Calvinism the Enemy? Get Your Facts Straight Before You Speak
When I was in my first year of seminary (Independent Fundamental Baptist) I was literally taught that “Calvinism is the enemy.” At that point you could have considered me a 3 ½ to 4 point Calvinist (I had issues w/ limited atonement and a slightly different views on other points at that point of time)…but I never agreed with the idea of Calvinism being the enemy…doesn’t the Bible teach that sin, self and Satan are the enemies?
While one may disagree with any of the points of the TULIP acronym, it is very wrong to label a whole group of believers as enemies and their system as evil…especially if the accuser doesn’t fully understand the beliefs and the facts. I recently did a search on the internet for the term “Calvinism the enemy” and unfortunately this link popped up at the very top; www.wayoflife.org/streaming/audio/calvinism-debate.html
This is a link to David Cloud’s Way of Life website. Let me say up front that I truly appreciate David Cloud and his ministry. I bought his Way of Life Christian encyclopedia (very good resource!), have purchased several of his books on repentance and evangelism and he preached at my seminary graduation from Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary a few years ago. His focus and stance on a need for true repentance and his rebuttal of unscriptural evangelism has been a great help to many Christians, which includes me! However, on the subject of “Calvinism” I have to disagree with Brother Cloud. I listened to the entire sermon and took many notes. In a short blog there’s no way I can cover even a short portion of where I disagree. For now I just want to cover one point:
If you disagree with something…get your facts straight: What do I mean about that, you say? Many, many people who disagree with the system they call “Calvinism” (really, Calvin didn’t create it!), at the same time love and exalt Charles Spurgeon. During the sermon Bro Cloud said on numerous occasions, “Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist…but he was his own kind of Calvinist.” He uses Spurgeon it seems as an example against Calvinism. When discussing his 4th point against Calvinism he said that Charles Spurgeon left 1 Tim 2:3-6 “alone” and “wouldn’t alter it” and that Spurgeon refuted limited atonement (the idea that Christ only atoned for the sins of the elect). Agree or disagree…fine…but get your facts straight! This is untrue…Spurgeon was a 5-point Calvinist! Let me quote directly from the source himself on the subject of limited atonement:
This extracts of this are from sermon #173 entitled, The Death of Christ which was delivered on Jan 24, 1858 from Isaiah 53:10:
"There are in the world many theories of atonement: but I cannot see any atonement in any one, except in this doctrine of substitution. Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it. I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a 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. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself — no not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works. And after all, though men call this a limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be. But do you know the limit of it? Christ hath bought a “multitude that no man can number.” 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. And, mark, here is something substantial. The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefrom, 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. Christ has done a good deal for me, but not quite enough, unless I do something.” 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 cannot be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards.” “No,” says he, “I believe in a just God, and if God be just, he will not punish Christ first, and then punish men afterwards. No; my Savior died, and now I am free from every demand of God’s vengeance, and I can walk through this world secure; no thunderbolt can smite me, and I can die absolutely certain that for me there is no flame of hell, and no pit digged; for Christ my ransom suffered in my stead, and, therefore, am I clean delivered.” Oh! Glorious doctrine! I would wish to die preaching it! What better testimony can we bear to the love and faithfulness of God than the testimony of a substitution eminently satisfactory for all them that believe on Christ?”
I too reject and despise an atonement that makes men “savable” but doesn’t save anyone until the sovereign will of man rises from the ashes and ratifies God’s plan. Even Arminians believe in a limited atonement! Unless you are a universalist (which Bro Cloud most definitely is not!) you believe that some will go to heaven and some will spend eternity in the lake of fire. The issue is the scope of the atonement and the doctrine of substitution. Did Christ actually accomplish anything on the cross (more to follow on a future blog)?
Charles Spurgeon most definitely would not agree with anything Bro Cloud said in his sermon on the errors of Calvinism. I wish that Christians would attack the enemy…and not other believers. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with other believers and sharpening another’s iron…but to label Calvinism as the enemy is truly incredible…especially when the facts are not straight. More to follow later on this!
While one may disagree with any of the points of the TULIP acronym, it is very wrong to label a whole group of believers as enemies and their system as evil…especially if the accuser doesn’t fully understand the beliefs and the facts. I recently did a search on the internet for the term “Calvinism the enemy” and unfortunately this link popped up at the very top; www.wayoflife.org/streaming/audio/calvinism-debate.html
This is a link to David Cloud’s Way of Life website. Let me say up front that I truly appreciate David Cloud and his ministry. I bought his Way of Life Christian encyclopedia (very good resource!), have purchased several of his books on repentance and evangelism and he preached at my seminary graduation from Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary a few years ago. His focus and stance on a need for true repentance and his rebuttal of unscriptural evangelism has been a great help to many Christians, which includes me! However, on the subject of “Calvinism” I have to disagree with Brother Cloud. I listened to the entire sermon and took many notes. In a short blog there’s no way I can cover even a short portion of where I disagree. For now I just want to cover one point:
If you disagree with something…get your facts straight: What do I mean about that, you say? Many, many people who disagree with the system they call “Calvinism” (really, Calvin didn’t create it!), at the same time love and exalt Charles Spurgeon. During the sermon Bro Cloud said on numerous occasions, “Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist…but he was his own kind of Calvinist.” He uses Spurgeon it seems as an example against Calvinism. When discussing his 4th point against Calvinism he said that Charles Spurgeon left 1 Tim 2:3-6 “alone” and “wouldn’t alter it” and that Spurgeon refuted limited atonement (the idea that Christ only atoned for the sins of the elect). Agree or disagree…fine…but get your facts straight! This is untrue…Spurgeon was a 5-point Calvinist! Let me quote directly from the source himself on the subject of limited atonement:
This extracts of this are from sermon #173 entitled, The Death of Christ which was delivered on Jan 24, 1858 from Isaiah 53:10:
"There are in the world many theories of atonement: but I cannot see any atonement in any one, except in this doctrine of substitution. Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it. I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a 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. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself — no not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works. And after all, though men call this a limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be. But do you know the limit of it? Christ hath bought a “multitude that no man can number.” 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. And, mark, here is something substantial. The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefrom, 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. Christ has done a good deal for me, but not quite enough, unless I do something.” 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 cannot be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards.” “No,” says he, “I believe in a just God, and if God be just, he will not punish Christ first, and then punish men afterwards. No; my Savior died, and now I am free from every demand of God’s vengeance, and I can walk through this world secure; no thunderbolt can smite me, and I can die absolutely certain that for me there is no flame of hell, and no pit digged; for Christ my ransom suffered in my stead, and, therefore, am I clean delivered.” Oh! Glorious doctrine! I would wish to die preaching it! What better testimony can we bear to the love and faithfulness of God than the testimony of a substitution eminently satisfactory for all them that believe on Christ?”
I too reject and despise an atonement that makes men “savable” but doesn’t save anyone until the sovereign will of man rises from the ashes and ratifies God’s plan. Even Arminians believe in a limited atonement! Unless you are a universalist (which Bro Cloud most definitely is not!) you believe that some will go to heaven and some will spend eternity in the lake of fire. The issue is the scope of the atonement and the doctrine of substitution. Did Christ actually accomplish anything on the cross (more to follow on a future blog)?
Charles Spurgeon most definitely would not agree with anything Bro Cloud said in his sermon on the errors of Calvinism. I wish that Christians would attack the enemy…and not other believers. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with other believers and sharpening another’s iron…but to label Calvinism as the enemy is truly incredible…especially when the facts are not straight. More to follow later on this!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home