South Woods Baptist Church

Spurgeon's View of the Nature
and Extent of the Gospel

Introduction

            Charles Haddon Spurgeon was and is one of the most influential preachers in the annals of Baptist, possibly even Evangelical, history.  His pen produced many voluminous works over the span of his preaching ministry, the great majority of them being the sermons that were preached each Sunday from his pulpit.  People flocked to hear him preach every Sunday, but there was a large group of Baptists in England during the time of Spurgeon's ministry that disagreed with much of what Spurgeon wrote and preached, specifically concerning his view of the nature and extent of the gospel.  These men, to whom the name Hyper-Calvinists is given, did not think that the gospel should be preached to those who are not of the elect of God; therefore Spurgeon had no warrant to invite men to come to Christ in response to the gospel.  It is, then, a prudent commission to study Spurgeon's view of the nature and extent of the gospel to discover whether or not he rightly viewed gospel preaching.  Before tracing the nature of his view, one should have a basic context with which to view this controversy.

A Brief Biography of Spurgeon

            Spurgeon was born at Kelvedon, Essex, on June 19, 1834 to his parents Thomas and Eliza.  Due to poor economic conditions, he was sent at a young age to live with his grandparents in Stanbourne, Essex.  At the age of six, while living with his grandparents, Spurgeon stumbled on a room full of leather-bound volumes of Puritan works, beginning Spurgeon's life-long love of the Puritan literature.  He was already at this age a good reader, and as he grew in age and reading proficiency, his knowledge of Puritan writings and the theological truth espoused in them became the foundation for the preaching ministry that he would hold as pastor.[1] 

            At age fifteen, while attending school in Colchester, Spurgeon was overcome by the conviction of sin and sought urgently for salvation.  No doubt his background in the English puritan tradition aided him, and also by the catechizing he underwent at the hands of both his father and grandfather in the manner of the reformed tradition.[2]  Though reared in the Independent Congregationalist church, he was converted under the preaching of a layperson preaching one Sunday morning in a Primitive Methodist chapel.[3]  Spurgeon later came under conviction that he should be baptized by immersion, thus completing his break with the Congregationalist church, as he joined St. Andrews Baptist church in Cambridge, the city where he began attending school in 1850.[4]  He would later begin preaching in a local Baptist assembly in Teversham, near Cambridge, and in 1854 he accepted a call to be the pastor of New Park Street Baptist church, at the age of nineteen.  While at New Park Street, the congregation grew from a mere eighty members to two thousand in six months, and at least a thousand were being turned away at the door.  The church soon began construction on a new meetinghouse, the Metropolitan Tabernacle, in which he preached to six thousand people every Sunday.[5]  Spurgeon continued as pastor of this same congregation for almost four decades until his death in 1892.

Hyper-Calvinism Explained

            Early in Spurgeon's ministry at New Park Street, an ongoing debate began in a Baptist magazine, The Earthen Vessel, between Spurgeon and another Baptist pastor in London, James Wells.  Wells was a staunch Hyper-Calvinist and felt that the young Spurgeon's preaching was in fact "dangerous, superficial, and deceptive."[6]  He even doubted that Spurgeon was converted, claiming "a man cannot preach with any success what he does not know."[7]  Wells took issue with Spurgeon's supposed "Fullerite" theology, which said that it is the duty of every person to respond to the Gospel (i.e., duty-faith), thus the gospel should be preached to all.  A Hyper-Calvinist would argue that Christ atoned only for the sins of the elect, thus it cannot be the duty of the non-elect to come to Christ if He would not have provided atonement for their sins.[8]

            Many people view Spurgeon's preaching of duty-faith to mark his departure from historic Calvinism.  A.C. Underwood writes, "the truth seems to be that the old Calvinistic phrases were often on Spurgeon's lips but the genuine Calvinistic meaning had gone out of them."[9]  This view, though, is historically unreliable.  It is the case, rather, that Hyper-Calvinism is the departure from historic Calvinism.  "I have all the Puritans with me - the whole of them without a single exception," Spurgeon was able to claim in a sermon.[10]  In an earlier sermon he writes, "the Calvinism of some men is not the Calvinism of John Calvin, nor the Calvinism of the Puritans, much less the Christianity of God."[11]  Eventually, Spurgeon's hearers were persuaded that Hyper-Calvinism did not agree with scripture.  "[The Hyper-Calvinistic belief] is no longer old fashioned Calvinism, but a stage higher, and another upon that, making it super-hyper."[12]

            A related issue that Wells had with Spurgeon was that his gospel teaching was contradictory.  Spurgeon taught two seemingly conflicting doctrines, the first of which, total depravity, stated that all men are sinful and incapable of repenting and believing without a prior work of the Spirit, necessitating God's sovereign election to effectually call them if they are to be saved.  He also taught that it was the responsibility of the evangelist to make an appeal to every person to have faith in Christ, regardless of a knowledge of prior election  One contributor to the Earthen Vessel wrote that after reading Spurgeon's sermon on God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, he felt as though Spurgeon left his hearers "in as dense a fog with regard to the doctrine of responsibility as they were before."[13]  The question to be asked, then, is, "does Scripture warrant the juxtaposition of the free offer of the gospel and the complete sovereignty of God in salvation?"  The overwhelming answer of Scripture is not only a warrant, but an obligation.[14]  Spurgeon answers in the affirmative as well by employing  a four-fold appeal to Scripture in arguing against the egregious error of Hyper-Calvinism.

Spurgeon's Four Arguments for the Nature of the Gospel

            Many theologians and historians throughout the past three centuries have seen the difference between historic (or evangelical) Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism as being that of degree only.  In their view, the Hyper-Calvinist just believes a higher grade of the sovereignty of God than does the evangelical Calvinist.  When studied closely, though, the difference is not only of degree, but basic theological underpinnings that are as different as those between historic Calvinism and Arminianism.  Iain Murray traced the basic differences between historic Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism to be four in number.  These differences are: the question of the universality of gospel invitations, the warrant of a person to believe, a person's responsibility to believe, and the doctrine of the love of God.[15]  A careful study of these four differences is helpful in diagnosing Spurgeon's view of the nature and extent of the gospel.

Gospel Invitations are Universal

            There are great differences between Spurgeon's view of historic Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism with regards to whom the gospel should be given.  Hyper-Calvinists hold that the gospel is to only be used for the ingathering of the elect.  They hold this view because of certain theological assumptions, centering on a very high view of God and His sovereignty.  The Hyper-Calvinist believes that offering the gospel to the non-elect would deny the sovereignty of God and His grace because it is not necessarily the case that they should receive the gospel if, according to limited atonement, Christ did not die for them.  It is a farce on the gospel if we offer something that cannot be had.  As a result, Hyper-Calvinists suggest that gospel preaching should not contain an offer of the gospel, but merely state the facts of the gospel.[16]  In this way, they cannot be said to be offering something to someone for whom it is not an option to receive, but at the same time the elect may be regenerated by the Spirit after hearing the facts of what was done for them as the elect of God.  Only then, after evidence of God's work is apparent in their lives, should encouragement be made to them to believe that the promises of the gospel are for them in particular.

            Spurgeon, on the other hand, argued that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and that it is not just a statement of facts, but that it includes general promises to all who would believe, regardless of whether or not they perceive their election by God.  In arguing against the Hyper-Calvinist's claim that the sovereignty of God is denied if the gospel is offered to all men without distinction, Spurgeon contends that it is not for the evangelist to distinguish to whom the gospel may be preached, for it is to be preached to all; rather it is the Spirit who distinguishes when He applies the truth of the gospel to the elect.[17]

            Spurgeon also argues against the thought that the gospel should be preached as fact alone with no offer being given.[18]  He maintains that the preacher has not done his work until he urges his hearers to believe.[19]  Spurgeon makes his argument based on Scripture, not on his theological understanding of election, which happens to be quite similar to the Hyper-Calvinists.  Preaching from the text of Acts 3:19 ("Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out"), Spurgeon says,

Peter preached the Christ of the gospel - preached it personally and directly at the crowd who were gathered around him...Grown up among us is a school of men who say that they rightly preach the gospel to sinners when they merely deliver statements of what the gospel is, and the result of dying unsaved, but they grow furious and talk of unsoundness if any venture to say to the sinner, 'Believe' or 'Repent'.  To this school Peter did not belong - into their secret he had never come, and with their assembly, were he alive now, he would not be joined.[20]

The Warrant of Faith

            Another difference between Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism was that the latter claims a person must have a warrant (i.e., just reason) if he or she is to believe in Christ.  In their view, the gospel should only be offered to specific people, namely the penitent and heavy laden, but not to all people.  How, then, does someone know if the gospel should be offered to them?  The Hyper-Calvinist says there must be a subjective experience of guilt and sin-weariness before one can know that the promises of Scripture are for him.[21]

            Spurgeon argued against the thought that there must first be a subjective experience before one may seek salvation by teaching that the warrant for the unbeliever to believe the gospel is not in himself, but in the invitation of Christ.  That invitation is the only just reason for believing that salvation is possible, thus no unbeliever has any advantage over any other unbeliever when it comes to the warrant of salvation.[22]  The gospel is not to wait for feelings of guilt, but to repent and believe.[23]  Spurgeon said, "I find Jesus Christ says nothing to sinners about waiting, but very much about coming."[24]

            The Hyper-Calvinist may envision in Spurgeon's argument a suggestion of belief in general atonement, in that calling people to believe in Christ is false if Christ has not actually atoned for their sin.  Is this view an inconsistency?  Spurgeon answered his critics by pointing out that "believe that Christ died for you" is not part of the gospel to which the unbeliever must attain; rather the call is for the sinner to entrust himself to Christ, not because he is one for whom atonement has been made, but because he is lost and must come to Jesus to be saved.[25]  Therefore, awareness of the scope of the atonement is not essential for faith to be effected.

            Spurgeon also argued that a result of the Hyper-Calvinist understanding of the limited offer of the gospel confused needy souls with a form of legality.  In a sermon on 1 John 3:23 called "The Warrant of Faith," Spurgeon said, "in our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe.  This also is false.  It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints."[26]  The great commission is not to preach the gospel to every regenerate person, to every convinced sinner, to every sensible sinner; rather it is to be preached to every creature.[27]

            The Hyper-Calvinist view also confuses sinners in that it causes men to look at themselves instead of to Christ.  To unbelievers, the Hyper-Calvinist belief is confusing because they are unable to understand themselves as they are truly because of the sin that blinds their spiritual eyes.  Therefore, they are confused as to their true condition, and will never see the warrant for their faith.  True believers, though, can also be confused because of the fact that their eyes have been opened and see their sin as a true, horrible reality, and when sin persists because of their sinful flesh, they may feel like they have no warrant for faith.  Spurgeon preached, "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."[28]  In the same sermon, he said, "The gospel is that you believe in Christ Jesus; that you get right out of yourself, and depend alone in him.  Do you say, 'I feel so guilty?'  You are certainly guilty, whether you feel it or not; you are far more guilty than you have any idea of.  Come to Christ because you are guilty, not because you have been prepared to come by looking at your guilt.  Trust nothing of your own, not even your sense of need."[29]

Human Responsibility

            A third difference between Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism lies at the heart of the disagreement, that is the responsibility of all people to believe in Christ once they have heard the gospel, regardless of whether or not they are of the elect.  It is important to note here the difference between two commonly used terms in this debate.  First, free-will is the ability of a person to choose to do right or wrong in every situation according to God's law.  This ability was lost at the fall and is now only the ability of a regenerate person, though not to the degree as our first parents had.  The second term is free-agency, which refers to the responsibility, regardless of free-will, that all people have to their Creator to do what He has commanded as right and wrong according to His objective law.[30]

            The difference between these two terms is the base of the dispute between historic Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, in that the latter group argues that since certain people are not of the elect, then God does not expect them to believe in Christ because He has not secured their salvation in the atonement made by Christ.  This belief also lies as the basis for the Arminian error, in that they argue that if grace has not been given to all men, then none have a duty to believe; but since Scripture contends that it is the duty of all men to believe in Christ, then, as they argue, grace must be given to all men.  These two erroneous views of salvation, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, can be summed up in the phrase, "No grace, no duty."[31]

            Hyper-Calvinists objected to Spurgeon, saying that to call for repentance and faith from all those who may hear the gospel denies the doctrines of human depravity and God's sovereignty because the evangelist would be assuming that his hearers were able to respond, regardless of their depravity, and that God had no control over their response if they were to come.  This objection, though, was shown to be false by Spurgeon in that he constantly preached the doctrines of human depravity and God's sovereignty.  "We shall proclaim the doctrine of God's sovereignty, without toning it down, and electing love without stuttering over it."[32]

            Spurgeon pointed to Scripture to argue for the responsibility of all people to believe, and the responsibility of the evangelist to preach the gospel to all people.  Jesus spoke the gospel to many who did not believe.  Spurgeon preached, "Our Lord's mission was not so much to save all whom he addressed, as to save out of them as many as his Father gave him."[33] 

So how, then, is a man responsible to believe if he cannot, both because of his depravity and God's sovereignty?  The answer lies in the facts that man is not forced by some outside force called depravity to disobey God, nor does God force the unbeliever to sin.  Instead, unbelieving people sin because they love to do so.  Granted, this sin does spring up from their fallen nature, but it is still their responsibility before God to follow the law and trust in Christ.  Their un-electness does not condemn them; rather it is their sin that condemns them.[34]  Beyond recognizing the dual truths of human responsibility and God's sovereignty, Spurgeon never attempted to explain their relationship to one another.  His job was to preach Scripture, which included both sets of truths.[35]  Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism neglect to preach one or the other of these truths in their understanding of salvation.  Spurgeon stated that, "Both [God's sovereignty and human responsibility] are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both."[36]  In another sermon, he said, "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.  It is the fault of our weak judgment...it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other."[37] 

As a result of his view of these two truths of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty, Spurgeon felt that the doctrine of free-agency is essential to evangelism.  A person is responsible before God and will be condemned for the sin of rejecting Christ, who is in fact God.[38]  Spurgeon even taught that it may be worse for the person who rejects Christ than others who are condemned.  He said, "I feel that, could we roll all sins into one mass, - could we take murder, blasphemy, lust, adultery, fornication, and everything that is vile, and unite them all into one vast globe of black corruption, - they would not even then equal the sin of unbelief."[39]

The Love of God

            A final difference that lies at the fundamental level of beliefs of both Hyper-Calvinism and of Spurgeon is the doctrine of the love of God.  The former group argues that if God has chosen an elect people, then surely He can have no desire for the salvation of any others.  Spurgeon directly confronted this view in a sermon on Romans 10:20-21 ("...But to Israel he saith, all day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."), a passage where he saw evidence that God does desire salvation even of those who reject Him.  He preached, "God is undoubtedly sincere in every act he did.  He sent his prophets, he entreated the people of Israel to lay hold on spiritual things, but they would not, and though he stretched out his hands all the day long, yet they were 'a disobedient and gainsaying people' and would not have his love."[40]

            This denial of the love of God for all people was not enclosed in the sphere of a theoretical mistake; rather it was practically a great obstacle to those who would not believe.  This denial resulted in a flawed view of the character of God.  Many unbelievers see God as a severe and unloving God, dealing out retribution for so called miniscule sins, always watching, always keeping count.  The person who views God in this way fails to see that, "God is love.  He does not make prominent enough the benevolent character of the Divine Being...To see the holiness, the love, the justice, the faithfulness, the immutability, the omnipotence, and the sovereignty of God, all shining like a bright corona of eternal and ineffable light...our faulty vision has been the ground of divers mistakes."[41]  In the same sermon, he points out that Calvin did not even hold the Hyper-Calvinist's view of the love of God.  In his commentary on Hosea 13:14, Calvin wrote, "God does not here simply promise salvation, but shows that he is indeed ready to save, but that the wickedness of the people was an impediment in the way..."[42]  Instead of seeing God's wrath as a deterrent to salvation, in fact it is the love of God that is desirable to sinners.  Spurgeon preached, "'Sinner, only trust in Christ.'  Ah, ye do not know what a great 'only' that is.  It is a work so great that no man can do it unaided by God...But if anything can call faith into exercise (it is the knowledge) that Christ is willing to receive thee."[43]

Conclusion

            In conclusion, Spurgeon was a magnificent defender of the doctrines of grace, of which he was seen by many Hyper-Calvinists to be an enemy.  He was diligent to keep his preaching established on the Word of God, instead of on a theology of theory that had no basis, and therefore no authority, in Scripture.  It is not likely that Spurgeon's stand for Scripture, and the gospel found therein, would have been provided by any other pastor in London at the time of this confrontation, and it is conceivable that the vibrancy of the Baptist churches in London would have vanished much sooner if not for the striving of this great advocate of the faith, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.