I am writing this piece in
response to a comment posted on one of my messages posted on YouTube[1].
In the message I make mention of Spurgeon being considered "the prince of
preachers". Interestingly my remark in this particular message is not
necessarily a positive one, but meant to make a comparison to a more modern
preacher. Anyway, someone took exception and left a comment that Spurgeon was a
Calvinist, that he had written a book entitled "A Defense of Calvinism"
and that Spurgeon was the "prince of Devils".
I see absolutely no purpose for the spirit of a remark like that. The heart of some people is filled with such
vitriol that it is no wonder many in the world dislike Christians. Some
Christians make it a point to be dislikeable.
I am no Calvinist. I am
thoroughly convinced that Christ's death on the Cross was sufficient for
salvation of every human being in the world for all of the time of the world.
God would have all men to be saved. Christ's work is able to save all who come
to Him. The conviction of the Holy Spirit extends to all men.
I am no Calvinist. I am as
opposed to the reformers doctrine as to the papal traditions. I do not question
their sincerity, but sincerity is not the target. Truth is the mark we are
going for. That is a mark the Protestants of every stripe fell far short of.
Had they desired the truth they could have come out of Catholicism and united
with the Anabaptists that were all around them. They did not for two very
telling reasons:
The Anabaptist faith was much
too strict for them. They could not see how a church could survive with such
high standards for its people.
The Anabaptist conviction of
separation of church and state was incomprehensible to them. They could not
envision a church surviving without the aide of the government.
I am no Calvinist.
But neither am I an opponent of
a man like Spurgeon.
Since the person commenting on
my message brought up Spurgeon's book, "A Defense of Calvinism" I
looked it up and read it.[2]
First, it is not a book, but a
very short piece. I can't imagine this person could have even skimmed it and
still called it a book.
Second, it is hardly a defense
of Calvinism. Spurgeon does clearly call himself a Calvinist, but he calls
Calvinism a nickname. He does not see himself in a Calvinist movement and does
not align himself with the Protestant Calvin. Spurgeon does identify himself as
a Baptist in the piece but, like most Baptists in England in that era, saw
Calvinism as a doctrinal position and not a Protestant movement.
Thirdly,
Spurgeon does not, in this piece, connect himself with the egregious doctrines
of Calvinism but very clearly planned the piece to defend only one doctrine
associated with Calvinism, that of eternal security. Only the most ardent Arminian
would have any objection to that.
·
There is
no mention of total depravity
·
There is
no mention of unconditional election
·
There is
no mention of limited atonement
·
There is
no mention of irresistible grace
He
does speak of the doctrine of election but there is nothing of choosing some for hell. Spurgeon defines
Calvinism as, "… one who says, Salvation of the Lord." If this were all
that is Calvinism today, I would have little objection to the doctrine and only
object to its association to a man rather than the Bible.
I
confess it once again. I am no Calvinist. But neither do I see Spurgeon as a
devil
Marvin
McKenzie
In
the Fields
