Charles Spurgeon, 1834-1892, London, ministry began 1854.
See www.spurgeon.org for
everything Charles Spurgeon.
The last well known and perhaps the greatest of the pre-twentieth century
reformation preachers, he was a Baptist by career and association
for most of his life.
By age 20 he was the most popular preacher in London.
He preached to ten thousand people on a regular basis.
Spurgeon for most of his life preached unity within the church,
but near the end he resigned his association with the Baptist
convention, acusing them of heresy, watering down the word, unitarian
beliefs, higher criticism, and failing to police themselves and to
remove the heretics from among themselves.
He published a series of articles (written by Robert Shindler)
called the "Down-Grade". The imagery was that
of sliding downhill on a slippery slope, Shindler observed that all
denominations gradually become polluted with false doctrine.
He laid the blame primarily at the feet of the church leaders.
A few months later Spurgeon himself wrote on the controversy,
and thus embroiled in it he remained the focal point of it for
the duration.
Spurgeon was a five-point Calvinist. He taught TULIP in its fulness.
Here, John MacArthur comments on the downgrade controversy:
http://www.spurgeon.org/downgrd.htm
He opposed infant baptism, and disparaged it as paedobaptism. He was
one of the first major figures in church history (besides the anabaptists)
that taught this view and it is the other major controversy he
is remembered for.
He preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously
in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly
of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation
of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and
fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said
that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy.
He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this
guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.
But he said something that confused me for a long time and
said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God,
yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great
respect for the man.
The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians
are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition
of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their
view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible
Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance
I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who
aren't saved.
The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right
side of the line, but just barely, just a little more
confused thinking about other related issues and the line
is easily crossed. You don't have to get the finer points
of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required
and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only
if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment
is not sufficient to block salvation.
Spurgeon clearly articulated that those who hold to Arminianism
are on dangerous ground, ready to swallow more false doctrines until
their ship sinks. Sadly, Arminianism is the majority viewpoint
in today's professing Christian denominations.
I think that Spurgeon would be comforted however
to know of today's resurgence of Calvinistic thinking in the Southern
Baptist denomination (a historical descendent of his own denomination).
As time passes I realize that
Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition
of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the
Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy
that doesn't kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate,
if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you,
Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today
have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships
so there is no need to argue about Arminianism.
I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with
most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first
faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it
as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal
with a heretic who is outside the body.
I was not originally convinced by Spurgeon's arguments for the partial
atonement, His case was that they can't all be a blood bought,
atoned for people, who then inexplicably still go to hell. He admits
that disagreement with this doctrine is not heresy. And I believe
this is the key point you must grant to Arminianism in order
to conclude that they can be saved, thus Spurgeon is consistent.
I originally couldn't find any clear scriptures on the subject
and so thought this was a contentious doctrine not worth worrying about.
I wanted scriptures, more than just a good argument.
Arthur Pink later cleared this up for me, there are plenty
of scriptures saying the Shepherd dies for His sheep (John 10:11), that
He shall save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21), implying
quite strongly "but not the goats". See Pink's writeup on the
reconciliation. He has a section on the
scope
of it that clearly explains it
and gives lots of scripture references.
Spurgeon describes his position as one where the doctrine of grace is supreme.
In this part of his theology I wholly agree. Arminianism is essentially
salvation by works at its core (one work, that of believing God on your own).
eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--
and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
He acuses those who say the doctrine of grace is licentious of
being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of grace.
He believes that sound doctrine of grace is the only thing that will
truly liberate people from their sins. That the doctrine of grace,
far from being licentious, is the key to a righteous and holy life.
I believe the concept is that any other doctrine is that of pride and
therefore quenches the Spirit and prevents holy living, as we
are totally dependent upon God for such things.
The two most major controversies Spurgeon was involved in were
the down-grade series and years earlier he came out against
regeneration by baptism, the doctrine that says you are born-again
at the baptismal font, not when you come to Christ.
Interestingly we now generally accept both of Spurgeon's then controversial
teachings. We have seen the down-grade now so often that it is accepted
without argument today, although it is a far cry to give lip service to
the idea that heresy has a way of creeping in, to seeing church leaders
actively work to keep heresy out. We do still have denominations
who believe in infant baptism (notably the prebyterians),
and that a child who dies baptized will go to heaven and
a child who dies unbaptized goes to hell
(our Lutheran brothers for example). A study in Covenant Theology
is necessary to explain why they believe that, and why it is well
within Christian orthodoxy, which is beyond the scope of this document.
Spurgeon also had an interesting (and I believe excellent) attitude
about how to treat those he called heretics. He believed in treating
them with love and respect.
He never named names in public, although he would attack what he saw
as false doctrines enthusiastically and unapologetically.
There were many back then who advocated keeping so-called heretics
out of Church meetings,
literally refusing members of other denominations at the door.
He decried this as false religion and welcomed all to come to his meetings.
Of course he proceeded to trash their theology in no uncertain terms,
thus doing his best efforts to save them.
He never had a seminary education, but he had a library of 10,000 books.
He was also one of the most prolific authors of all time. The entire
sum of his writings would fill a small encyclopedia.
Spurgeon's style was not to debate the truth, as he was convinced of it,
rather he testified to the truth (his own description of his approach).
This means that he did not give doctrinal discourses very often.
His style was to assert the truth rather than to defend it as
he believed it needed no defense.
References: