Spurgeon Quotes: are these two quotes contradictory?

[Christian Liberty]

Disclaimer: I like Spurgeon a lot, but I'm not sure I can reconcile these two quotes. I've said things similar to both before, and the more I think about it, the more I think one of the quotes must be wrong.

Spurgeon says:

“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”

But then he turns around and says:

"The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is extremely important, but it does not involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend on our holding either system of theology. ... But, I think we are all free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitefield with equal fervor fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. ... We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future or even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency of spirit, believing that we are doing God's work and upholding most important truth."


I can see how one could argue for either of the above quotes being true, or for both being wrong. But I don't see how we can argue that both of these quotes are true. Are these quotes mutually contradictory?

[Nang]

I will offer a little anecdote to explain my "no" vote . . .

I have been sharing about time spent when first saved in an Arminian church, under that false teaching, which is ungodly without a doubt. But even in the darkness, God gave us revelations of truth; mostly through the Word of God, but even from conversations with the members of that church.

At a home bible study one evening, a quiet gentlemen, who almost never spoke up, said to the group "Faith is given to us from God."

His words went south with the others, and I don't remember even why he said them, but they hit me like a lightening bolt, and husband and I discussed that concept for hours later, and the incident added just one more piece to our coming to understand the sovereignty of God.

This gentleman died not too long after, and I have always wondered about his soul. How did he have this true insight, and speak it, if he were a child of the devil? Could have been accidental on his part, and not deliberate. I don't know and will never know until Judgment . . . but I still cannot find it in my heart to condemn him as reprobate, even though he spent his lifetime under wrong teaching. What he said was truth, and it blessed my soul.

So how can we judge the eternal destiny of Wesley. We can judge (evaluate) his teachings as wrong, but are we the judge of his fate? I think not, and I think that is what Spurgeon was trying to get across.

Let us judge our own conduct, and be faithful to Holy Scripture to warn others of wrong teachings and the hypocrisy and damage it causes . . without damning people to hell.

We have no right, for being like sinners, do not deserve the grace we have received.

[Christian Liberty]

I will offer a little anecdote to explain my "no" vote . . .

I have been sharing about time spent when first saved in an Arminian church, under that false teaching, which is ungodly without a doubt. But even in the darkness, God gave us revelations of truth; mostly through the Word of God, but even from conversations with the members of that church.

At a home bible study one evening, a quiet gentlemen, who almost never spoke up, said to the group "Faith is given to us from God."

His words went south with the others, and I don't remember even why he said them, but they hit me like a lightening bolt, and husband and I discussed that concept for hours later, and the incident added just one more piece to our coming to understand the sovereignty of God.

This gentleman died not too long after, and I have always wondered about his soul. How did he have this true insight, and speak it, if he were a child of the devil? Could have been accidental on his part, and not deliberate. I don't know and will never know until Judgment . . . but I still cannot find it in my heart to condemn him as reprobate, even though he spent his lifetime under wrong teaching. What he said was truth, and it blessed my soul.

So how can we judge the eternal destiny of Wesley. We can judge (evaluate) his teachings as wrong, but are we the judge of his fate? I think not, and I think that is what Spurgeon was trying to get across.

Let us judge our own conduct, and be faithful to Holy Scripture to warn others of wrong teachings and the hypocrisy and damage it causes . . without damning people to hell.

We have no right, for being like sinners, do not deserve the grace we have received.

I absolutely agree that we shouldn't damn people to Hell, but there are certainly cases where we should judge people unregenerate. I'm not sure that Arminianism is one of those. But, the Bible says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16-17.) It seems to me that this means its impossible to be saved without the gospel. That's not to say that we judge someone who appears to have died before the gospel as having definitively gone to Hell, God could have caused them to believe in their final moments, but it does say that people who don't believe the gospel are NOT YET saved.

Spurgeon is saying, on the one hand, that "Calvinism is the gospel". Of course, I know that he means by this the theological concepts behind the term, not the term itself. But, on the other hand, he says that eternal life does not "depend on holding either system of theology." I'm not sure how you can reconcile these two ideas without opening the door for even more blatant heretics (baptismal regenerationists, Catholics, heck, Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons) to be in a regenerated state while still holding to those heretical views.

There is no doubt that Arminianism is ungodly. But is it, even in its least harmful form, a "false gospel"? If it is, nobody who believes it is saved. I see no way out of this logically.

[Christian Liberty]

erowe1, is there any chance you could explain how you don't see a contradiction here? Because I still see one, and I know if anyone can convince me that there isn't one, you can.

[Nang]

I absolutely agree that we shouldn't damn people to Hell, but there are certainly cases where we should judge people unregenerate. I'm not sure that Arminianism is one of those. But, the Bible says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16-17.) It seems to me that this means its impossible to be saved without the gospel. That's not to say that we judge someone who appears to have died before the gospel as having definitively gone to Hell, God could have caused them to believe in their final moments, but it does say that people who don't believe the gospel are NOT YET saved.

Spurgeon is saying, on the one hand, that "Calvinism is the gospel". Of course, I know that he means by this the theological concepts behind the term, not the term itself. But, on the other hand, he says that eternal life does not "depend on holding either system of theology." I'm not sure how you can reconcile these two ideas without opening the door for even more blatant heretics (baptismal regenerationists, Catholics, heck, Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons) to be in a regenerated state while still holding to those heretical views.

There is no doubt that Arminianism is ungodly. But is it, even in its least harmful form, a "false gospel"? If it is, nobody who believes it is saved. I see no way out of this logically.

Arminianism is a false gospel and no man is saved who holds this false teaching in his head. We can read heads, and I agree that those who go along intellectually with lies, are unregenerate.

However, hearts cannot be judged. We cannot know them, or predict if and how the Lord might change the heart, even on a death bed or in a comatose state.

[Christian Liberty]

Arminianism is a false gospel and no man is saved who holds this false teaching in his head. We can read heads, and I agree that those who go along intellectually with lies, are unregenerate.

However, hearts cannot be judged. We cannot know them, or predict if and how the Lord might change the heart, even on a death bed or in a comatose state.

I agree that God can change anyone's heart, but does the Bible teach a head/heart dichotomy? And does the "I can't judge the heart" line also work for those who believe in baptismal regeneration, Roman Catholicism, deny the Trinity, or are polytheists? And if not, where do we absolutely draw the line between a false gospel where you can be "mixed up in the head but not in the heart" and why?

[Nang]

I agree that God can change anyone's heart, but does the Bible teach a head/heart dichotomy? And does the "I can't judge the heart" line also work for those who believe in baptismal regeneration, Roman Catholicism, deny the Trinity, or are polytheists? And if not, where do we absolutely draw the line between a false gospel where you can be "mixed up in the head but not in the heart" and why?

The only line we draw, is to stand for what comes out of their mouths. Do their words accord with scripture?

Beyond that, we have no right to go.

Rather, we need to be very careful of what comes out of our mouths, and whether our words accord with scripture. Right?

[Christian Liberty]

The only line we draw, is to stand for what comes out of their mouths. Do their words accord with scripture?

Beyond that, we have no right to go.

Well, my question goes further than that. THere are certain doctrines which may be wrong but clearly have nothing to do with salvation. We disagree on infant baptism, but that's clearly not a salvation issue. Its also not a gospel issue.

It seems to me that, Biblically, a gospel issue is a salvation issue. Do you disagree?

Rather, we need to be very careful of what comes out of our mouths, and whether our words accord with scripture. Right?

Of course I agree. But I of course think its possible for a Christian to say words that don't accord with scripture on non-gospel issues. By contrast, not so on gospel issues. Do you disagree with that? And if so, I'd love to see a scripture which says that you can be saved without believing the gospel.

[Brett85]

This whole debate just seems absurd to me. I don't think the members of my church even know what the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" even mean. It certainly has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is saved.

[Dr.3D]

This whole debate just seems absurd to me. I don't think the members of my church even know what the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" even mean. It certainly has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is saved.

Yeah, the poll needed a third option.... [It doesn't matter]

[Christian Liberty]

This whole debate just seems absurd to me. I don't think the members of my church even know what the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" even mean. It certainly has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is saved.

I don't really care about the terms, as I specified in the OP.

Regardless of your opinion on this issue, do you think Spurgeon's quotes contradict each other? That's the real question.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, the poll needed a third option.... [It doesn't matter]

No it didn't. If you don't care about a topic, don't post in it.

[Dr.3D]

No it didn't. If you don't care about a topic, don't post in it.

I was responding to TC.

[Brett85]

I guess I shouldn't have posted then, because I don't care about the topic and don't think it has anything at all to do with salvation.

[Christian Liberty]

I guess I shouldn't have posted then, because I don't care about the topic and don't think it has anything at all to do with salvation.

I'm not saying you have to believe its an essential to participate, but if you don't care about the topic I don't see why you'd even feel the need to post.

Can't you say its not a salvation issue and still care about the topic? In your case, I think you'd disagree with Spurgeon's first quote, and agree with Spurgeon's second quote. I'm pretty sure SF would agree with the first quote and disagree with the second one. But most Calvinists I know, and this includes me, have said things that resemble both of these quotes, and I'm curious if its actually possible to reconcile the two or if at least one of them is definitively wrong.

[Brett85]

I'm not saying you have to believe its an essential to participate, but if you don't care about the topic I don't see why you'd even feel the need to post.

Can't you say its not a salvation issue and still care about the topic? In your case, I think you'd disagree with Spurgeon's first quote, and agree with Spurgeon's second quote. I'm pretty sure SF would agree with the first quote and disagree with the second one. But most Calvinists I know, and this includes me, have said things that resemble both of these quotes, and I'm curious if its actually possible to reconcile the two or if at least one of them is definitively wrong.

Ok, I voted "yes." Those two statements do seem contradictory when you think about it.

[Christian Liberty]

Ok, I voted "yes." Those two statements do seem contradictory when you think about it.

Thanks. For the record, I'm just as open to the positions of people who think the first statement is "wrong" as the second one. There's no particular answer I'm looking for here. I don't have one yet. I'm just looking to discuss the statements themselves and whether there's any way to reconcile them theologically speaking. I don't think there is. I think one of the statements is wrong. I'm not certain which one right now.

[Sola_Fide]

It's things like this that make me question if Charles Spurgeon really knew the gospel of grace. Listen to what he is saying:

"The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is extremely important, but it does not involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend on our holding either system of theology. ... But, I think we are all free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitefield with equal fervor fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. ... We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future or even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency of spirit, believing that we are doing God's work and upholding most important truth."

He is saying that doctrine isn't important, it's this mysterious thing he calls "personal godliness" or "vital godliness"! This is works salvation, not sovereign grace!

You can have all the "works" in the world, if you believe your works count toward your merit before God (as Charles Spurgeon was suggesting here), you are not saved.

[Christian Liberty]

It's things like this that make me question if Charles Spurgeon really knew the gospel of grace. Listen to what he is saying:



He is saying that doctrine isn't important, it's this mysterious thing he calls "personal godliness" or "vital godliness"! This is works salvation, not sovereign grace!

You can have all the "works" in the world, if you believe your works count toward your merit before God (as Charles Spurgeon was suggesting here), you are not saved.

You're questioning Spurgeon? Man, it took a lot for me to even consider questioning Wesley

I happen to think Spurgeon is contradicting himself here, but that doesn't mean he wasn't saved


I don't think Spurgeon is saying doctrine isn't important.

First of all, he says the controversy is "extremely important", just not essential for salvation. I'm not sure how you could condemn him for saying that without condemning any other "tolerant calvinist." And personally, honestly, I think that's just a stupid rabbit trail. Am I unsaved if I think a tolerant trinitarian might be saved? Am I unsaved because I think someone who tolerates someone who tolerates a universalist is saved? (I've been told "yes" and not by Marc, incidentally.) I don't know, this kind of thing just strikes me as obsessing over judging rather than obsessing over the gospel. Its one thing to tell someone that they aren't saved because they don't have the gospel. Its another thing entirely to judge someone because they won't judge, which just strikes me as silly and leading to anathemizing basically everyone. I don't know what you see here, but the only thing I see is "you don't have to get this right in order to be saved." Which, again, strikes me as being the same as what any other "tolerant calvinist" would say. ANd he has at least one quote that at least arguably contradicts this anyway.

Second of all, I don't see him saying that holiness is what saves. If he ever said that, I'd agree he wasn't saved. But this quote implies nothing of the sort. All he's saying, again, is that you don't have to get this doctrine right in order to be godly. He's not saying ANY doctrine, he's saying any particular one. Similarly to how I've defended you against accusations that you claim you have to get EVERY doctrine right, Spurgeon is NOT saying you can get EVERY doctrine wrong.

[Nang]

Spurgeon was a dynamic preacher, but not a careful or thoroughly educated theologian.