Following this argument, Russell goes on to say that the injustice that is prevalent in the world is a reason to doubt God’s existence. While Christians would maintain that even defining what is just is impossible without a Deity to base such realities upon, Russell says that justice does not rule at present and so there is no reason to think it will in the future. The question still remains for Russell: What is justice? How is it determined? The answer is a subjective one in the ultimate sense if there cannot be a Judge to put forward a system of justice, and thus the entire premise crumbles under its own weight. On the contrary, although justice is not necessarily prevalent in any given society, justice as a concept, and in many cases, in practice, still exists, and its existence gives reason for the existence of a Deity. More than anything, the absence of justice speaks to the inherent evil in man and longsuffering of a holy God.
Russell could not believe in Christ, in particular, because he maintained that while Jesus was a good prophet and good man, to a large extent, he was a cruel, delusional teacher who in the end was a sadist.[1] The atheist held firm that hell was a despicable concept and one that would lend itself to an unloving Deity. Christians’ belief in this Deity showed their delusion as well. The whole idea that eternal punishment would be reserved for those who would refuse to submit to His arbitrary will is a tragic, unjust way of looking at reality. And in the end, reality does not conform to the Christian position because Christianity and religion in general, actually inhibits morality. While Christians follow their God supremely out of fear of retribution, those who are truly liberated will pursue the fulfillment and full expression of their desires.
Yet, the fullest, most satisfying expression of our desires is not found in the physical but in the spiritual. Unfortunately the brand of Christianity that Russell was exposed to was a far cry from the gospel of Christ, because a knowledge which is truly satisfying is that which embraces the Infinite; love which is truly joyous is that which is eternally increasing. “…For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
The analytic philosophical contribution of Bertrand Russell cannot be denied. He brought to the forefront an ideological system of beliefs that made logical constructions and inferences upon scientific perception and experimentation the main criteria for truth propositions. However, his materialistic belief that nature is all there is in the end demonstrated some of the philosophical inconsistencies in his position. When studying science and mathematics, Russell sought to show that inferences could be drawn to metaphysics because of logical systems that were consistent with physics. But by denying the reality of the order and design that is seen in the physical realm, and by repeatedly contradicting that which he saw in the physical realm, he put into question the very structure of the logical constructions of meaning that his entire philosophy depended upon. Unfortunately, then, his ultimate aim to increase love through knowledge for the purpose of the elimination of suffering was quite unattainable indeed.
[1]Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 44-47.
Thursday, May 13
Bertrand Russell's Atheism Part Three
Closely related to the natural law argument is the argument from design. Just like we see laws in the universe which direct causes and effects and presuppose a Lawgiver, the argument goes, so we see design in the universe, which presuppose a Designer. The second law of thermodynamics makes this clear as well. While atheists must hold that the universe is increasingly becoming more orderly from an evolutionary standpoint, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is tending toward disorder. Russell argues that this world is not orderly, but instead a makeup of wars, fascism, tragedy, and hate, and to assume that this is the best that omnipotence and omniscience could do is an insult to the idea of a god. He believed and adhered to the second law of thermodynamics and reasoned that since we are moving toward disorder in a social way, nevertheless we are moving toward order from an evolutionary way. Thus, he contradicts himself in adhering to natural selection and the positive evolution of the species and in the same breath adhering to a deterioration of the social order. But still later he thought that a utopia was possible through human knowledge and world government. So which one is it? This author would say that the social and physical order is deteriorating and there is nothing that can be done in a moralistic sense to create heaven on earth without the transforming power of the gospel. That is what living in an imperfect world is all about. But to say that the single simple cell is not complex and orderly is a complete reversal of modern examinations of the entity that is much more complex than a computer. And the idea of order and design being evidence of randomness is hardly a logical construction based upon scientific observations and postulates.
In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason the philosopher states that there would be no right and wrong if God did not exist. Absolute rightness and wrongness would come down to a matter of opinion and thus chaos would result. Obviously what is true and false comes from outside of the individual, otherwise multiple competing standards would be said to be true at the same time, running counter to the Law of Non-Contradiction. In essence, this is the moral argument that Russell attempts to refute next.
Is that difference [between right and wrong] due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say…that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat…[and] that they are logically anterior to God.[1]
Russell does not seem to follow the beliefs of theologians about the nature of God and His law. For while right and wrong differ because of His decree, His decree is based upon His nature, not just a random, whimsical determination. If rightness and wrongness stem from Himself and His nature than it is significant to say that God is good. Thus, rightness is bound up in the Person of God and is not anterior to God. Russell does not examine where moral law comes from in his system but does in a later work mention that we are the ones create value and our desires confirm it. The one absolute that he seems to place above all others is that of love, which is the fulfillment of our desires and the well-wishing of the fulfillment of others. Thus, when is moral if one to the best of one’s ability lives for their own happiness insofar as it promotes and brings about the happiness of others.[2] Ultimately, morality comes down the will of the majority because of the need for self-preservation. Yet, this could lead to problems if a society deems what is best is the killing of those who are of less use to society, say for instance the elderly or the unborn for economic and social reasons. In this case, when everyone has their desires fulfilled, there are nevertheless moral codes that would be in question, to put it mildly. In addition, if living a good life is purely to bring about satisfaction in the real sense while maintaining that physical extinction will inevitably result, one is in a sad state in which living a moral life is ultimately meaningless.
[1]Ibid, 12.
[2] Bertrand Russell. What I Believe (E. P. Dutton and Company: New York, NY), 24-25.
In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason the philosopher states that there would be no right and wrong if God did not exist. Absolute rightness and wrongness would come down to a matter of opinion and thus chaos would result. Obviously what is true and false comes from outside of the individual, otherwise multiple competing standards would be said to be true at the same time, running counter to the Law of Non-Contradiction. In essence, this is the moral argument that Russell attempts to refute next.
Is that difference [between right and wrong] due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say…that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat…[and] that they are logically anterior to God.[1]
Russell does not seem to follow the beliefs of theologians about the nature of God and His law. For while right and wrong differ because of His decree, His decree is based upon His nature, not just a random, whimsical determination. If rightness and wrongness stem from Himself and His nature than it is significant to say that God is good. Thus, rightness is bound up in the Person of God and is not anterior to God. Russell does not examine where moral law comes from in his system but does in a later work mention that we are the ones create value and our desires confirm it. The one absolute that he seems to place above all others is that of love, which is the fulfillment of our desires and the well-wishing of the fulfillment of others. Thus, when is moral if one to the best of one’s ability lives for their own happiness insofar as it promotes and brings about the happiness of others.[2] Ultimately, morality comes down the will of the majority because of the need for self-preservation. Yet, this could lead to problems if a society deems what is best is the killing of those who are of less use to society, say for instance the elderly or the unborn for economic and social reasons. In this case, when everyone has their desires fulfilled, there are nevertheless moral codes that would be in question, to put it mildly. In addition, if living a good life is purely to bring about satisfaction in the real sense while maintaining that physical extinction will inevitably result, one is in a sad state in which living a moral life is ultimately meaningless.
[1]Ibid, 12.
[2] Bertrand Russell. What I Believe (E. P. Dutton and Company: New York, NY), 24-25.
Monday, May 3
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part Five
Perseverance of the Saints
All of those for whom Christ died will certainly persevere to the end. There is no one for which Christ has suffered who will not see eternity (John 6:44) and this truth propelled Spurgeon to call for sinners to accept a triumphant Savior. It propelled Spurgeon to call for sin-killing warfare and evangelistic outreach, knowing that all those who would trust in Christ, will indeed be finally saved and would not fall away. Otherwise, the determination of man, the will power of man and his strength become the main factor in one remaining saved. Instead God is the one who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). The Holy Spirit is the one who will bring us to faith and the Holy Spirit is the One who will cause us to endure to the end and this is because God is faithful: “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24).
The faithfulness of Christ in fulfilling His promises is the only sure thing that the Christian can hold onto. If we cannot believe the promises of Almighty God, what can we believe? If the Word of God has fallen and will continue to fall by the enemy of the flesh or Satan, our zealousness, our steadfastness, and our joy is greatly diminished. It is precisely this that Spurgeon argues in his sermon, “Enduring to the End”:
“What is he worth as a mediator of the covenant and the surety of it, if he hath not made the promises sure to all the seed? My brethren, Christ is made a leader and commander of the people, to bring many souls into glory; but if he doth not bring them into glory, where is the Captain’s honor? Where is the efficacy of the precious blood, if it does not effectually redeem? If it only redeemeth for a time, and then suffereth us to perish, where is its value?”[1]
This robust doctrinal truth brought Spurgeon to practical awareness and trust in the God of the Bible who is able to keep us from falling. What the “prince of preachers” saw to be reality in the Scriptures pushed him to prayer, to watchfulness, to joy in a faithful God, rather than to apathy.[2] So then, he could with confidence preach the gospel and teach such truths, finding that the Holy Spirit used them to keep believers within the flock of God.
Conclusion
Throughout the lifetime of Spurgeon, many called him a Calvinist in a derisive way. They said that because the Baptist preacher was so concerned about doctrine and so wrapped up in his minor theological points, many would be perishing while he was attending to his books and divisively preaching. This charge is nothing new, as many today believe that the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism” are unnecessary doctrines and are far from the mission foundation of Jesus and his disciples. Indeed many see Calvinism as a discouragement to the believer, and therefore an inhibitor to going into the entire world and preaching the gospel to all nations.
Yet far from discouraging missions, evangelism and discipleship is greatly enhanced by the realization and love of these truths. Just as Paul exhorted Timothy in his ministry with the foundation of salvation being all of grace, so too Spurgeon encouraged those around him to have their minds fixed on the certainty that only God can save, only Christ can redeem, and only the Holy Spirit can convict and cause the believer to endure to the end. This full-orbed understanding of the depravity of man and the particular electing grace of God which captivates the sinner with His beauty not only gives hope to the Christian, but most glorifies God, for it is in this light that Christ shines brightest and the gospel seems sweetest. All men are desperate sinners who need a Savior, and it is only grace, only Christ’s substitutionary atonement for His elect that will bring many sons to glory. So we can preach this good news, knowing full well that God’s purposes cannot be thwarted.
“If I had to tell you that you were to work out your own salvation apart from His grace, it would be an impossible prospect for you. Instead, it comes to you in this way: Filthy, there is washing for you! Dead, there is life for you! Naked, there is raiment for you! All undone and ruined, here is complete salvation for you! O soul, may you have the grace given to you to grasp it, and then you and I together will sing the praises of the glory of divine grace.”[3]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 8—“Enduring to the End” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 165.
[2] Ibid, 167.
[3] Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Grace: God’s Unmerited Favor (Whitaker House: New Kensington, PA), 61.
All of those for whom Christ died will certainly persevere to the end. There is no one for which Christ has suffered who will not see eternity (John 6:44) and this truth propelled Spurgeon to call for sinners to accept a triumphant Savior. It propelled Spurgeon to call for sin-killing warfare and evangelistic outreach, knowing that all those who would trust in Christ, will indeed be finally saved and would not fall away. Otherwise, the determination of man, the will power of man and his strength become the main factor in one remaining saved. Instead God is the one who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). The Holy Spirit is the one who will bring us to faith and the Holy Spirit is the One who will cause us to endure to the end and this is because God is faithful: “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24).
The faithfulness of Christ in fulfilling His promises is the only sure thing that the Christian can hold onto. If we cannot believe the promises of Almighty God, what can we believe? If the Word of God has fallen and will continue to fall by the enemy of the flesh or Satan, our zealousness, our steadfastness, and our joy is greatly diminished. It is precisely this that Spurgeon argues in his sermon, “Enduring to the End”:
“What is he worth as a mediator of the covenant and the surety of it, if he hath not made the promises sure to all the seed? My brethren, Christ is made a leader and commander of the people, to bring many souls into glory; but if he doth not bring them into glory, where is the Captain’s honor? Where is the efficacy of the precious blood, if it does not effectually redeem? If it only redeemeth for a time, and then suffereth us to perish, where is its value?”[1]
This robust doctrinal truth brought Spurgeon to practical awareness and trust in the God of the Bible who is able to keep us from falling. What the “prince of preachers” saw to be reality in the Scriptures pushed him to prayer, to watchfulness, to joy in a faithful God, rather than to apathy.[2] So then, he could with confidence preach the gospel and teach such truths, finding that the Holy Spirit used them to keep believers within the flock of God.
Conclusion
Throughout the lifetime of Spurgeon, many called him a Calvinist in a derisive way. They said that because the Baptist preacher was so concerned about doctrine and so wrapped up in his minor theological points, many would be perishing while he was attending to his books and divisively preaching. This charge is nothing new, as many today believe that the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism” are unnecessary doctrines and are far from the mission foundation of Jesus and his disciples. Indeed many see Calvinism as a discouragement to the believer, and therefore an inhibitor to going into the entire world and preaching the gospel to all nations.
Yet far from discouraging missions, evangelism and discipleship is greatly enhanced by the realization and love of these truths. Just as Paul exhorted Timothy in his ministry with the foundation of salvation being all of grace, so too Spurgeon encouraged those around him to have their minds fixed on the certainty that only God can save, only Christ can redeem, and only the Holy Spirit can convict and cause the believer to endure to the end. This full-orbed understanding of the depravity of man and the particular electing grace of God which captivates the sinner with His beauty not only gives hope to the Christian, but most glorifies God, for it is in this light that Christ shines brightest and the gospel seems sweetest. All men are desperate sinners who need a Savior, and it is only grace, only Christ’s substitutionary atonement for His elect that will bring many sons to glory. So we can preach this good news, knowing full well that God’s purposes cannot be thwarted.
“If I had to tell you that you were to work out your own salvation apart from His grace, it would be an impossible prospect for you. Instead, it comes to you in this way: Filthy, there is washing for you! Dead, there is life for you! Naked, there is raiment for you! All undone and ruined, here is complete salvation for you! O soul, may you have the grace given to you to grasp it, and then you and I together will sing the praises of the glory of divine grace.”[3]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 8—“Enduring to the End” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 165.
[2] Ibid, 167.
[3] Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Grace: God’s Unmerited Favor (Whitaker House: New Kensington, PA), 61.
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part Four
Irresistible Grace
The comfort that comes from knowing Christ’s atonement accomplishes fully and absolutely what it was intended for extends to comfort when responses from unrepentant sinners are less than favorable. To know that God will save those whom He has chosen, that God will redeem those whom He died for, causes the evangelist to rest in the Holy Spirit, knowing that He will overcome the reprobate’s heart in the way that He sees fit. Sinners who are “dead in their trespasses and sins,” who have hearts that are stone, who do not desire spiritual things because they are foolishness to them, will not and cannot come to Christ for forgiveness, with the caveat that God will overcome the will of man and make His glory, His person, His forgiveness irresistible when He chooses. This method of salvation is not a miniscule reference point, but an aspect that affects the evangelists practice and heart and glorifies Christ most.
In speaking of an informative passage that concerns the salvation of man Spurgeon was set on explaining its relationship even to the decision making process of the unbeliever’s conversion. The One who has called us with a holy calling did so, “not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Timothy 1:9). Since “salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9) and because “no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), it stands to reason that God’s purpose and grace are the only things which can cause salvation, from beginning to end. No facet of the unbeliever, turned believer can be based on man, not even his choice—it is all of grace. His forthrightness concerning this truth in preaching and writing is evident in calling anything less “a manifest absurdity,” and when talking to those who were not yet saved, mentioned their utter and complete inability to come apart from the irresistible grace of God who makes us willing in the day of His power:
“If ever you are saved, my dear one, you will have to confess that you never deserved or merited one single blessing from the God of grace. You will have to give all the glory to His holy name if you ever get to heaven. Note that even in the matter of the acceptance of this offered mercy, you will never receive it unless He makes you willing. He does freely present it to every one of you, and He honestly bids you to come to Christ and live. However, I know that you will never come of your own accord, unless the effectual grace that first provided mercy makes you willing to accept that mercy by the working of the Holy Spirit. Thus, our text tells us it is “according to his own purpose and grace.”[1]
Giving “all the glory to [God’s] holy name” was central for Spurgeon because he saw it to be central to the purpose for which the Father created the world. Boasting was to be excluded in all of one’s claims for acceptance with God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Humbly offering empty hands to our Savior and simply clinging to His righteousness was the only means to be saved. And even doing this is a work of God’s grace, for man is unable to come because his will is in bondage to sin and therefore will continue to stiff-arm the God of salvation until His heart is illumined.
One could argue, “If no one can be saved apart from God’s revelation and manifestation of Himself, why preach? Only the Spirit can accomplish this work.” It is true that only the Spirit can accomplish this and no amount of persuasion, eloquence, or logical arguments can bring about belief, but just as God ordains ends, He ordains means to those ends. So, in Acts Paul and Barnabas and others preached, very well knowing that only those who were appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48). And Paul exhorted Timothy the centrality of the grace of God in belief when pressing him to ministry. This is no coincidence. “…Paul, in order to excite Timothy to boldness and to keep him constant in the faith, reminded him of the great doctrine that the grace of God reigns in the salvation of men…Paul did so with the design of maintaining Timothy in the boldness of his testimony for Christ.”[2]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Grace: God’s Unmerited Favor (Whitaker House: New Kensington, PA), 39, 51.
[2]Ibid., 34.
The comfort that comes from knowing Christ’s atonement accomplishes fully and absolutely what it was intended for extends to comfort when responses from unrepentant sinners are less than favorable. To know that God will save those whom He has chosen, that God will redeem those whom He died for, causes the evangelist to rest in the Holy Spirit, knowing that He will overcome the reprobate’s heart in the way that He sees fit. Sinners who are “dead in their trespasses and sins,” who have hearts that are stone, who do not desire spiritual things because they are foolishness to them, will not and cannot come to Christ for forgiveness, with the caveat that God will overcome the will of man and make His glory, His person, His forgiveness irresistible when He chooses. This method of salvation is not a miniscule reference point, but an aspect that affects the evangelists practice and heart and glorifies Christ most.
In speaking of an informative passage that concerns the salvation of man Spurgeon was set on explaining its relationship even to the decision making process of the unbeliever’s conversion. The One who has called us with a holy calling did so, “not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Timothy 1:9). Since “salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9) and because “no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), it stands to reason that God’s purpose and grace are the only things which can cause salvation, from beginning to end. No facet of the unbeliever, turned believer can be based on man, not even his choice—it is all of grace. His forthrightness concerning this truth in preaching and writing is evident in calling anything less “a manifest absurdity,” and when talking to those who were not yet saved, mentioned their utter and complete inability to come apart from the irresistible grace of God who makes us willing in the day of His power:
“If ever you are saved, my dear one, you will have to confess that you never deserved or merited one single blessing from the God of grace. You will have to give all the glory to His holy name if you ever get to heaven. Note that even in the matter of the acceptance of this offered mercy, you will never receive it unless He makes you willing. He does freely present it to every one of you, and He honestly bids you to come to Christ and live. However, I know that you will never come of your own accord, unless the effectual grace that first provided mercy makes you willing to accept that mercy by the working of the Holy Spirit. Thus, our text tells us it is “according to his own purpose and grace.”[1]
Giving “all the glory to [God’s] holy name” was central for Spurgeon because he saw it to be central to the purpose for which the Father created the world. Boasting was to be excluded in all of one’s claims for acceptance with God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Humbly offering empty hands to our Savior and simply clinging to His righteousness was the only means to be saved. And even doing this is a work of God’s grace, for man is unable to come because his will is in bondage to sin and therefore will continue to stiff-arm the God of salvation until His heart is illumined.
One could argue, “If no one can be saved apart from God’s revelation and manifestation of Himself, why preach? Only the Spirit can accomplish this work.” It is true that only the Spirit can accomplish this and no amount of persuasion, eloquence, or logical arguments can bring about belief, but just as God ordains ends, He ordains means to those ends. So, in Acts Paul and Barnabas and others preached, very well knowing that only those who were appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48). And Paul exhorted Timothy the centrality of the grace of God in belief when pressing him to ministry. This is no coincidence. “…Paul, in order to excite Timothy to boldness and to keep him constant in the faith, reminded him of the great doctrine that the grace of God reigns in the salvation of men…Paul did so with the design of maintaining Timothy in the boldness of his testimony for Christ.”[2]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Grace: God’s Unmerited Favor (Whitaker House: New Kensington, PA), 39, 51.
[2]Ibid., 34.
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part Three
Limited Atonement
What flows from the total depravity of man and the unconditional election of God is an atonement that is limited to those whom Christ has chosen. If Christ has come into the world to save every individual without exception, then the Person whom we worship is a defeated Savior. If indeed God has purposed to atone for the sins of all without exception, and not just the many He has elected, He is unsuccessful in His attempt at this endeavor. Spurgeon is just as passionate about this truth then all of the others. He believes that the purpose in Christ’s death and resurrection was to save the Lord’s people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) and accomplished perfection for those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Jesus’ crucifixion did not make salvation possible, it actualized salvation, made it a reality for His people. And if it is a reality and will bring about the obedience of faith and not all believe, then the extent of the atonement must be limited to the elect.
Spurgeon interprets Isaiah 53:10 along these same lines. When the Scriptures speak of the Messiah “seeing His seed” and “justifying many,” it is not speaking of general possibilities. “Shalls” and “Wills” actualize it and make it a certainty. The purpose for which Christ came was certain and fixed: to redeem His own and actualize it, not to open the possibility for men to actualize it by their ultimate self-determination. This bold preacher was not afraid of being called a Calvinist for supporting such a truth either: “I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.”[1]
Key to Spurgeon’s gospel call and evangelical witness was to have this in mind. Confidence in the gospel and in the atonement of Christ in actually saving and not ultimately depending on the determination of man was central to belief in the saving working of God. We do not know who is elect, who is atoned for, or what the precise extent of the atonement is. What we do know is that Christ will save those who call upon His name, and thus going into all the world and teaching those things which have been commanded (Matthew 28:18-20) is necessary. In fact, if the opposite position is held that Christ died for everyone, consistency calls for little, if any comfort.
“The limit of it is just this: He hath died for sinners; whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him; whoever seeks Christ, shall know Christ died for him; for our sense of need of Christ, and our seeking after Christ, are infallible proofs that Christ died for us…The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefore, for he says, ‘Ah! Christ died for me; that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may perhaps forget myself; I may run into sin and I may perish…But the man who receives the Bible as it is, he says, ‘Christ died for me, then my eternal life is sure. I know,’ says he, ‘that Christ can not be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards.’”[2]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 4—“The Death of Christ” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 219.
[2]Ibid, 219.
What flows from the total depravity of man and the unconditional election of God is an atonement that is limited to those whom Christ has chosen. If Christ has come into the world to save every individual without exception, then the Person whom we worship is a defeated Savior. If indeed God has purposed to atone for the sins of all without exception, and not just the many He has elected, He is unsuccessful in His attempt at this endeavor. Spurgeon is just as passionate about this truth then all of the others. He believes that the purpose in Christ’s death and resurrection was to save the Lord’s people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) and accomplished perfection for those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Jesus’ crucifixion did not make salvation possible, it actualized salvation, made it a reality for His people. And if it is a reality and will bring about the obedience of faith and not all believe, then the extent of the atonement must be limited to the elect.
Spurgeon interprets Isaiah 53:10 along these same lines. When the Scriptures speak of the Messiah “seeing His seed” and “justifying many,” it is not speaking of general possibilities. “Shalls” and “Wills” actualize it and make it a certainty. The purpose for which Christ came was certain and fixed: to redeem His own and actualize it, not to open the possibility for men to actualize it by their ultimate self-determination. This bold preacher was not afraid of being called a Calvinist for supporting such a truth either: “I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.”[1]
Key to Spurgeon’s gospel call and evangelical witness was to have this in mind. Confidence in the gospel and in the atonement of Christ in actually saving and not ultimately depending on the determination of man was central to belief in the saving working of God. We do not know who is elect, who is atoned for, or what the precise extent of the atonement is. What we do know is that Christ will save those who call upon His name, and thus going into all the world and teaching those things which have been commanded (Matthew 28:18-20) is necessary. In fact, if the opposite position is held that Christ died for everyone, consistency calls for little, if any comfort.
“The limit of it is just this: He hath died for sinners; whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him; whoever seeks Christ, shall know Christ died for him; for our sense of need of Christ, and our seeking after Christ, are infallible proofs that Christ died for us…The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefore, for he says, ‘Ah! Christ died for me; that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may perhaps forget myself; I may run into sin and I may perish…But the man who receives the Bible as it is, he says, ‘Christ died for me, then my eternal life is sure. I know,’ says he, ‘that Christ can not be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards.’”[2]
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 4—“The Death of Christ” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 219.
[2]Ibid, 219.
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part Two
Unconditional Election
Because men are dead in their trespasses and sins due of the Fall and cannot believe due to their sinful hearts, it logically follows that if one is to be saved, it does not happen haphazardly. If one is to choose the Christ of the Scriptures, such a choice must come from God ultimately, not man. This truth is manifest in the Bible, and not just a logical inference. “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain…” (John 15:16).
The fact that this election is unconditional or not based on anything in man, seen or foreseen (including future decisions of faith) is evident in Romans 9:11, 16: “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger’…So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Spurgeon argued that such passages demonstrated the absoluteness of this election:
“If men can not be justified by the works of the law, it seems to us pretty clear that they can not be elected by the works of the law…Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. ‘But,’ say others, ‘God elected them on the foresight of their faith.’ Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense…Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from him. Therefore it can not have caused him to elect men, because it is his gift.”[1]
The implications of such a reality are clear to Spurgeon. This doctrine may frighten some, but it should embolden Christians for one and humble man since they have nothing to offer to God—even their faith is a result of the eternal purpose of God.
“But, I say, take courage, take hope, O thou sinner, that there is election. So far from dispiriting and discouraging thee, it is a very hopeful and joyous thing that there is an election. What if I told thee perhaps none can be saved, none are ordained to eternal life, wouldst thou not tremble and fold thy hands in hopelessness, and say, ‘Then how can I be saved, since none are elect?’…What though there is an allotted number, yet it is true that all who seek belong to that number.”[2]
Unconditional election was not a hindrance to the gospel calls of Spurgeon by any means. Instead he saw that belief was still a necessary requisite for salvation and those that were to believe would be the elect. God moves in and through the calls for trust in the Messiah to work His purposes and effectually call His elect. To this preacher, there was no reason to abandon the theological truth of election, thinking that it may cause some to be apathetic. On the contrary, this doctrine sent Spurgeon to show the complete failure of man, even with regard to decisions, and show the complete sovereignty of God, even as it relates to calling a people for His own treasured possession. By doing so, those who are truly elect will indeed see their sin as an abomination and turn to the Redeemer for forgiveness.
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 2—“Election” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 77.
[2]Ibid, 86.
Because men are dead in their trespasses and sins due of the Fall and cannot believe due to their sinful hearts, it logically follows that if one is to be saved, it does not happen haphazardly. If one is to choose the Christ of the Scriptures, such a choice must come from God ultimately, not man. This truth is manifest in the Bible, and not just a logical inference. “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain…” (John 15:16).
The fact that this election is unconditional or not based on anything in man, seen or foreseen (including future decisions of faith) is evident in Romans 9:11, 16: “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger’…So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Spurgeon argued that such passages demonstrated the absoluteness of this election:
“If men can not be justified by the works of the law, it seems to us pretty clear that they can not be elected by the works of the law…Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. ‘But,’ say others, ‘God elected them on the foresight of their faith.’ Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense…Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from him. Therefore it can not have caused him to elect men, because it is his gift.”[1]
The implications of such a reality are clear to Spurgeon. This doctrine may frighten some, but it should embolden Christians for one and humble man since they have nothing to offer to God—even their faith is a result of the eternal purpose of God.
“But, I say, take courage, take hope, O thou sinner, that there is election. So far from dispiriting and discouraging thee, it is a very hopeful and joyous thing that there is an election. What if I told thee perhaps none can be saved, none are ordained to eternal life, wouldst thou not tremble and fold thy hands in hopelessness, and say, ‘Then how can I be saved, since none are elect?’…What though there is an allotted number, yet it is true that all who seek belong to that number.”[2]
Unconditional election was not a hindrance to the gospel calls of Spurgeon by any means. Instead he saw that belief was still a necessary requisite for salvation and those that were to believe would be the elect. God moves in and through the calls for trust in the Messiah to work His purposes and effectually call His elect. To this preacher, there was no reason to abandon the theological truth of election, thinking that it may cause some to be apathetic. On the contrary, this doctrine sent Spurgeon to show the complete failure of man, even with regard to decisions, and show the complete sovereignty of God, even as it relates to calling a people for His own treasured possession. By doing so, those who are truly elect will indeed see their sin as an abomination and turn to the Redeemer for forgiveness.
[1]Charles Haddon Spurgeon., Spurgeon’s Sermons Volume 2—“Election” (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI), 77.
[2]Ibid, 86.
The Calvinistic Thought Behind the Evangelistic Practice of C. H. Spurgeon--Part One
A man known by many to be “the prince of preachers” lived his life after conversion for the sake of the gospel. Without reservation, C. H. Spurgeon bid men and women to come to Christ alone for salvation from sin and death into the joy of heaven, and he did so with a theological robust framework bent to the doctrines of grace that he found in the Scriptures. Apart from the theological underpinnings of man’s utter depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, Spurgeon saw attempts at evangelism and discipleship not only to be hampered, but futile. While many may question how one can preach these doctrines otherwise known as the “Five Points of Calvinism” and still be centered on the conversion of the heathen, the inconsistency of one’s belief as it relates to one’s practice is laid on the side of those holding to the ultimate self-determination of man. And this fact is argued cogently by Spurgeon.
The nineteenth century English preacher preached eloquently. The voice and pen of Spurgeon was unrivaled in his day. To be sure, if anyone could draw a crowd, it was this man. After humble beginnings, thousands attended his sermons every week by the time of his death, and many more read his published works. Yet for all of his artistic metaphors, all of his logical arguments, all of his articulate, fluid speech, Spurgeon was confident that he could not persuade the unbeliever to believe. He was convinced that he could only be the instrument in God’s bringing many persons to faith. Winning souls to faith is a miracle that cannot be wrought by the most lucid sermon, or the most fervent study of anyone. One’s intellectual capacity, background, geographic location, or propensities cannot bring about trust in the Redeemer, either. The trees of missions and evangelism find their nutrients from the roots of the sovereignty of God, not the abilities of man. Far from being an isolated ideological construction, Spurgeon saw that thinking properly about God and man encourages the fainthearted, humbles the proud, and glorifies Jesus. For this end he toiled, to bring about the obedience of faith for the unbeliever, and to bring about confidence and motivation for the believer.
Man's Depravity
Throughout his sermons and writings, Spurgeon opined that man’s natural state inhibits him from seeking Christ and believing the gospel. Because of man’s original sin of falling in Adam it is not only difficult to believe, it is impossible apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Man is totally depraved—that is, all of his capacities, the will included, have been aversely affected by the Fall—and is subject to condemnation. The preacher saw in the Scriptures language like men being “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and having “hearts of stone” (Ezekiel 36:26) needed to be replaced by hearts of flesh. These hearts of stone cannot come to Christ, “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8 [emphasis mine]).
Indeed, Paul’s language of sinners being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, 5) is consistent with the words of Jesus: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). This reality, far from discouraging Spurgeon, propelled him into gospel ministry and soul-winning:
“Our object is to turn the world upside down; or, in other words, that where sin abounded grace may much more abound. We are aiming at a miracle: it is well to settle that at the commencement. Some brethren think that they ought to lower their note to the spiritual ability of the hearer; but this is a mistake…I command men in the name of Jesus to repent and believe the gospel, though I know they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God; for I am not sent to work according to what my private reason might suggest, but according to the orders of my Lord and Master. Ours is the miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God, who bids His ministers perform wonders in the name of the holy child Jesus. We are sent to say to blind eyes, ‘See,’ to deaf ears, ‘Hear,’ to dead hearts, ‘Live,’ and even to Lazarus rotting in that grave, wherein, by this time, he stinketh—‘Lazarus, come forth.’ Dare we do this? We shall be wise to begin with the conviction that we are utterly powerless for this unless our Master has sent us, and is with us. But if He that sent us is with us, all things are possible to him that believeth.”[1]
The command of Jesus to go forth and preach the gospel was enough for Spurgeon to desire to evangelize, believing that God would be with him to the very end (Matthew 28:20). Although “they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God,” the words spoken by him in sharing the gospel he saw to be the means that would fulfill the end of salvation of those whom God has chosen. It is for this reason that he speaks of the “miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God.” In speaking specifically to his students, Spurgeon makes this manifest as well, saying that we should take great care in communicating the gospel well.[2] Even though men are powerless to believe, the Spirit has infinite power to raise both the physically dead and the spiritually dead.
“We cannot raise the dead…It is true that we by ourselves cannot bring the dead hearts of our scholars to palpitate with spiritual life, but a Paul or an Apollos would have been equally as powerless. Need this fact discourage us? Does it not rather direct us to our true power by shutting us out from our own fancied might?”[3]
The preacher or evangelist or missionary, then, has a task which is not dependent on eloquence or the intelligence or the will-power of the unbeliever, but rather on the Almighty hand of God, who works through means to accomplish His ends.
[1]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner: Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 160-161.
[2]C. H. Spurgeon., Lectures to my Students (Christian Focus Publications, Ltd.), 242.
[3]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner; Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 141-142.
The nineteenth century English preacher preached eloquently. The voice and pen of Spurgeon was unrivaled in his day. To be sure, if anyone could draw a crowd, it was this man. After humble beginnings, thousands attended his sermons every week by the time of his death, and many more read his published works. Yet for all of his artistic metaphors, all of his logical arguments, all of his articulate, fluid speech, Spurgeon was confident that he could not persuade the unbeliever to believe. He was convinced that he could only be the instrument in God’s bringing many persons to faith. Winning souls to faith is a miracle that cannot be wrought by the most lucid sermon, or the most fervent study of anyone. One’s intellectual capacity, background, geographic location, or propensities cannot bring about trust in the Redeemer, either. The trees of missions and evangelism find their nutrients from the roots of the sovereignty of God, not the abilities of man. Far from being an isolated ideological construction, Spurgeon saw that thinking properly about God and man encourages the fainthearted, humbles the proud, and glorifies Jesus. For this end he toiled, to bring about the obedience of faith for the unbeliever, and to bring about confidence and motivation for the believer.
Man's Depravity
Throughout his sermons and writings, Spurgeon opined that man’s natural state inhibits him from seeking Christ and believing the gospel. Because of man’s original sin of falling in Adam it is not only difficult to believe, it is impossible apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Man is totally depraved—that is, all of his capacities, the will included, have been aversely affected by the Fall—and is subject to condemnation. The preacher saw in the Scriptures language like men being “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and having “hearts of stone” (Ezekiel 36:26) needed to be replaced by hearts of flesh. These hearts of stone cannot come to Christ, “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8 [emphasis mine]).
Indeed, Paul’s language of sinners being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, 5) is consistent with the words of Jesus: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). This reality, far from discouraging Spurgeon, propelled him into gospel ministry and soul-winning:
“Our object is to turn the world upside down; or, in other words, that where sin abounded grace may much more abound. We are aiming at a miracle: it is well to settle that at the commencement. Some brethren think that they ought to lower their note to the spiritual ability of the hearer; but this is a mistake…I command men in the name of Jesus to repent and believe the gospel, though I know they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God; for I am not sent to work according to what my private reason might suggest, but according to the orders of my Lord and Master. Ours is the miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God, who bids His ministers perform wonders in the name of the holy child Jesus. We are sent to say to blind eyes, ‘See,’ to deaf ears, ‘Hear,’ to dead hearts, ‘Live,’ and even to Lazarus rotting in that grave, wherein, by this time, he stinketh—‘Lazarus, come forth.’ Dare we do this? We shall be wise to begin with the conviction that we are utterly powerless for this unless our Master has sent us, and is with us. But if He that sent us is with us, all things are possible to him that believeth.”[1]
The command of Jesus to go forth and preach the gospel was enough for Spurgeon to desire to evangelize, believing that God would be with him to the very end (Matthew 28:20). Although “they can do nothing of the kind apart from the grace of God,” the words spoken by him in sharing the gospel he saw to be the means that would fulfill the end of salvation of those whom God has chosen. It is for this reason that he speaks of the “miraculous method which comes of the endowment of the Spirit of God.” In speaking specifically to his students, Spurgeon makes this manifest as well, saying that we should take great care in communicating the gospel well.[2] Even though men are powerless to believe, the Spirit has infinite power to raise both the physically dead and the spiritually dead.
“We cannot raise the dead…It is true that we by ourselves cannot bring the dead hearts of our scholars to palpitate with spiritual life, but a Paul or an Apollos would have been equally as powerless. Need this fact discourage us? Does it not rather direct us to our true power by shutting us out from our own fancied might?”[3]
The preacher or evangelist or missionary, then, has a task which is not dependent on eloquence or the intelligence or the will-power of the unbeliever, but rather on the Almighty hand of God, who works through means to accomplish His ends.
[1]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner: Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 160-161.
[2]C. H. Spurgeon., Lectures to my Students (Christian Focus Publications, Ltd.), 242.
[3]C. H. Spurgeon., The Soul-Winner; Or, How to Lead Sinners to the Saviour (Fleming H. Revell Company: New York, NY), 141-142.
Bertrand Russell's Atheism Part Two
Secondly, Russell takes on the natural law argument which states that nature behaves in a uniform fashion, not a random one; scientific analysis and observation lends itself to assuming certain laws like that of thermodynamics and gravity and motion that could not be got over through chance. Instead these laws presuppose a Lawgiver, namely God. Reasoning in such a manner to Russell demonstrated certain fallacies that were conducive to proving atheism. He first indicated that the existence of these laws was more or less the existence of statistical averages that emerge from chance, the prime example of this fact being the movement and behavior of the atoms which are random, not orderly. Yet, he later contradicts himself while combating the idea of free will theism saying that while atoms are somewhat random, the visible movement of atoms as played out in motion demonstrate "old laws" that show a necessary action based on physics, not a free one based on the will of the individual. This verifies the inconsistency in Russell's argumentation.
Also, the basis of such an argument sets up a false dichotomy between natural laws, and laws given by humans, says Russell. Judicial laws presuppose a human lawgiver because they concern the human sphere. Natural laws on the other hand are mere descriptions of how things happen. At the same time, this descriptor language could be applied to human laws as well. If one commits a certain reaction like murder, one will get a certain reaction, like the death penalty; it is a mere description of what happens. So the issue for Russell then is semantics because while the laws of motion, for instance, describe what will occur when an object is put into motion, the law still presuppose not a random chain of events, but instead one that is based upon an orderly world. Otherwise, there is no need to speak of physics or make inquiries into the subject if perchance the actions of the universe have no basis. The whole process of observing and inferring logical constructions from the experience and perception indicated becomes a fruitless project if those logical constructions are random and not orderly and binding, for then their probability is even less certain. But to Russell, the possibility still is more likely that these so-called laws are random events rather than ordered processes handed down from a Lawgiver. Once again, he seems to be inferring things that are not based on his own system of logical analysis.
Finally, Russell reasons that such a position demonstrates the holes in the logic of the believer. For if one says that there is a reason God gives laws, which almost inevitably Christians would say, then a law must exist outside of the divine edict, hence such a divine edict is ultimate, not the lawgiver Himself. This fails to bend the debate toward his side as well. For the Christian maintains that the greates end to the law is the glorification of God, which is the truest expression of what is right and beautiful. Thus, God Himself becomes the ultimate reality and the ultimate expression of goodness. Right and wrong are based upon what honors Him most and what runs counter to His character. Thus, Russell has insufficiently caused doubt based on his supposed rebuttal of the natural law argument.
[1] Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 39.
Also, the basis of such an argument sets up a false dichotomy between natural laws, and laws given by humans, says Russell. Judicial laws presuppose a human lawgiver because they concern the human sphere. Natural laws on the other hand are mere descriptions of how things happen. At the same time, this descriptor language could be applied to human laws as well. If one commits a certain reaction like murder, one will get a certain reaction, like the death penalty; it is a mere description of what happens. So the issue for Russell then is semantics because while the laws of motion, for instance, describe what will occur when an object is put into motion, the law still presuppose not a random chain of events, but instead one that is based upon an orderly world. Otherwise, there is no need to speak of physics or make inquiries into the subject if perchance the actions of the universe have no basis. The whole process of observing and inferring logical constructions from the experience and perception indicated becomes a fruitless project if those logical constructions are random and not orderly and binding, for then their probability is even less certain. But to Russell, the possibility still is more likely that these so-called laws are random events rather than ordered processes handed down from a Lawgiver. Once again, he seems to be inferring things that are not based on his own system of logical analysis.
Finally, Russell reasons that such a position demonstrates the holes in the logic of the believer. For if one says that there is a reason God gives laws, which almost inevitably Christians would say, then a law must exist outside of the divine edict, hence such a divine edict is ultimate, not the lawgiver Himself. This fails to bend the debate toward his side as well. For the Christian maintains that the greates end to the law is the glorification of God, which is the truest expression of what is right and beautiful. Thus, God Himself becomes the ultimate reality and the ultimate expression of goodness. Right and wrong are based upon what honors Him most and what runs counter to His character. Thus, Russell has insufficiently caused doubt based on his supposed rebuttal of the natural law argument.
[1] Bertrand Russell., Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon and Schuster, Inc.: New York, NY), 39.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)