On Spurgeon's "Calvinism is the gospel"
Okay, I give! I'm starting up this blog again. Didn't intend to, but I can't stop myself now. So here we go...
In the comment section of the Soteriology 101 post "Calvinism Obscures the Simple Gospel", Jeff left this comment, sharing an article that had the famous sermon from Calvinist Charles Spurgeon:
Jeff writes:
“Charles Spurgeon: “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.” JULY 4, 2014 / DREW MERY
If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind as to whether or not the so-called “Prince of preachers” was a Calvinist, let the following quotation, taken from his sermon on 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 (“Christ Crucified”), settle it in your minds–Spurgeon was most definitely a Calvinist.
"And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. 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, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; 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 believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, ‘We have not so learned Christ.’ [Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. I (Baker Books, reprinted 2007), 88-89.]
And then Jeff asks: "How should we respond [to this]?"
I replied (adjusted for better clarity):
Hi Jeff, I don’t care if he is the “prince of preachers,” Spurgeon is wrong. Calvinists put far too much stock in what certain men say, “giants of the faith,” as if they couldn’t be wrong. They turn these men’s opinions into gospel, creeds, confessions, doctrines, etc.
To break it down, “justification by faith without works” is correct. But the Calvinist’s definitions of “faith” and “works” are so wrong that it makes the Calvinist use of this phrase wrong. They believe that faith is something God injects into the elect, not simply believing in Jesus/committing to Him. And they think that “believing in Jesus” is a “working for salvation” thing.
But God Himself differentiates “belief/faith” from the kind of actions people do to try to earn salvation: Romans 4:3-6: “‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:”
In God’s eyes, “believing in/trusting God” is not considered a “working to earn salvation” kind of works. God contrasts Abraham’s belief/trust with those who “work” for their justification and righteousness. He’s saying that believing and trusting are different than the other kinds of “works” people do to try to earn their way with Him.
And not only that, but God Himself says that believing is the one “work” we must do to be saved, our responsibility: “Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'” (John 6:28-29)
But Calvinists say “Well, we can’t work our way to heaven, and belief is a work, so we can’t believe, so God has to do it for us.” They have wrongly decided that belief is a work, thereby changing the whole concept of salvation and the gospel. (And if we say that we think God allows us to choose to believe or not believe, they accuse us of taking credit for our salvation, instead of giving the glory to God. It’s all manipulation and word games.)
Additionally, they have wrong definitions/understandings of sovereignty, grace, elect, love (God’s), etc. Therefore, while some of what they say might sound good on the surface, it’s all unbiblical rot underneath, completely different than the Bible’s plain, easily-understood, commonsense message.
Also, I find it ironic that Spurgeon cannot comprehend a gospel that would “suffer the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed,” but he’s okay with the idea of a Calvinist gospel that suffers the majority of people to burn in the fires of damnation for the sins and unbelief God caused them to do, that they had no choice about, no control over, and that they couldn’t change.
Such a "gospel" I abhor!
And let’s not forget John Calvin’s evanescent grace. I wonder what Spurgeon would say about the idea that God sometimes gives non-elect people a fake, temporary faith that makes them feel saved for a little while (so much so that they don’t know there’s a difference between them and the elect), just so that He can abandon them, smite them with greater blindness. and punish them harder in hell.
From Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 3 chapter 2 section 11 (emphasis added):”I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the REPROBATE, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that THE REPROBATE ARE SOMETIMES AFFECTED IN A WAY SO SIMILAR TO THE ELECT, THAT EVEN IN THEIR OWN JUDGMENT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a TEMPORARY FAITH, IS ASCRIBED TO THEM. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, THE BETTER TO CONVICT THEM, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.”
And from his book 3 chapter 24 section 8: “… there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, EVEN THOSE FOR WHOM HE DESIGNS THE CALL TO BE A SAVOR OF DEATH, and the ground of a SEVERER CONDEMNATION. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, AND WHOM AFTERWARDS, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONES AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS.”
Calvin is saying that Calvi-god gives some non-elect people (reprobates) a fake, temporary call/grace/faith (evanescent grace) to trick them into thinking that they are one of the elect, that they are securely saved ... when they're not. And this feeling is so real that they can’t tell a difference. But eventually this “grace/faith” fades, proving that they were never elect to begin with. And Calvi-god does this – gives them a temporary faith that they later reject (but don’t forget that Calvi-god made them reject it) – to “better convict them,” to make their punishment more justified, to have more reason to abandon them in hell and smite them with greater blindness. (As if they deserved it. And as if it wasn’t enough to just predestine them to hell for his pleasure and glory, with no chance to be saved anyway. Calvinism’s god is a twisted, sick god!)
How’s that for Calvinism’s gospel and the assurance of salvation!
(And I would love to see if a Calvinist can find one verse – just one – that plainly, clearly teaches this garbage!)
I wonder what Spurgeon would say about that. So he’s not okay with the idea of a saved person falling away from salvation (fyi, I don’t think a true believe can lose salvation either), but he’s okay with a person being tricked by God into thinking they are truly saved but then falling away? What’s the difference? How is it more comforting to a Calvinist to think the elect cannot fall away but to think that people can think they are elect but then fall away? How can a Calvinist know for sure that they are truly elect instead of one of the non-elect tricked by evanescent grace until they die?
When it comes down to it, it’s very telling (to me) that the Bible can share the gospel in one verse, John 3:16, but Calvinists take hundreds and hundreds of pages to explain it and spend months and months studying Calvinist books to understand it (in their own Calvinist way). And even then, they have so many loose-ends and contradictions that they have to go “Oh, well, we can’t understand God anyway. His ways are so far above ours. Who are we to question Him anyway?”
And it’s all because they will not take the Bible at face value. They will not accept that when God commands us to believe, it means we can believe. They will not accept that when God says He wants all people to be saved and that Jesus died for all people, it means that salvation is available to all people because Jesus died for all people and God really does want all people to be saved.
The gospel is simple. It’s Calvinists who complicate it.
Good questions, Jeff! Lots of deep thinking.
