|
It is
obvious that a number of truth-loving “Bereans” have been
contacting Dave Hunt’s ministry, The Berean Call, and
calling him to accountability regarding the documentation of
his error concerning the beliefs of Charles Haddon Spurgeon
which I presented in my Open Letter responding to the
publication of his book, What Love is This? In the
August, 2002 issue of The Berean Call Mr. Hunt attempts
some damage-control, but in the process only digs a deeper
hole for himself. He is surely making it impossible for those
who have followed his writings to put much trust in his use of
sources, and his willingness to stand corrected when need be.
In this article I will provide the original
documentation of Hunt’s error, followed by his attempted
response, a brief rebuttal of key issues, and most
importantly, the majority of the text of the chapter from
which Hunt mistakenly derived his initial citation as found in
What Love is This? The text of this chapter is so
clear, so compelling, that it simply overwhelms the very weak
attempt made to excuse the original error.
A Glowing
Example: Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the Atonement
On page 19 of your book, Dave, you make the assertion
that Charles Spurgeon “unequivocally” denied particular
redemption (limited atonement). Every single Calvinist who
has done any meaningful reading in Spurgeon will be
forced to immediately dismiss you as a very poor researcher on
the basis of this statement. Here I provide the quote as you
gave it, placing the materials you did not include in bold (I
thank Tom Ascol for first noting this and rushing me the
context). Folks who wonder if you are being fair to Augustine
or Calvin should note your willingness to be completely and
utterly inaccurate in your representation of someone as recent
as Spurgeon:
I know
there are some who think it necessary to their system of
theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my
theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it
to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a
lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In
Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet
finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be
sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so
willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all
in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's
law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of
the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it
is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and
measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The
intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the
infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.
Anyone
familiar with Spurgeon knows what he means by “the intent of
the Divine purpose” here (he means what all us Calvinists
mean: it was God’s intention to save the elect in the
atonement). But the rest of the section you quoted from makes
it crystal clear:
Blessed be
God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I
believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these,
when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know
the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. Some persons love the
doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so
beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died
for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts
of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty."
I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with
falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of
universal redemption, but I will just show what the
supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross
intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who
were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He
died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell
before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even
then myriads there who had been cast away because of their
sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all
men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His
own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the
very persons who, according to the theory of universal
redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a
conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those
consequences which are said to be associated with the
Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular
redemption.
That is on
the very next page after the one you quoted! Spurgeon refers
to your position, Dave, as “a thousand times more
repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be
associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of
special and particular redemption”! Yes, Spurgeon was
unequivocal alright: only he said the exact opposite of what
you indicated! A quick scan of the relevant materials at
www.spurgeon.org reveals
just how completely in error your assertion is, and how many
sermons affirm Spurgeon’s belief in particular redemption.
Here is one of them:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm. I quote him
directly:
We hold--we
are not afraid to say that we believe--that Christ came into
this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no
man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this,
every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a
doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood,
before the Father's throne. We do not believe that Christ made
any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we
dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the
intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be
saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ,
according to some men's account, died to save them.
You really
should hasten to retract this grossly errant assertion
concerning Spurgeon. For those of us who have even a passing
familiarity with the great English preacher, your comments
about him were outrageous. The misuse of the quote from
Spurgeon’s biography is simply indefensible, Dave. Do you not
think that we have these sources at hand? Will you instruct
your publisher to retract this statement in the next printing
of the book, along with a note apologizing for such an error?
Or will you ignore this word of corrective advice as you have
ignored so many others that have been provided to you?
I had not
intended to be “prophetic” in that last line, but as the
August, 2002 issue of The Berean Call proves, I was.
It should be noted that the question, while mentioning me by
name, does not do justice to the actual statement Hunt made.
Keep in mind the statement that is found on page 19 of Dave
Hunt’s book, What Love is This? I quote:
Spurgeon
himself, so often quoted by Calvinsts to support their view,
rejected Limited Atonement, though it lies at the very heart
of Calvinism and follows inevitably from its other points ---
and he did so in unequivocal language.
Please
note the assertion in the final phrase: that Spurgeon rejected
the doctrine of limited atonement “in unequivocal language.”
What does unequivocal mean? It means plain, clear, explicit,
without ambiguity. This part of Hunt’s assertion is left out
in what follows, and, as we read the attempt to befuddle the
readers of The Berean Call, we see why. Hunt’s new
assertion is that Spurgeon was ambiguous, contradictory, and
inconsistent in his teaching and proclamation. This is not
what Hunt said in his book. And as we shall see, it’s not
even true at that! Here is what appeared in the August, 2002
Q&A section of The Berean Call:
Question: James
White has caught you red-handed misrepresenting Spurgeon in
your book. You claim that Spurgeon “rejected Limited
Atonement.” You support that assertion with a quote of
rejection of any “limit to the merit of the blood of
Jesus....” Yet you omitted clear statements In the very
section from which you quote that “the intent of the Divine
purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering...we
do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for
those who are for ever damned.” Anyone who knows anything
about Spurgeon knows that he taught Limited Atonement. How
much longer do we have to wait to see in print your admission
of your inexcusable misrepresentation of Spurgeon?
Answer:
Spurgeon
was torn between what he called “hyper-Calvinism” and the Word
of God. In the quote I give he very clearly says, “In Christ’s
finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no
bottom, my eye discovers no shore....Once admit infinity into
the matter, and limit is out of the question.” He then goes on
to deny “that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the
intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be
saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ.
according to some men’s account. died to save them....The
intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the
infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.”
Spurgeon
seems to be contradicting himself. How could the “merit” of
the atonement be unlimited unless Christ died for all? If He
paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect, then the
merit of His death is finite, being confined to a definite
number. What did he really mean? I think I have good reason to
believe that this is just another case of what one historian
explained as “The...old Calvinistic phrases were often on
Spurgeon’s lips but the genuine Calvinistic meaning had gone
out of them.”
I think we
find the key to Spurgeon’s real beliefs in his opposition to
what he called “hyper-Calvinism.” His preaching sparked the
“duty-faith” controversy in which he was accused of holding
Arminianism. The controversy raged in England for some years
and took its name from Spurgeon’s teaching that it was the
“duty” of every person to have faith in Christ.
If
Spurgeon believed in “particular redemption,” as the quote
above seemed to indicate, it was a peculiar kind. He pressed
upon all his hearers the duty of believing the gospel: “Read,
write, print, shout---‘Him that cometh to Me I will in no
wise cast out.’ Great Saviour, I thank Thee for this
text; help Thou me so to preach from it that many may come to
Thee, and find eternal life!”
Spurgeon
claimed, “I have all the Puritans with me...without a single
exception.” Even the Synod of Dort had declared, “As many as
are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called.... [God]
seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall
come to him and believe on him.” That hardly sounds like the
Particular Redemption elsewhere taught by Dort. Such are the
contradictions inherent within Calvinism, which tries to
maintain that God offers salvation to all, even to those whom
He has predestined to eternal doom.
But the
contradictions were more apparent in Spurgeon’s preaching,
contradictions which were “regarded among many of the
Particular Baptists as symptoms of defection from Calvinism.”
His chief opponent was James Wells (referred to
privately by Spurgeon as “King James”) who for 30 years had
been the most popular and powerful Particular Baptist pastor
south of the Thames until the arrival of Spurgeon at New Park
Street. He pressed his attack to prove that Spurgeon was an
Arminian with such damning quotes as this from the sermon
“Future Bliss”: “Oh! Dear souls...if you believe in your
Christ you are elect; whosoever puts himself on the mercy of
Jesus...shall have mercy if he come for it.” Wells argued that
“such words quietly set election aside, and rest the whole
matter with the creature....” Am I caught red-handed
misrepresenting Spurgeon? I don’t think so.
The reader will immediately see the
less-than-subtle shift in Hunt’s defense. He nowhere makes
reference to his own statement that Spurgeon “unequivocally”
denies limited atonement, since, obviously, his entire
attempted defense is that Spurgeon was not unequivocal at all
about his commitment to Calvinism! He defends himself by
asserting that Spurgeon contradicted himself and was “torn”
between opposite theologies. Mr. Hunt is in essence abandoning
the original assertion and replacing it with its opposite, all
the while saying, “I didn’t get caught red-handed!”
Just a few words in response to these assertions.
First, Spurgeon was not “torn” between hyper-Calvinism and the
Word of God. He rejected hyper-Calvinism and spoke often
against it. Next, Mr. Hunt is simply misreading Spurgeon’s
statement about merit. He is not doing so because Spurgeon
was unclear. He is doing so because he refuses to listen to
Reformed writers in their own contexts. Hunt argues that if
Christ dies only for the elect, then the merit of His death is
finite. This is the very point Spurgeon is denying.
And Hunt has no logical basis upon which to base his claim.
Why? Simple: does Dave Hunt believe we are saved by grace?
Of course. Does he believe those in hell are saved by grace?
No, of course not. So, since only a certain number are saved
by grace, then grace is therefore limited, right? No, he
would never say God’s grace is finite. Hence, his position is
internally inconsistent and self-contradictory. Further,
since the number of men born over time is a finite number as
well, Hunt’s logic would mean that even in his own
system Christ’s merit would have to be limited, since the
number saved, no matter what, is finite! But these obvious
logical fallacies aside, Spurgeon is not contradicting
himself. The merit of Christ’s death is indeed limitless
because of who He was. The application of that merit
is finite in anyone’s system, including Hunt’s, but
that does not in any way diminish the limitless nature of the
merit.
It is simply farcical to write, as Hunt does, “If
Spurgeon believed in ‘particular redemption,’ as the quote
above seemed to indicate, it was a peculiar kind.” He said he
believed it, he defined it in terms identical to those used by
all other Reformed writers, and the only reason Mr. Hunt can
offer to us to disbelieve the plain words of Spurgeon is that
he himself can’t see how you can preach the way Spurgeon
preached, call men to Christ the way he called them to Christ,
and believe in particular redemption! Hence, Spurgeon’s
theology is to be determined not on the basis of what he
actually taught, but on the basis of what Dave Hunt can
understand! There is not a word Hunt quotes from Spurgeon
that is not perfectly in harmony with particular redemption.
The fact is, Dave Hunt cannot produce a single word from
Spurgeon in support of his original assertion. He is simply
trying to deflect attention from this fact by raising other
issues, issues that do not address the topic at hand.
On the
Dividing Line for August 10, 2002, I read the entirety of the
16th chapter of Spurgeon’s Autobiography,
from which the citation found in What Love is This? was
derived. I noted with irony the title of the chapter:
“Defense of Calvinism.” I will not reproduce the entirety of
the text here, but I will produce enough of it to give the
reader more than sufficient basis upon which to judge if,
indeed, as Dave Hunt continues to maintain to this day,
Charles Haddon Spurgeon denied, “in unequivocal language,” the
doctrine of limited atonement.
DEFENSE OF CALVINISM
The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached,
that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or
else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the
truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges
of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which
thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.
-- C. H. S.
It is a great thing to begin the Christian life by believing
good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty
different “gospels” in as many years; how many more they will
accept before they get to their journey’s end, it would be
difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the
gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I
do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is
sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a
year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to
store the apples. When people are always shifting their
doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much
fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to
begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines
which the Lord has taught in His Word.
Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary,
trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would
scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those
whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I
know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when
I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of
everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His
everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished
that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to
me!
“Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder!
Ask, ‘Oh, why such love to me?’
Grace hath put me in the number
Of the Saviour’s family:
Hallelujah!
Thanks, eternal thanks, to Thee
I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline
towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine
inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign
grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in
the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of
gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I
have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me
by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should
have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very
depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or
folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have
been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot
understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground
that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so
earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should
be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment
without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His
will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him
where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown
nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved
me from going down into the pit.
Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it
all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which
to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not
commence my spiritual life-no, I rather kicked, and struggled
against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time
I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul
of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon
me-warnings were cast to the wind- thunders were despised; and
as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being
less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now,
speaking on behalf of myself, “He only is my salvation.” It
was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees
before Him. I can in very deed, say with Doddridge and Toplady,
--
“Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes o’erflow.”
and coming to this moment, I can add --
“Tis grace has kept me to this day,
And will not let me go.”
Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the
doctrines of grace in a single instant.
Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian,
[emphasis added! JRW] I still believed the old things I had
heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace
of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing
it
all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no
idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert
is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour
when first I received those truths in my own soul-when they
were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot
iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a
sudden from a babe into a man-that I had made progress in
Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the
clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting
in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the
preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought
struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the
Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed
across my mind in a moment- I should not have sought Him
unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to
make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked
myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading
the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read
them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that
God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of
my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me,
and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I
desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my
change wholly to God.”
...
John
Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too,
of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of
election, “Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was
born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love
afterwards.” I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the
doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God
had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am
sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would
have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for
reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in
myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So
I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine. I
recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the
Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find
the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he
would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word
on his knees. I said to him, “I think you read the Bible in a
very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your
easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it.
Pray, by all means, and the more, the better, but it is a
piece of superstition to think there is anything in the
posture in which a man puts himself for reading: and as to
reading through the Bible twenty times without having found
anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that
you found anything at all: you must have galloped through it
at such a rate that you were not likely to have any
intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures.”
...
Then, in
the fulness of time, He purchased me with His blood; He let
His heart run out in one deep gaping wound for me long ere I
loved Him. Yea, when He first came to me, did I not spurn Him?
When He knocked at the door, and asked for entrance, did I not
drive Him away, and do despite to His grace? Ah, I can
remember that I full often did so until, at last, by the power
of His effectual grace, He said, “I must, I will come in;” and
then He turned my heart, and made me love Him. But even till
now I should have resisted Him, had it not been for His grace.
Well, then since He purchased me when I was dead in sins, does
it not follow, as a consequence necessary and logical, that He
must have loved me first? Did my Saviour die for me because I
believed on Him? No; I was not then in existence; I had then
no being. Could the Saviour, therefore, have died because I
had faith, when I myself was not yet born? Could that have
been possible? Could that have been the origin of the
Saviour’s love towards me? Oh! no; my Saviour died for me long
before I believed. “But,” says someone, “He foresaw that you
would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you.” What did He
foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that
faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No;
Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will
ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and
without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a
great many believers, and talked with them about this matter;
but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and
say, “I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy
Spirit.”
I am bound
to the doctrine of the depravity of the human heart, because I
find myself depraved in heart, and have daily proofs that in
my flesh there dwelleth no good thing. If God enters into
covenant with unfallen man, man is so insignificant a creature
that it must be an act of gracious condescension on the Lord’s
part; but if God enters into covenant with sinful man, he is
then so offensive a creature that it must be, on God’s part,
an act of pure, free, rich, sovereign grace. When the Lord
entered into covenant with me, I am sure that it was all of
grace, nothing else but grace. When I remember what a den of
unclean beasts and birds my heart was, and how strong was my
unrenewed will, how obstinate and rebellious against the
sovereignty of the Divine rule, I always feel inclined to take
the very lowest room in my Father’s house, and when I enter
Heaven, it will be to go among the less than the least of all
saints, and with the chief of sinners.
The late
lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a
most admirable text, “Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just
an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If
anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should
reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I
cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is
the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my
salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it
will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its
essence here, that it has departed from this great, this
fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my
salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of
something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ-the bringing
in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification?
And what is the heresy of
Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the
Redeemer? [emphasis added! JRW] 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. I do not believe we can preach
the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith,
without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in
His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing,
unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah;
nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it
upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and
chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can
I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they
are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in
the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.
Such a gospel I abhor.
“If ever it should come to pass,
That sheep of Christ might fall away,
My fickle, feeble soul, alas!
Would fall a thousand times a day”
If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of
the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no
gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is
nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at
once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall
finally. If God hath loved me once, then He will love me for
ever. God has a mastermind; He arranged everything in His
gigantic intellect long before He did it; and once having
settled it, He never alters it, ‘This shall be done,” saith
He, and the iron hand of destiny marks it down, and it is
brought to pass. “This is My purpose,” and it stands, nor can
earth or hell alter it. “This is My decree,” saith He,
“promulgate it, ye holy angels; rend it down from the gate of
Heaven, ye devils, if ye can; but ye cannot alter the decree,
it shall stand for ever.” God altereth not His plans; why
should He? He is Almighty, and therefore can perform His
pleasure. Why should He? He is the All-wise, and therefore
cannot have planned wrongly. Why should He? He is the
everlasting God, and therefore cannot die before His plan is
accomplished. Why should He change? Ye worthless atoms of
earth, ephemera of a day, ye creeping insects upon this
bay-leaf of existence, ye may change your plans, but He shall
never, never change His. Has He told me that His plan is to
save me? If so, I am for ever safe.
“My name from the palms of His hands
Eternity will not erase;
Impress’d on His heart it remains,
In marks of indelible grace.”
I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian
can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very
commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day
without despair. f I did not believe the doctrine of the final
perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the
most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I
could not say, whatever state of heart I came into, that I
should be like a well- spring of water, whose stream fails
not; I should rather have to take the comparison of an
intermittent spring, that might stop on a sudden, or a
reservoir, which I had no reason to expect would always be
full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest
of Christians are those who never dare to doubt God, but who
take His Word simply as it stands, and believe it, and ask no
questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it
will be so. I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason,
nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my Lord, and I
challenge Heaven, and earth, and hell, to bring any proof that
God is untrue. From the depths of hell I call the fiends, and
from this earth I call the tried and afflicted believers, and
to Heaven I appeal, and challenge the long experience of the
blood-washed host, and there is not to be found in the three
realms a single person who can bear witness to one fact which
can disprove the faithfulness of God, or weaken His claim to
be trusted by His servants. There are many things that may or
may not happen, but this I know shall happen --
“He shall present my soul,
Unblemish’d and complete,
Before the glory of His face,
With joys divinely great”
All the purposes of man have been defeated, but not the
purposes of God. The promises of man may be broken-many of
them are made to be broken-but the promises of God shall all
be fulfilled. He is a promise-maker, but He never was a
promise- breaker; He is a promise-keeping God, and every one
of His people shall prove it to be so. This is my grateful,
personal confidence, “The Lord will perfect that which
concerneth me”-unworthy me, lost and ruined me. He will yet
save me; and --
“I, among the blood-wash’d throng,
Shall wave the palm, and wear the crown,
And shout loud victory”
I go to a land which the plough of earth hath never upturned,
where it is greener than earth’s best pastures, and richer
than her most abundant harvests ever saw. I go to a building
of more gorgeous architecture than man hath ever builded; it
is not of mortal design; it is “a building of God, a house not
made with hands, eternal in the Heavens.” All I shall know and
enjoy in Heaven, will be given to me by the Lord, and I shall
say, when at last I appear before Him --
“Grace all the work shall crown
Through everlasting days;
It lays in Heaven the topmost stone,
And well deserves the praise”
I know there are some who think it necessary to their system
of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my
theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it
to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a
lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In
Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet
finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be
sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ,
if God had so willed it,
[emphasis added, JRW] to have saved not only all in this
world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed
their Maker’s law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and
limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an
offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value;
bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine
sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the
application of the infinite offering, but does not change it
into a finite work. Think of the numbers upon whom God has
bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in
Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst
find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as
to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now.
They have come from the East, and from the West, from the
North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with
Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God;
and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth.
Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by
millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days
than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes
brought to know the Savior, and to rejoice in Him. The
Father’s love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding
great company. “A great multitude, which no man could number,”
will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high
figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators,
and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can
tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be
more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so,
I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to “have the
pre-eminence,” and I cannot conceive how He could have the
pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan
than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to
be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number. I
rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they
die, speed their way to Paradise. Think what a multitude there
is of them! Then there are already in Heaven unnumbered
myriads of the spirits of just men made perfect-the redeemed
of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues up till
now; and there are better times coming, when the religion of
Christ shall be universal; when --
“He shall reign from pole to pole,
With illimitable sway,”
when whole kingdoms shall bow down before Him, and nations
shall be born in a day, and in the thousand years of the great
millennial state there will be enough saved to make up all the
deficiencies of the thousands of years that have gone before.
Christ shall be Master everywhere, and His praise shall be
sounded in every land. Christ shall have the pre-eminence at
last; His train shall be far larger than that which shall
attend the chariot of the grim monarch of hell.
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement
because they say, “It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea
that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,”
they say, “to the instincts of humanity; there is something in
it full of joy and beauty.” I admit there is, but beauty
may be often associated with falsehood. There is much
which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption,
but I will just show what the supposition necessarily
involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man,
then He intended to save those who were lost before He died.
If the doctrine be true, that He died for all
men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came
into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads
there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once
again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how
deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His
own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the
very persons who, according to the theory of universal
redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me
a conception a
thousand
times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are
said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian
doctrine of special and particular redemption.
To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell,
seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To
imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the
sons of men, and that God, having first punished the
Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems
to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That
Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins
of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should
be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned,
appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could
ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of
the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God
forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and
wise and good! [emphasis added throughout, JRW.
Yes, this is unequivocal indeed!]
There is
no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace
than I do,
[emphasis added, JRW] and if any man asks me whether I am
ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer- I wish to be
called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold
the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I
do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be
it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but
Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are
none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things
have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition
of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say
concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines
which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence
second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles
to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that
there could be found two men more fit to be so added than
George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John
Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal,
holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the
ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the
world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men
who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in
the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received
Christ as their Savior, and are as dear to the heart of the
God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
...
It is
often said that the doctrines we believe have a tendency to
lead us to sin. I have heard it asserted most positively, that
those high doctrines which we love, and which we find in the
Scriptures, are licentious ones. I do not know who will have
the hardihood to make that assertion, when they consider that
the holiest of men have been believers in them. I ask
the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious
religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or
Calvin, or Whitefield, [emphasis added, JRW: Hunt
vociferously and unfairly attacks the character of both
Augustine and Calvin] who in successive ages were the great
exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of the
Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an
Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the
vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the
heretics, and they as the orthodox. We have gone back to the
old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is
that vein of free-grace, running through the sermonizing of
Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination. Were it not
for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a
golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy
succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious
truths; and we can ask concerning them, “Where will you find
holier and better men in the world?” No doctrine is so
calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the
grace of God. Those who have called it “a licentious doctrine”
did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things,
they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most
licentious doctrine under Heaven. If they knew the grace of
God in truth, they would soon see that there was no
preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of
God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like a
belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my
Father’s affection, which can keep me near to Him from a
motive of simple gratitude. Nothing makes a man so virtuous as
belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying
practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without
by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing
naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most
disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent
devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace, without
works, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the
gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it
always is so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified
afresh, and put to an open shame.
It is simply beyond comprehension how, in the
light of this chapter, penned by Spurgeon himself, anyone can
possibly maintain that He “unequivocally” denied the
particular redemptive work of Jesus Christ. One might as well
read the King Follett Funeral Discourse of Joseph Smith Jr.,
the founder of Mormonism, and as a result, call him a
“monotheist” as maintain the completely backwards assertion of
Dave Hunt that Spurgeon denied the doctrine. Let the reader
recall that it is this very chapter that Hunt cites as
“unequivocally” denying the doctrine, yet, on the very next
page of the chapter titled “Defense of Calvinism,” these
words appear: “That seems to me a
conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of
those consequences which are said to be associated with the
Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular
redemption.” Spurgeon says, “Limited atonement is a Christian
doctrine.” Dave Hunt isolates a section from a preceding
page, imports his own misunderstandings into it, and says,
“Spurgeon unequivocally denied limited atonement.” The facts
are plain. The only question is, will Dave Hunt have the
honesty and integrity to stop trying to blow smoke across the
landscape and simply admit his mistake and withdraw, with
apologies, his assertion?
Someone might ask, “So what’s the big deal?
Spurgeon isn’t Scripture.” Quite true. However, this example
shows everyone exactly how Dave Hunt uses sources, whether
they be historical or biblical sources. Mr. Hunt sees
only what he wants to see. He ignores anything, even if it is
a direct counter-statement, that does not fit with his
“thesis” concerning a topic. His books are filled with this
kind of “research.” He can come up with new “translations” of
biblical passages such as Acts 13:48 that end up being
identical with the New World Translation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses through the very same willy-nilly use of sources
that has produced this glaring error. And the worst part is,
he will not admit the errors. Instead, he chooses to
blame Spurgeon, or, when shown to have completely
misrepresented the Greek text, or engaged in gross eisegesis
of the text, he identifies those who seek to correct his
errors as “elitists.” Is He who is the truth served by this
kind of attitude and activity? |
