An Excerpt of C.H.Spurgeon’s sermon “Particular Redemption” reveals that Spurgeon neither did cower from preaching on Limited Atonement to his congregation, nor did he think that to preach on it would hinder the Evangel. Enjoy…
“The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.
Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when he died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.
Now, we believe no such thing We hold that Christ, when he died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by his death?” we answer that question by asking him another — “What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by his death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold — we are not afraid to say what 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.
I have thus just stated our theory of redemption, and hinted at the differences which exist between two great parties in the professing church. It shall be now my endeavor to show the greatness of the redemption of Christ Jesus; and by so doing, I hope to be enabled by God’s Spirit, to bring out the whole of the great system of redemption, so that it may be understood by us all, even if all of us cannot receive it. For you must bear this in mind, that some of you, perhaps, may be ready to dispute things which I assert; but you will remember that this is nothing to me; I shall at all times teach those things which I hold to be true, without let or hindrance from any man breathing. You have the like liberty to do the same in your own places, and to preach your own views in your own assemblies, as I claim the right to preach mine, fully, and without hesitation.”
[Spurgeon, C. H. – Particular Redemption, 2/28/1858: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 4]
Tweet
I’m sure the BHT “theologians” will find Spurgeon’s theology lacking and “unbiblical” as well.
Are we really surprised…especially when Mr. Spencer refuses to respond to simple theological questions?
This man has given a whole new meaning to the term “hit and run”. Isn’t this the MO of someone who has something to hide? Hmm…makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
>Isn’t this the MO of someone who has something to hide? Hmm…makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
Mr. Fields, if you are going to raise the issue of personal morality in a public forum, I would encourage you to have some specific evidence and be able to back up what you are saying. Implying through a “make up your own possible moral failure” accusation that I have something to hide is a serious matter.
Please clarify what you mean as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Michael Spencer
Spencer, Ken is right. I happened to keep an eye on the BHT when someone sent me an email that you were criticizing my sermon on John 3:16. I watched as your Tavern engaged in childish name calling, mockery, and other foolishness. For example, I saw some things get posted like babies crying with captions explained that the baby was not in the elect. Since I have never written or preached about babies going to hell, I found your mockery inappropriate, and really not funny (Iwill save all the anecdotal reasons). Of course you removed those pics after only a short time, covering you tracks. But I understood then that you find humor in mocking someone’s sermon.
And on top of that, as Ken points out, you and some of your groupies (some of which have less class than yourself) engage in such frivolity on a site that bans those whom you mock and mischaracterize from commenting. Oh, you quickly say, imonk.com has always allowed comments. Well, we aren’t talking about imonk.com are we?!
And so I say to Ken you do not have to provide any more evidence that what we all already have. It is sufficient. And based on it and the ongoing activities of the bht Ken has every right to say what he has said without wasting time with documenting all the facts again.
Your hypocrisy betrays you. For example, you run and pull out Capon as your source for your view of the atonement. You say things like, “Read it people, read it…” (paraphrasing) But then you demand that no one else quote theologians in defense of their view. “If any of you start posting lengthy quotes from your favorite theologians to “prove” points, I’m going to kick you out of here,” you said. Oh, I see. Everyone should just do as you say, read your library, and shut up.
Well, no, Spencer, Ken should not shut up, nor should the solid theologians at the BHT just because you are confused and whiney. Your actions are a serious matter, as silly as they sometimes are. It is a typical characteristic of the age in which we live.
So, Ken, the answer is no, we are not really surprised.
EXCELLENT POST…
With your permission, Jason, I will respond to Mr. Spencer, since I have also received two emails requesting me to do so. Evidently he took my “he must be hiding something” comment to be in reference to a moral issue that could harm or cost him his public ministry. This not being the case (but that it appeared Mr. Spencer was hiding behind his bar at BHT rather than answering Jason’s questions) here the response I emailed Spencer:
Mr. Spencer,
The words you’ve called into question were not meant as an open ended accusation of your character, I was only assuming that since you hadn’t answered Jason’s questions, you were either unable or unwilling to do so.
I do not doubt your sincerity or your faith…especially since you are a fellow Baptist! Yet, I could not understand why you would make the statements you made at BHT and not show Jason the courtesy of clarifying your views by answering his questions. For example, when I ask my children questions that they will not answer, it usually means they are hiding something!
I am still a bit puzzled as to why your comments do not appear at FIDE-O. Jason claims to post all comments that are not inflammatory in nature, etc, but you say he has not allowed your comments to be posted.
Mr. Spencer, please understand that I was not impugning your character, only your apparent (at least not appearing at FIDE-O) unwillingness to answer Jason’s honest questions. I did visit your site following your first email
this morning, and I’m still not sure if you’ve answered his questions!
I will add a comment to my comment at FIDE-O explaining myself and why I chose to use those words…along with your claim that your comments are not being posted!
I consider you a brother in Christ … and appreciate your passion for what you believe, even if it is a bit different from my convictions! Thanks for asking for clarification, and I hope this suffices.
Ken Fields
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Fields. I appreciate it and I appreciate it being posted here.
4given, thanks.
Spencer, I have not banned your comments. If you are telling people that in emails then you are being untruthful about me. Now, I will assume that you think you are being factual and not just lying. Blogger has given us trouble in recent weeks/days and we know for certain that some comments never got to us. In fact, Scott and I have been “shopping” for a new comment service to be used on Fide-O that is more reliable than Blogger’s comment service. So as I have said to you before, if you have had anything of substance and on subject to say and we have gotten it, then it has been posted. We have not posted your numerous emails because we considered them private and we respect that.
So Ken, Michael has not tried to answer my questions to my knowledge. Rather he stirs his groupies into cussing fits at the Tavern, mischaracterizes me and my statements and does not have the decency to allow me to comment to his pals under their posts. Michael has reminded me on occasions that I can comment at imonk.com but who cares… it is at his BHT where the slander continues on not only me but other men as well. People tell me of the emails that Michael sends them to try to soothe things over, but my question is why doesn’t he take it public — like opening the comments on the BHT. Until that happens, I believe Michael is less than honorable. And anyone that knows me knows that I am a man of great patience and grace, even upon the most hopeless cases. And I have continued to be patient with Michael. But in the mean time, we should not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that his antics are virtuous.
Jason,
Please understand that I was not implying that you were not posting Spencer’s comments. Your integrity speaks for itself.
As for this whole brouhaha, please understand that there are many of us in your corner. The “L” in limited atonement speaks just as much as to what Christ’s death DID ACCOMPLISH as it does to what it WAS NOT INTENDED to accomplish. Again, everyone (except unorthodox universalists) limits the atonement somewhere (whether in its effect or in its scope). The question is not, “Does God love everybody?” or “Did Jesus die for everybody in the same way?”, the question is “Did the death of Christ accomplish what it was intended to accomplish?”
The “L” is a precious truth for ALL WHO BELIEVE…for it speaks to God’s ability to save those He has intended to save from the foundations of the world. Praise His name! The cross displays as much of God’s omnipotence as it does His love! If God was incapable of saving ALL He intended to save through the cross, how could the “whosoever” of John 3:16 really mean “whosoever”?
In the words of Hebrews 7:25 (ESV), “Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”
Praise God, He is able to save to the uttermost. And who does He save to the uttemost? Those for whom He intercedes…logically, those for whom He died!
We’re with you, Jason, keep stickin’ by the truth!
Ken
Good, good stuff.