I spent the last few days reading Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching by Iain Murray. It was well worth the $4.72 I paid for this book at WTS Books. It was yet another solid read by Iain Murray. He’s done us a great service again, though this book is quite short (under 160 pages).
Why might someone want to read this book? Well, for a few reasons. One the one hand it can be used to refute Arminians who think that Calvinism itself hinders evangelism. It shows this by putting forth Spurgeon as a very evangelistic, historical Calvinist. It shows that Hyper-Calvinism (which does hinder evangelism) is a deviation which should not be confused with the real thing (all those people in the SBC who are afraid of Calvinism should read this).
With the resurgence of Calvinism among young church leaders, we may see a resurgence of Hyper-Calvinism as well. It was this that led Murray to write the book in the 1990s. I have only met a few Hyper-Calvinists by doctrine. However, sometimes we can inadvertantly be Hyper-Calvinists in practice. I felt that conviction as I read the book. I have not been as zealous in pleading with people as perhaps I should have been.
Murray begins with a very brief historical sketch of Charles Haddon Spurgeon to set the stage. He began his ministry at a time when Arminianism was beginning to spread among English Baptists, and part of the reason was that Hyper-Calvinism had infected many of the English Baptist congregations. The two controversies of Spurgeon’s early ministry were against these to sub-biblical theologies. By and large they attacked him, though he recognized some indiscretion on his part as he looked back in latter years.
Murray turns to the Combatants and the Cause of the Controversy. It began in earnest when a well-meaning publisher wanted to show other Hyper-Calvinists that Spurgeon was a man whose ministry they could welcome, even if he wasn’t “fully onboard”. This draw the ire of the leading Hyper-Calvinists who began exchanging letters to the editors and articles on the matter with some who defended Spurgeon. Spurgeon himself never entered the fray via the periodicals. Most of his responses were in the form of instructing his people from the pulpit.
Murray then moves into The Case Against Spurgeon. They claimed he was touched by an Arminian spirit (attitude, not a ghost or something). But many of their arguments had a problem- they were refuted by numerous honored Puritan pastor-theologians like Richard Sibbes, John Owen, Thomas Boston and the other Marrow Men. They argued that non-elect people could not be told to repent and believe since they were unable to do so. They called the practice of so doing “duty-faith”, quite derisively to make it sound like a work. The Hyper-Calvinists fell into the same trap as the Arminians, though it took them in a different direction. For God to command something of people implied they had the ability to fulfill the command. Arminians accepted this, and believed all people had the ability, not just the duty, to repent and believe. Hyper-Calvinists, believing non-elect people lacked the ability, also lacked the duty. In this they were trying to be logically consistent.
The problem is that duty is not connected to ability. God’s commands are reflective of His nature, not our ability. As such they reflect our responsibility, what we are to do. All people are commanded to obey God in all things, though only regenerate people have the ability to actually do that.
Murray turns to Spurgeon’s Fourfold Appeal to Scripture. As noted above, most of this is culled from his sermons.
(more…)
Read Full Post »