“Trust in Christ and you will be saved.” Is that a promise you can make to everyone? Or only to God’s elect? Should gospel promises be universally offered, even to hardened sinners? Or should they be reserved for those who show evidence of the Spirit’s conviction?
Such questions are raised in Iain Murray’s Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching, which chronicles the gospel preacher’s controversy with the so-called Hyper-Calvinists of his day. Throughout his life, Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-92) fought a number of theological battles against the creeping Arminianism and liberalism among London Baptist churches. But there was a particular dispute that arose among his Calvinistic brethren, which received far less attention but was equally important. This battle was fought over the gospel – not the content per se – but the extent to which one can genuinely offer it.
Hyper-Calvinists understand gospel preaching as merely a means for the ingathering of God’s elect. Exhorting those “dead in sins” to trust in Christ was considered disingenuous, for it attributes to them a power they do not have due to their depravity. Therefore, gospel preaching is simply the declaration of gospel facts, bereft of a plea or invitation to believe. A Hyper-Calvinist will only call to faith “sensible” sinners who demonstrate that the Spirit has begun a saving work in them.
Lamentably, it is often assumed, that the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is simply a matter of degree (as the name suggests). But Spurgeon believed the real difference was between ‘true’ Calvinism and ‘false’. We are not to think that Hyper-Calvinists are somehow stronger Calvinists, as if they hold more ‘points’ than the standard five. In actuality, Hyper-Calvinists are narrower in their convictions and partial to rationalistic deductions at the expense of scriptural truths. For this reason, Spurgeon found it absurd that some would accuse him of not being a full Calvinist.
“I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures.”
Scriptural Appeals
In the book, Murray examines four of these ‘truths’. After introducing the historical combatants and recounting the cause of the controversy, he turns to explain four scriptural truths that Spurgeon believed while Hyper-Calvinists rejected.
Gospel Invitations are Universal: Spurgeon believed that gospel invitations should be offered to all without restrictions or qualifications. Hyper-Calvinists, on the other hand, limited invitations to ‘sensible’ sinners, the convicted, the penitent and the like. But Spurgeon rejected such restrictions on the basis that Scripture clearly holds out the promise of salvation to whosoever believes (John 3:18; Acts 13:38-39; Rev 22:17).
The Warrant of Faith: The ‘warrant of faith’ is another way of referring to the right to claim gospel promises. A Hyper-Calvinist would argue that only those who have experienced the Spirit’s work of conviction could claim this warrant. In other words, you have no right to claim the promises of Christ for yourself unless you can point to some subjective feeling indicating you’re ready.
Spurgeon believed that such teaching leads to confusion and legalism since it advises you to look at yourself instead of the Saviour. He said, “If we begin to preach to sinners that they must have a certain sense of sin and a certain measure of conviction, such teaching would turn the sinner away from God in Christ to himself. The man begins at once to say, ‘Have I a broken heart? Do I feel the burden of sin?’ This is only another form of looking at self. Man must not look to himself to find reasons for God’s grace.”
Spurgeon urged his listeners to trust in Christ, not because they felt guilty enough, but because Scripture commands them to (1 Jn 3:23; Acts 16:31) and because there is no other recourse (Acts 4:12). “Come to Christ because you are guilty, not because you have been prepared to come by looking at your guilt.”
Human Responsibility: Spurgeon believed Scripture taught that humans were still responsible to trust in Christ even though they lost the ability, the will, to obey the command to believe (1 Jn 3:23) at the Fall. In other words, moral inability does not excuse moral accountability. But Hyper-Calvinists believed that sinners cannot be required to do what they are not able to do. Therefore, they argued that calling hearers to immediate faith and repentance is to deny human depravity and sovereign grace.
Spurgeon argued that Hyper-Calvinists were not dealing with the entire range of scriptural truth. They neglected one side of the Word because they could not explain how God could be sovereign over all things and yet man could still be free and responsible for his actions or inactions. In his view,
“The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once . . . That God predestinates, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory but they are not.” Because Scripture clearly teaches both, Spurgeon believed both and preached as if so.
The Love of God: Hyper-Calvinists deduced from the doctrine of election that no one had the right to trust God loves them personally until they had some evidence that they were one of the chosen. Therefore, a preacher should not make a general claim to his hearers that God loves them.
Spurgeon saw this as a tragic misjudgement of God’s loving character. To his opponents he said, “You misjudge [God] if you think he wants to be argued with and persuaded to have mercy; he gives it freely as the sun pours forth light.” Spurgeon did not deny a special electing love that secures the salvation of all those for whom Christ died, but he was careful to also affirm a universal divine love wherever taught in Scripture (Mt 23:37, 9:36; Lk 19:41).
Lessons
Murray does an excellent job narrating the controversy, including its aftermath and its long-term effects in evangelicalism today. He also includes illustrative material of relevant excerpts from the writings of Spurgeon and other supporters. But most helpful is a chapter that draws out lessons to be learned from this controversy:
1) Genuine evangelical Christianity is never of an exclusive spirit. Sadly, Hyper-Calvinists in both Spurgeon’s day and our own tend to perpetuate the idea that Calvinism is inherently exclusive in spirit. To combat this we must first avoid the error of making a belief in election a part of saving faith. Second, we must teach the whole council of Scripture including passages that hold out salvation to all who believe.
2) There is a real danger involved when biblical truths are constantly presented to non-Christians in the wrong order. Spurgeon believed equally in divine sovereignty and human responsibility, but when it came to gospel preaching he believed that there needed to be a greater concentration on our responsibility. Likewise, a sinner need not be taught election, or be thoroughly convinced he is chosen, before he is exhorted to trust in Christ. According to Spurgeon, faith and repentance is the responsibility that “the sinner has the most to do” whereas God’s unconditional election is the subject with which “the saint has most to do”. There is a proper order.
3) We all have a need for profound humility before God. A right attitude before God recognizes that Scripture leaves many mysteries unresolved and is weary of putting too much confidence in our powers of reasoning. Instead of always explaining away mystery, let us believe and teach whatever is written even if we cannot fully explain it. We should follow the attitude of Spurgeon, who in a sermon on ‘God will have all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:3-4), said, “My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reference for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.”
4) When Calvinism ceases to be evangelistic, when it becomes more concerned with theory than with the salvation of all, when acceptance of doctrines seems to be more important than acceptance of Christ, then it is a system in decline and will invariably lose its attractive power. So we should be grateful for the resurgence of Calvinistic thought and conviction among younger evangelicals, but may our love of right doctrine be always coupled with a greater love for Christ and the lost.
– Greg Wills
Russell Moore