "Of what use is that to me? I can do nothing. Oh, that I had a way shown to me available for salvation.

Earl, was the sentence in bold type highlighted by you, and if so were you looking for input on it specifically?

 

[py3ak]

I wouldn't think so. The part you bolded would seem to be reacting against those who, when someone says, substantially, "What must I do to be saved" would reply, "Well, first you have to be one of the elect or the question doesn't even really make sense."

 

[earl40]

Earl, was the sentence in bold type highlighted by you, and if so were you looking for input on it specifically?

I highlighted it for discussion purposes.

-----Added 12/14/2009 at 03:23:26 EST-----

I wouldn't think so. The part you bolded would seem to be reacting against those who, when someone says, substantially, "What must I do to be saved" would reply, "Well, first you have to be one of the elect or the question doesn't even really make sense."

What a different time we live in. Maybe up north this happens, but here in Florida you don't have to worry about this issue. Which is probably why it jumped off the page at me because we have the opposite going on here.

 

[rbcbob]

Earl, was the sentence in bold type highlighted by you, and if so were you looking for input on it specifically?

I highlighted it for discussion purposes.

-----Added 12/14/2009 at 03:23:26 EST-----

I wouldn't think so. The part you bolded would seem to be reacting against those who, when someone says, substantially, "What must I do to be saved" would reply, "Well, first you have to be one of the elect or the question doesn't even really make sense."

What a different time we live in. Maybe up north this happens, but here in Florida you don't have to worry about this issue. Which is probably why it jumped off the page at me because we have the opposite going on here.

They are longing to be saved. They go up to the house of God, crying to be saved; and there is nothing but predestination for them

I could wish to understand pastor Spurgeon better on the bold print statement. The number of times that the unconverted have come into our assembly longing to be saved ... crying to God to be saved ... have been few indeed!

Thankfully there have been dozens who, although they did not arrive that way, somewhere in the preaching they became such while hearing of Christ's call to them.