Preach earnestly the love of God in Christ Jesus, and magnify the abounding mercy of the Lord; but always preach it in connection with His justice. Do not extol the single attribute of love in the method too generally followed, but regard love in the high theological sense, in which, like a golden circle, it holds within itself all the divine attributes: for God were not love if He were not just, and did not hate every unholy thing. Never exalt one attribute at the expense of another. Let boundless mercy be seen in calm consistency with stern justice and unlimited sovereignty. The true character of God is fitted to awe, impress, and humble the sinner: be careful not to misrepresent your Lord.
C. H. Spurgeon, “On Conversion as Our Aim,” in Second Series of Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1978), 184.
Geoff Thomas gives an overview of Iain Murray’s May 19th, 1995 address to the annual Grace Baptist Assembly (a “group of 1689 Confessionalists”) on the subject of “C. H. Spurgeon and His Battle with Hyper-Calvinism.” Thomas says that, “It is not that this group of 1689 Confessionalists are drifting in that direction, indeed a better grasp of experiential Calvinism would lift us all-pulpits and churches. But, as lain Murray pointed out, whenever Calvinism is revived, hyper-Calvinism appears. Conversely, when Calvinism is eclipsed then hyper-Calvinism is a spent force.” A brief survey of Spurgeon’s battle with James Wells is given, along with 4 errors of hyper-Calvinism. Here’s the fourth error:
4. The hyper-Calvinist denies the universal love of God. He has a fearful caricature of the real nature of God which would present him as fierce, and not easily induced to love. If we fellowshipped more with Christ, said Iain Murray, we would know and love him more. Then there would be no uncertainty that God desired the salvation of sinners. ‘How oft would I have gathered you,’ says the Saviour to recalcitrant Jerusalem.
I just saw the following video posted on Sam Shamoun's Facebook wall (the old video link is dead, but the following is the same):
My Response:
Contrary to what both Sproul and MacArthur say in this video, the problem is not with telling people that God loves them unconditionally. In fact, Sproul admits that God does love all men with a love of benevolence (and this sense of love is unconditional), or a love of good-will in the rest of what he says (even as he does in this article on God's "Abundant Love"). Just because an unregenerate audience may misunderstand the point, that doesn't make the proposition false that God loves all men unconditionally (as His creatures), or establish that we ought not to say so. For example, are we to avoid saying that Jesus was a man because some in the audience may think He was a mere man and not also a divine person? Of course not.
The problem is when preachers merely say that God loves all unconditionally without also telling them of God's wrath against sinners, and that they stand condemned. This is what Sproul and MacArthur should have said, instead of conveying the idea (in their overreaction) that it is bad or wrong to tell all sinners that He loves them unconditionally. It is however true that, as Sproul says, God only has a love of complacency or a filial love for believers, or the obedient, so that is a kind of conditional love that is not for all. This does not negate the other truth that God, in another sense, has an unconditional love for all.
All of the Reformers and Puritans taught that God loves all men with a love of benevolence. Some (e.g. John Davenant, an English delegate to the Synod of Dort) even say that it is "plain blasphemy" to deny it since it is so manifestly taught in scripture and seen in providence. What scripture plainly affirms is never wrong to teach, and Jesus plainly taught that the Father loves all men as His creatures, and thus shines His sun on them and gives them rain, etc. However, we want to teach the whole counsel of God as well so that we do not leave perishing sinners the wrong impression by that truth, with the result that they are not properly warned about God's anger against them as sinners.
Note the wisdom in the words of John Davenant:
The general love of God towards mankind is so clearly testified in Holy Scripture, and so demonstrated by the manifold effects of God’s goodness and mercy extended to every particular man in this world, that to doubt thereof were infidelity, and to deny it, plain blasphemy: yet for all this, if any man shall go about to magnify the common love of God extended promiscuously to all men, that thereby he obscured the special love and mercy of God prepared for all eternity, and bestowed in due time upon elect men, this may lead the ignorant and unlearned into a dangerous error: And therefore obliquely to oppose the eternal free and absolute decree of Predestination or Election under the color of disproving an absolute decree for any man’s Damnation, befits not any Divine who acknowledges the truth of that doctrine which the Scriptures have delivered, St. Augustine cleared, and the Church of England established in the xvii Article.
John Davenant, Animadversions Written By the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise intitled “God’s love to Mankind,” (London: Printed for Iohn Partridge, 1641), 3.
Notice that Davenant does not think it is wrong to teach God's common love to people. On the contrary, he even says it is "plain blasphemy" to deny it. However, he warns against merely teaching that to the exclusion of God's special love for the elect.
Spurgeon was spot on when he said:
Preach earnestly the love of God in Christ Jesus, and magnify
the abounding mercy of the Lord; but always preach it in connection with
His justice. Do not extol the single attribute of love in the method
too generally followed, but regard love in the high theological sense,
in which, like a golden circle, it holds within itself all the divine
attributes: for God were not love if He were not just, and did not hate
every unholy thing. Never exalt one attribute at the expense of another.
Let boundless mercy be seen in calm consistency with stern justice and
unlimited sovereignty. The true character of God is fitted to awe,
impress, and humble the sinner: be careful not to misrepresent your
Lord.
C. H. Spurgeon, "On Conversion as Our Aim," in Second Series of Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1978), 184.
These are the kinds of cautious and qualified statements we need to hear by our leaders, not unqualified denials of God's love for everybody. God loves all men unconditionally in terms of His love of benevolence, but only the obedient with a love of complacency or delight. This is what the Reformed have taught in the past, and it accords with God's inspired word.
During the exchange, MacArthur said:
Preaching that God loves you unconditionally is the wrong message. The sinner needs to be terrified about his condition. He doesn't need to feel comfortable in the fact that he's turned out so well, as R. C. put it.
You cannot faithfully preach the gospel message to a lost soul without at least conveying to the sinner that God stands ready, willing and prepared to receive them through repentance and faith in the gospel call. That, among other things, inevitably conveys God's goodwill to that sinner, and thus God's unconditional love of benevolence to that sinner. It is most certainly not the "wrong message." Sure, to merely say that, or to merely convey that idea, is not sufficient. One must say more than that, but not less than that. The unregenerate sinner does need to be terrified about his condition, but he also needs to know that there is hope for him while he lives in this world, and that there is hope because God, in his unconditional benevolent love to that person, has made a way for him to be saved.
Evangelists in Jonathan Edwards' day, such as Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen, would distinguish between different kinds of sinners in their audiences. Frelinghuysen developed the skill of dividing "a congregation into various states and conditions of soul and then made personal applications in preaching to each group" (Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans [Grand Rapids: RHB, 2006], 761). For example, there is the drooping or despairing sinner who feels too filthy to be saved, and there is the self-confident or arrogant sinner who feels no need to be saved because he is not sufficiently convicted of his sinfulness. It is wise to stress different attributes of God to various kinds of lost people, but not to the exclusion of other attributes, as Spurgeon said above.
To the drooping sinner, it is wise to stress the great love and willingness of God to save him, even though he abides under God's wrath in his lost condition. To the self-confident sinner, it is wise to stress the holiness and wrath of God against sinners, and to show how far he has fallen from God's standard as set forth in the law, but not to the point of omitting the crucial truth of God's benevolent willingness to save that sinner. It's a matter of stressing one truth to a certain kind of person, but not omitting other crucial truths in the process. The cross of Christ simultaneously demonstrates both God's love and His wrath against sinners. We are to teach both at the same time as we call sinners to repentance and faith, but we may have to stress some attributes more than others, depending on the kind of person we are talking to. Preaching that God loves all people unconditionally is not the wrong message, but it may become the wrong message if other crucial, gospel truths are omitted. That, I think, is the wise thing to say.
God is practically, as far as we are concerned, bound by his own revelation of his own character. He has been pleased to tell us that he is just, and that he is the Lord God, merciful and gracious. In a few words, he has given us the sum of himself by saying that “God is love.” When a man says concerning himself, “I have a right to do as I like, but I am generous as well as just,” you feel sure he will exercise the right which he claims in a manner according to, and consistent with, his own statement of what he is, and if he has rightly estimated his own character, he will give bountifully and pay honourably. Rest assured, then, that God’s sovereignty never will prove him to have misrepresented himself, or to have deceived us. When he says that he is just, he neither can nor will act unjustly towards any creature he has made. There was never a pang or a pain inflicted arbitrarily by God. God never pronounced a curse upon any man unless that man had clearly and richly earned it by his sin. No soul was ever cast into hell by sovereignty. God takes counsel with himself, but he stoops not to caprice. How comes the hapless creature, then, to this dread torment? Sin brings the sinner into a ruined state; justice pronounces the sinner’s doom. Sovereignty may let that doom stand. What if it moves not to avert the issue. Justice it is that pronounces the curse. Be assured, man, however much you may kick against the doctrine of election, you have no reason to do so. Whatever that doctrine may involve, it is not possible but that God must, and will, act towards you in a way so strictly just that, when you yourself come to discover it in eternity, you will not be able to cavil, but be compelled to stand speechless. Moreover, God has been pleased to assure you that he is love; that he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. Now, whatever sovereignty may decree, you may rest assured that the decree will be in consonance with the fact that God is full of mercy, grace, and truth. I know some of you set up the decree of God like a huge monster before you. You paint a horrible picture, as though the visage of him that speaketh to you from heaven were cruel and pitiless. But that picture is drawn by your perverse imagination; it is not God’s portrait of himself, for he saith, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but had rather that he would turn unto me and live.” God mocks not when he says, “Turn ye, turn ye; why will ye die, O house of Israel?” That is honest emotion which God feels over a sinner who ruins himself when he cries, “How can I give thee up? How shall I set thee as Admah? How shall I make thee as Zeboim? My bowels are moved; my repentings are kindled together!” God willeth not the death of a sinner, but had rather that he should turn unto him and live. So he himself assures us, and, sovereign as he is, yet he still remains both just and gracious for ever, and let us not doubt it for a moment. The rainbow, the rainbow of his own glorious attributes of mercy, ever surrounds the throne.
C. H. Spurgeon, “The Heavenly Rainbow (No. 3,412),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1914), 60:303–304.
Of course those who are of an Arminian persuasion have no problem with these verses which teach so clearly that the invitation to salvation is indiscriminate. After all, their redemptive scheme is universal in the absolute sense. They teach that it is God’s solitary and ultimate design to make salvation available equally to all of Adam’s race. With this, of course, the Calvinist disagrees. But if, as the Calvinist teaches, there is a special decree of election, what is the purpose of a universal call? If God has not determined to change the hearts of all is He merely taunting people with a plea to come for forgiveness? How can such a call be sincere? Indeed, would not such a call represent God as frustrated and defeated, just as the Arminians teach?
Calvinists answer this objection by distinguishing between God’s will of desire and His will of decree. Unless this clarification between God’s two wills is made it is impossible to incorporate all the teachings of Scripture into a balanced and harmonious scheme. God, undoubtedly, wishes all to turn to Him while reserving the right to determine that some will actually turn to Him. There is of course some difficulty in harmonizing such seemingly antagonizing concepts, just as it is hard for the human mind to conceive how God can be one substance, yet existing in three persons. The difficulty is in the finitude of our minds. It is not in the clarity of the teachings of Scripture or in the dictates of logic.
Typical of doctrines of grace preachers who ground the universality of the gospel invitation in God’s desire that all turn to Him is the well-known Charles Spurgeon. In the sermon, “Salvation by Knowing the Truth,” he seeks to honestly interpret 1 Timothy 2:4 which states that God wishes all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Spurgeon, with not a little sarcasm, upbraids those who seek to twist this text to mean that God wishes some to be saved. He passes this view off as little better than exploding the text by using grammatical gunpowder. The true meaning he explains in a sermon, “Salvation by Knowing the Truth”:
It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that He wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for if He did, then all men would be saved .... Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word “wish” gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—”whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. As it is My wish that it would be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God’s wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, He is not less benevolent than we are.6
Of course Spurgeon anticipates that some will query, “If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not His power carry out to the full all His beneficence?” In other words, why does not infinite divine omnipotence accomplish that which infinite divine benevolence wishes? Spurgeon simply answers, “I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so.”7
Those in both the Arminian and Calvinistic camps who fail to distinguish between the two aspects of God’s will have the greater problem because they must inevitably resort to exegetical gymnastics to get rid of the texts that do not immediately suit their particular system. The balanced Calvinist, such as Spurgeon, has a philosophical problem in reconciling different aspects of God’s nature, but after all why should we be too troubled by the mysteries of God’s being? The twin truths of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility stand, admittedly, in dynamic tension to each other. But they are not contradictory.
One of the most thorough and incisive discussions of the two aspects of the divine will can be found in Robert Dabney’s essay titled, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity,” which was printed in his Evangelical and Theological Discussions. He defends with great candor and integrity the biblical teachings of a free offer of salvation to all. He continually refers to those who see only one saving disposition of God, and that is His sovereign love to the elect, as extremists. His philosophical and psychological case that a person, even God, can have connotative propensions (propensities), which are not necessarily carried out in elective decisions, is, at least to my mind, quite convincing.8
To make the matter simple, suppose that a parent has repeatedly commanded a child, for purposes of safety, never to play with the box of matches in the kitchen cabinet. The child, fascinated by fire and driven by a natural desire to resist authority, insists on getting the matches and setting little fires in the yard. One day the parent looks from his window and sees the youngster engaged in this mischievous practice. It would be possible for the parent to rush outside and deal with the danger by taking the matches from the child. Thinking, however, that it might be a good punishment for the child to burn his hands he simply watches him carry out his own wishes. In such a case the parent genuinely wants the child to leave the matchbox alone, yet he chooses, for a higher or ultimate end, to allow him to do it.
Such illustrations, of course, in the end prove nothing as far as theology is concerned. But they do point out the fact that a person can have complex emotions that can on the surface seem to be antithetical to one another. The parent has the ability by a sheer act of intervention to carry out his wish that the child leave the matches alone, yet he chooses not to use this power. Even so there is no reason to doubt that God desires people to do things which is a desire accompanied by commands and promises of reward or punishment, and yet He has also chosen not to put forth the sovereign power to induce people to carry out such commands.
The late John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse of Westminster Theological Seminary, in a pamphlet titled The Free Offer of the Gospel, see, as do Dabney and Spurgeon, the universal call based on God’s compassion for human beings. Their exposition of the troublesome text, 2 Peter 3:9, is interesting. The verse says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
This text has been the format for many a match of wits between Calvinists and Arminians. A typical approach of the former is to establish that the “you” of the verse are the elect spoken of in chapter 1, verse 2. What the verse means, so the Calvinist often argues, is that God is merciful and longsuffering toward His chosen people and that He is not willing that any of them be lost.
Murray and Stonehouse, in the aforementioned pamphlet, challenge this exposition. In their view there is no reason in the analogy of Scripture why we should not regard this passage as teaching that God in the exercise of His benevolent longsuffering and lovingkindness wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance.9
The longsuffering spoken of, say Murray and Stonehouse, is not the sovereign and efficacious purpose toward the chosen but His merciful and kind disposition to men in general. “We do not believe that the restriction of the reference to the elect is well-established.”10
The authors of The Free Offer, both well-known defenders of Reformed theology, feel no constraint in affirming God’s good will toward sinners generally.
Does not, as a matter of fact, the language “not wishing that any should perish,” mean that “all should come to repentance”? Does this not set before us a basic antithesis between the death or destruction that awaits impenitent sinners and by implication, the life eternal which men may enter upon thorough repentance? God does not wish that any men should perish. His wish is rather that all should enter upon life eternal by coming to repentance.... The language of the clauses, then, most naturally refers to mankind as a whole as men are faced with the issues of death or life before the day of judgment comes. It does not view men either as elect or as reprobate, and so allows that both elect and reprobate make up the totality in view.11
_______________ 6. Charles H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1880), XXV, pp. 49–50.
7. Ibid., p. 51.
8. Robert L. Dabney, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy,” Discussions Theological and Evangelical, Vol. 1, (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1890), pp. 282–313).
9. John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Phillipsburg, NJ: Lewis J. Grotenhuis, n.d.), p. 21.
10. Ibid., p. 23.
11. Ibid., p. 24.
John Thornbury, “God’s Universal Call to Men,” Reformation and Revival 2:4 (Fall 1993), 102–106. This entire article can be downloaded here (click).
Then think again, there is the Master to be considered. The Lord—is he always to be resisted and provoked and yet to continue to have patience? Many of you have had eternal life set before you as to be received by simply believing in Jesus Christ; and you have refused to believe. Now, my Lord might have said to me, “Go home, you have done your duty with them; never set Christ before them again, I am not going to have my Son insulted.” If you offer a beggar in the street a shilling and he demurs, and will not have it, you cheerfully put it into your purse and go your way; you do not stand there begging him to have his wants relieved: but, behold, our God in mercy has been begging sinners to come to him, imploring them to accept his Son. In his condescension he has even come down to this—to be like a salesman in the market, crying, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come buy wine and milk, without money and without price.” In another place he says of himself, “All day long have I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying generation.” Well, if the Lord of mercy has been refused, and the Lord of love has been despised so long in the sight of you who reverence him, does not some indignation mingle with your pity, and while you love sinners and would have them saved, do you not feel in your heart that there must be an end to such insulting behaviour, and such matchless patience? You cannot always be pleading with those who will not be persuaded, for he that refuseth you refuseth him that sent you. I ask those whose hearts are hard to think of the matter in this light, and if they do not respect the ploughman, yet let them have regard to his Master.
There is a tendency, however, on the other hand in certain quarters, to make doctrinal knowledge everything. I have seen, to my inexpressible grief, the doctrines of grace made a huge stone to be rolled at the mouth of the sepulchre of a dead Christ, and I have seen sound doctrine, so called, made as a very seal to seal in the dead Christ, lest by any means the energy of his grace should come out for the salvation of sinners. Oh, what is doctrine after all but a throne whereon Christ sitteth, and when that throne is vacant what is the throne to us? It is the monarch and not the throne that we reverence and esteem. Doctrines are but as the shovel and the tongs of the altar, while Christ is the sacrifice smoking thereon. Doctrines are Christ’s garments; verily they all smell of myrrh, and cassia, and aloes out of the ivory palaces, whereby they make us glad, but it is not the garments we care for so much as for the person, the very person of our Lord Jesus Christ.
C. H. Spurgeon, “‘The Love of Jesus, What It Is—None but His Loved Ones Know’ (No. 455),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1862), 8:339 (on Eph. 3:19); also cited in Iain Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 122.
“Turn ye, turn ye.” See, the Lord puts it twice. He must mean your good by these repeated directions. Suppose my man-servant was crossing yonder river, and I saw that he would soon be out of his depth, and so in great danger; suppose I cried out to him, “Stop! stop! If you go another inch you will be drowned. Turn back! Turn back!” Will anybody dare to say, “Mr. Spurgeon would feel pleasure if that man were drowned”? It would be a cruel cut. What a liar the man must be who would hint such a thing when I am urging my servant to turn and save his life! Would God plead with us to escape unless he honestly desired that we should escape? I trow not. Every sinner may be sure that God takes no pleasure in his death when he pleads with him in these unrivalled words, “Turn ye, turn ye; why will ye die?” There is what the old divines used to call an ingemination, an inward groaning, a reduplication of pleading in these words, “Turn ye, turn ye.” He pleads each time with more of emphasis. Will you not hear?
Spurgeon is clearly saying that God “means” the “good” of “every sinner” when “he pleades” with them to turn and live. He says that God “honestly desires” their “escape.” Those are some of the essential components of a well-meant gospel offer. Compare this quote by Spurgeon to statements made by William Greenhill (see his #3 observation), who served as a divine at the Westminster Assembly.
To my fellow Calvinists, I’m going to be a bit more blunt (as is my right; I’ve just defended our distinctive views!). There is a distinction between esse and bene esse. There’s a difference between a doctrine being part of the essence of the gospel (its esse), and a doctrine being part of the well-being of the gospel (its bene esse). In light of this, I findthe popular Spurgeon quote to be unhelpful, that “Calvinism is the gospel.” I understand what Spurgeon was trying to say [see MacArthur’s contextual explanation below], but I think it can be both misleading and unhelpful, to the extent that I never use that quote myself. It’s just not worth it, for it usually generates more heat than light. Surely we don’t want to get someone to think that he has to believe in all the traditional points of Calvinism if he is going to believe the gospel, and yet that is exactly what that quote can convey if it is tossed around loosely. Most of the evangelical non-Calvinists I know may not believe in the five points of Calvinism, but they do believe in the five solas of the Reformation, and even if you think that is inconsistent, God never sent a man to hell for being inconsistent, but only for his sins.
Far better to simply give the arguments for Calvinism as best you can, and pray that the Lord blesses your efforts. So I would counsel my fellow Calvinists in the SBC not to say, “Arminianism denies the essence of the gospel,” but rather, “Calvinism promotes the well-being of the gospel, by bringing out for God’s people all the more clearly how grace is really grace.” Non-Calvinists may disagree even with this latter statement, but at least they’ll know what our motives are: to magnify the greatness of God’s grace, not to draw the circle of fellowship more narrowly than Christ himself has drawn it.
Greg Welty, “Election and Calling: A Biblical Theological Study,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen & Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville: B&H, 2008), 243.
John MacArthur recently explained what Spurgeon meant by saying “Calvinism is the gospel.” He wrote:
But what did Spurgeon mean when he wrote, “Calvinism is the gospel”? He was not suggesting, of course, that the gospel is a message about John Calvin. Nor was he saying there is no true believers except those who have mastered and embraced Calvinism as a system. Spurgeon himself had numerous Arminian friends whom he counted as dear brethren in Christ and spiritual allies in his battle against modernism. He could not have been suggesting that saving faith entails wholehearted embrace of the five points. In fact, later in that same piece, Spurgeon said this:
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, 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 (Susannah Spurgeon and Joseph Harrald, The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon: Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, 4 vols. [London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1899], 1:176).
So why did he write, “Calvinism is the gospel”? Spurgeon was making a simple but profound point — namely, that the core of all gospel truth is the same principle that lies at the root of Calvinism. And it is this: Salvation is the Lord’s work, not the sinner’s.
Indeed, Spurgeon’s meaning is made crystal clear in the immediate context of those controversial three sentences. At the beginning of that same paragraph, he quotes Jonah 2:9 and comments on the truth of it:
“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” (Spurgeon and Harrold, Autobiography, 1:172).
That truth is the very essence of the gospel, and it is also the heart and the linchpin of Calvinist doctrine. It is why I am convinced that more than any other doctrinal study we might even undertake, a sound and faithful understanding of the doctrines of grace will instruct and help anyone who is seeking to articulate the gospel with clarity and accuracy.
John MacArthur, “Foreword,” in Curt Daniel’s The History and Theology of Calvinism (Darlington, Co Durham, UK: Evangelical Press, 2019), 20–21.
NKJ Psalm 119:65 You have dealt well with Your servant, O LORD, according to Your word.
65. 'Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O LORD, according unto thy word.' This is the summary of his life, and assuredly it is the sum of ours. The Psalmist tells the Lord the verdict of his heart; he cannot be silent, he must speak his gratitude in the presence of Jehovah, his God. From the universal goodness of God in nature, in verse 64, it is an easy and pleasant step to a confession of the Lord's uniform goodness to ourselves personally. It is something that God has dealt at all with such insignificant and undeserving beings as we are, and it is far more that he has dealt well with us, and so well, so wondrously well. He hath done all things well: the rule has no exception. In providence and in grace, in giving prosperity and sending adversity, in everything Jehovah hath dealt well with us. It is dealing well on our part to tell the Lord that we feel that he hath dealt well with us; for praise of this kind is specially fitting and comely. This kindness of the Lord is, however, no chance matter: he promised to do so, and he has done it according to his word. It is very precious to see the word of the Lord fulfilled in our happy experience; it endears the Scripture to us, and makes us love the Lord of the Scripture. The book of providence tallies with the book of promise: what we read in the page of inspiration we meet with again in the leaves of our life-story. We may not have thought that it would be so, but our unbelief is repented of now that we see the mercy of the Lord to us, and his faithfulness to his word; henceforth we are bound to display a firmer faith both in God and in his promise. He has spoken well, and he has dealt well. He is the best of Masters; for it is to a very unworthy and incapable servant that he has acted thus blessedly: does not this cause us to delight in his service more and more? We cannot say that we have dealt well with our Master; for when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants; but as for our Lord, he has given us light work, large maintenance, loving encouragement, and liberal wages. It is a wonder that he has not long ago discharged us, or at least reduced our allowances, or handled us roughly; yet we have had no hard dealings, all has been ordered with as much consideration as if we had rendered perfect obedience. We have had bread enough and to spare, our livery has been duly supplied, and his service has ennobled us and made us happy as kings. Complaints we have none. We lose ourselves in adoring thanksgiving, and find ourselves again in careful thanks-living.
PETRARCH'S works are said to have laid so long in the roof of St. Mark's, at Venice, that they became turned into stone; by what process deponent sayeth not. To many men it might well seem that the Word of God had become petrified, for they receive it as a hard, lifeless creed, a stone upon which to sharpen the daggers of controversy, a stumbling-block for young beginners, a millstone with which to break opponents' heads, after the manner experienced by Abimelech at Thebez. A man must have a stout digestion to feed upon some men's theology; no sap, no sweetness, no life, but all stern accuracy, and fleshless definition. Proclaimed without tenderness, and argued without affection, the gospel from such men rather resembles a missile from a catapult than bread from a Father's table. Teeth are needlessly broken over the grit of systematic theology, while souls are famishing. To turn stones into bread was a temptation of our Master, but how many of his servants yield readily to the far worse temptation to turn bread into stone! Go thy way, metaphysical divine, to the stone-yard, and break granite for McAdam, but stand not in the way of loving spirits who would feed the family of God with living bread. The inspired Word is to us spirit and life, and we cannot afford to have it hardened into a huge monolith, or a spiritual Stonehenge—sublime, but cold, majestic, but lifeless; far rather would we have it as our own household book, our bosom companion, the poor man's counsellor and friend.
I was very glad to see that this book is available online for free. I've been meaning to get it for years. It's filled with excellent illustrations and quotations.
The above quote made me think of how some men, particularly the young and aggressive sort, use philosophical and systematic theology as a means to beat people up and flex their intellectual muscles. They are not really impacting people's lives or persuading, except maybe their own opinion of themselves. Apologetics should be done with a view to persuading (that they may repent and come to the knowledge of the truth--even as we are continually doing the same ourselves), even when exposing the folly of an opponents position. But some men seem to engage in debate to merely crush and scornfully treat their opponents, which bespeaks pride. The living bread of the Word has turned into stone, to use the language of the illustration. Rather than produce converts to the truth, they only produce a following for themselves (usually sycophants) and ultimately harden the one they oppose against the truth. Their theology is only cold weaponry and their treatment of others is abusive. The former results in the latter.
NKJ James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.
NKJ Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.
"It may perhaps be considered beneath the dignity and solemnity of our subject to remark that this eighth verse of this Psalm is the middle verse of the Bible. There are, I believe, 31,174 verses in all, and this is the 15,587th." Barton Bouchier quoted in C. H. Spurgeon, Psalms (Kregel Publications, 1980), p. 504.
"Literally, "Good is it to trust in Jehovah more than to confide in man." This is the Hebrew form of comparison, and is equivalent to what is stated in our version, "It is better," etc. It is better, (1) because man is weak,--but God is Almighty; (2) because man is selfish,--but God is benevolent; (3) because man is often faithless and deceitful,--God never; (4) because there are emergencies, as death, in which man cannot aid us, however faithful, kind and friendly he may be,--but there are no circumstances in this life, and none in death, where God cannot assist us: and (5) because the ability of man to help us pertains at best only to this present life,--the power of God will be commensurate with eternity." Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the Old & New Testaments: Psalms (Baker, 1978), Vol. 3, p.169-170.
"He that devotes himself to God's guidance and government, with an entire dependence upon God's wisdom, power, and goodness, has a better security to make him easy than if all the kings and potentates of the earth should undertake to protect him." Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson, 1991), p. 912.
"The allusion is probably to the hostility of the Samaritans and the Persion satraps during the building of the Temple. The Jews had learnt by painful experience how little they could trust in princes, for the work which had begun under Cyrus had been threatened under Cambyses, and had been suspended under the pseudo-Smerdis, and it was not till Darius came to the throne that they were allowed to resume it (Ezra iv.)." J. J. Stewart Perowne, Commentary on the Psalms (Kregel, 1989), p. 341.
Perhaps if there is one passage in Scripture in which the entreaties of God are set in a more tender light than in any other, it is to be found in the book of Hosea, 11:8, where the Lord cries, “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.” Oh, how God beseeches men, and he means his ministers to beseech them in the same way, with weeping tenderness and melting pathos, if perhaps the stony heart may be softened, and the iron sinew be bowed.
Do I hear some strong doctrine brother say, “I do not like this”? My dear brother, I am not careful to answer thee in this matter. If the Lord appoints it, you ought to approve it, and if you do not, you are wrong, but the Scripture is not. If God beseeches and bids me beseech as he does, I will do it; and, though I be counted vile for it by you, then so must it be. Besides, it is no derogation for God to beseech his creatures. You say we make God beg to his creatures. Assuredly that is how the Lord represents himself,—“All day long have I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying generation.” It is in the Scripture that he represents himself as crying like a chapman at a fair, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,” and bids the passers by to buy his wine and milk. It is wonderful condescension—if he had not so represented it, we dare not have done so; but as he has said it, we do but follow his footsteps and quote his words. Besides, remember these entreaties of God, in which he stoops to our littleness, even when they do not prevail with man, do affect the divine purpose mysteriously; they are a savour of death unto death wherever they are not a savour of life unto life; but then, blessed be God, in thousands of cases they are the means by which his power works on men’s hearts; they do bring men to be reconciled to him.
C. H. Spurgeon, “God Beseeching Sinners by His Ministers (No. 1,124),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1873), 19:429–30; 2 Cor 5:18–21.
This quote is not as explicit, but Spurgeon is still saying here that “The Lord begs” some to give Him their hearts:
Remember, wherever we speak about the power of grace we do not mean a physical force, but only such force as may be applied to free agents, and to responsible beings. The Lord begs you not to want to be crushed and pounded into repentance, nor whipped and spurred to holy living. But “My son, give me thine heart.” I have heard that the richest juice of the grape is that which comes with the slightest pressure at the first touch. Oh, to give God our freest love! You know the old proverb that one volunteer is worth two pressed men. We shall all be pressed men in a certain sense; but yet it is written, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” May you be willing at once!
C. H. Spurgeon, “The Heart: A Gift for God (No. 1,995),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1887), 33:666; Proverbs 23:26.
VIII. Men would not importune an offender if he refused the pardon. When a man has done all that lies in his power to make peace, when he has even suffered what he ought not to have suffered in order to produce peace with one who has offended him, suppose that after that he comes to the offender, and he says, “Let us be friends,” and the person turns on his heel, and says, “I have too much to do to attend to you,” or suppose that he says, “I do not want any of your peace; it is nothing to me, I have other things to think of;” and suppose that this generous-hearted one should say, “But incline your ear, and come to me; hear what I have to say; come now, and let us reason together;” and suppose that the man says, “I want none of your reasoning, I care nothing about all this talk, I do not believe it; it is all an idle tale, and I want to hear nothing of it;” and suppose that this generous person should follow him, and entreat him, persuade him, implore him, plead with him, and still use a thousand arguments of lovingkindness with him. “Ah!” say you, “that is not like man.” No, it is not; but he who deals in mercy with you is “God, and not man,” and therefore he importunes you who have long resisted him, and begs you even now to listen to him, and even now to turn unto him. Listen to his own words, “Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” These are the pleadings of God himself with men who have sinned against him. If you pleaded for mercy at God’s feet, and were importunate with him, that would seem natural enough; but for God to plead with you, and to beseech you to accept his mercy, is supernatural and divine.
C. H. Spurgeon, “‘God, and Not Man,’—What Does It Mean? (No. 2,447),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1896), 42:19–20; Hosea 11:9.
Other men within the Augustinian tradition who use the metaphor of God begging are the following:
Augustine (Early Church Father), Hugh Latimer (Early English Reformer), Isaac Ambrose (Puritan), Thomas Brooks (Puritan), Daniel Burgess (Puritan), Jeremiah Burroughs (Westminster divine), Richard Baxter (Puritan), Joseph Caryl (Westminster divine), Thomas Case (Puritan), Stephen Charnock (Puritan), John Collinges (Puritan), John Flavel (Puritan), Theophilus Gale (Puritan), William Gearing (Puritan), Andrew Gray (Puritan), William Gurnall (Puritan), Robert Harris (Westminster divine), Nathaniel Heywoood (Puritan), Thomas Larkham (Puritan), Thomas Lye (Puritan), Thomas Manton (Puritan), John Murcot (Puritan), George Newton (Puritan), John Oldfield (Puritan), Anthony Palmer (Puritan), Edward Reynolds (Westminster divine), John Richardson (Puritan), Samuel Rutherford (Westminster divine), John Shower (Puritan), Richard Sibbes (Puritan), Sydrach Simpson (Westminster divine), William Strong (Westminster divine), George Swinnock (Puritan), John Trapp (Puritan), Ralph Venning (Puritan), Nathaniel Vincent (Puritan), Thomas Watson (Puritan), Daniel Williams (Puritan), Samuel Willard, Benjamin Wadsworth, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Solomon Stoddard, Samuel Davies, Ralph Erskine, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Chalmers, Walter Chantry, Erroll Hulse, John MacArthur, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, and Fred Zaspel.
Let us begin where Peter begins [in 2 Peter 1:1], with the FAITH. You have here a description of true saving faith.
First, you have a description of its source. He says, “to them that have obtained like precious faith.” See, then, my brethren, faith does not grow in man’s heart by nature; it is a thing which is obtained. It is not a matter which springs up by a process of education, or by the example and excellent instruction of our parents; it is a thing which has to be obtained. Not imitation, but regeneration; not development, but conversion. All our good things come from without us, only evil can be educed from within us. Now, that which is obtained by us must be given to us; and well are we taught in Scripture that “faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.” Although faith is the act of man, yet it is the work of God. “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;” but that heart must, first of all, have been renewed by divine grace before it ever can be capable of the act of saving faith. Faith, we say, is man’s act, for we are commanded to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” and we shall be saved. At the same time, faith is God’s gift, and wherever we find it, we may know that it did not come there from the force of nature, but from a work of divine grace.
C. H. Spurgeon, “Faith and Life (No. 551),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1864), 10:50–51.
But, then, let me remark further, while there is this temptation not to declare all the counsel of God, the true minister of Christ feels impelled to preach the whole truth, because it and it alone can meet the wants of man. What evils has this world seen through a distorted, mangled, man-moulded gospel. What mischiefs have been done to the souls of men by men who have preached only one part and not all the counsel of God. My heart bleeds for many a family where Antinomian doctrine has gained the sway. I could tell many a sad story of families dead in sin, whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron, by the fatal preaching to which they listen. I have known convictions stifled and desires quenched by the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! may the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error.
I am presently reading through Oliver’s book above. It is based on his “doctoral dissertation submitted to the Council for National Academic Awards in 1986 under the title, ‘The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community among the English Calvinistic Baptists from 1770 to 1850.’” (xiii)
It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved. Terrible as the truth is, yet is it certain from holy writ that there are men who, in consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Saviour, will go away into everlasting punishment, where shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will at the last be goats upon the left hand as well as sheep on the right, tares to be burned as well as wheat to be garnered, chaff to be blown away as well as corn to be preserved. There will be a dreadful hell as well as a glorious heaven, and there is no decree to the contrary.
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—“that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. 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 reverence 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. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word “wish” gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—“whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God’s wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are. Then comes the question, “But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?” Beloved friend, have you never heard that a fool may ask a question which a wise man cannot answer, and, if that be so, I am sure a wise person, like yourself, can ask me a great many questions which, fool as I am, I am yet not foolish enough to try to answer. Your question is only one form of the great debate of all the ages,—“If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not his power carry out to the full all his beneficence?” It is God’s wish that the oppressed should go free, yet there are many oppressed who are not free. It is God’s wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it? Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God’s wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that? He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made. He has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so.
Whenever you read the covenant, read it in the light of the emerald. I have sometimes thought that some of my brethren read it in another light. I think I have heard prayers which, if translated into plain English, would run something like this: “Lord, we thank thee that we are elected. We bless thee that we are in the covenant. We bless thy name that thou art sending sinners down to hell, cutting them off and destroying them, but we are saved!” I have sometimes thought I have caught in such prayers an air of complacency in the damnation of sinners, and even a little more than that—I have fancied I have seen in certain hyper-Calvinists a sort of Red Indian scalping-knife propensity; an ogre-like feeling with respect to reprobation; a smacking of lips over the ruin and destruction of mankind; as to all of which, I can only say that it seems to me to be “earthly, sensual, devilish.” I cannot imagine a man, especially a man who has the spirit of Christ in him, thinking of the ruin of mankind with any other feeling than that which moved the soul of Christ when he wept over Jerusalem, crying, “How often would I have gathered thee as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings!” Let no one imagine that the spirit of Calvinism is a spirit of hostility to universal humanity. It is not so. It is a perversion and a caricature of the expositions of Calvin and Augustine, and of the Apostle Paul, and of what our Master preached, to represent us as thinking with complacency of the ruin of any one of the human race.
C. H. Spurgeon, “The Heavenly Rainbow (No. 3,412),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1914), 60:308.
On some Reformed blogs and in comment threads, one can see this same “smacking of the lips” even today. I see it, but many Calvinists don’t. It's excused and overlooked, so long as the person is seeking to refute Arminianism. So long as you are seeking to refute the common enemy of free will theology, you can get away with treating people poorly, as well as besmirching the character of God in the name of defending divine sovereignty.
This quote by Spurgeon has appeared on internet discussion boards ad nauseam:
And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? 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”—C H SPURGEON, Autobiography, Volume 1: The Early Years (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1981), 168.
Here's a recent comment of mine from a discussion board touching on the issue:
Spurgeon was not careful in his statement that "Calvinism is the gospel." Not all in the Calvinistic tradition would say that. They would say that what Dort teaches, or the five points (which the TULIP construct sloppily represents), is the logical entailment of gospel truths, as with the rest of the bible's theological teaching. The five points are a detailed reaction to the Remonstrant errors as it touches particular theological subjects. The men at DORT never meant to equate the gospel with the so-called "TULIP" points. They were just expressing what was consistent with the gospel in important areas concerning Theology Proper, Christology, Harmartiology, Anthropology, and Pneumatology, etc. One need not believe in TULIP in order to be saved. One must believe Christ as revealed in the gospel to be saved, and the genuine sanctification of a disciple will result in the bible's teaching about God's sovereignty as well. The gospel is not the TULIP (and even Dort is not to be equated with TULIP), but the gospel is consistent with, and therefore conceptually associated with, Dortian teaching. If you hear someone equating the two, you can be sure they are confused.
The gospel, according to Paul, concerns the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through faith in him and his work, one can be saved. God the Son, by the will of the Father, became man in order to suffer the curse of the law on behalf of sinful mankind and to rise again. Christ became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (i.e., through faith in him). This is the gospel simply stated.
Even though it is related to the truths touching God's secret will, the gospel is primarily concerned with God's revealed will. When we hear the gospel as lost sinners, we are not commanded to believe in special decrees concerning the elect. We are to believe that God is good to us (no matter who you are) through the Son, and that there is an adequate provision for our sins (no matter who you are, whether elect or not) in his blood. The eternal benefit of his work is obtained through faith in him. Therefore, God the Father commands and sincerely invites all sinners to come to him by means Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone, and no other way. This is his revealed or preceptive will.
It would be helpful if the promoters of Spurgeon's writings were willing to criticize him where he needs to be criticized, or at least try to clarify what he meant contextually. However, I have yet to see this from those who are constantly promoting him on the Internet. Spurgeon was an excellent man and preacher, but he was not careful in some of his statements and arguments. The above quote is just one example.
Jesus, the Word of God incarnate, drove out the moneychangers who polluted God’s temple by their lies and hypocrisy. The thieves were causing some to blaspheme and others to see religion as a way to financial gain and manipulation. The holy soul of Christ was stirred to godly hatred. His cleansing of the temple illustrates that some hate is good.
He was zealous for truth in religion, and hated that which caused others to stumble. Theological liberals despise this image of the angry Christ, but the faithful disciple knows Christ was filled with righteous indignation. The Word of God knew the law and the prophets, therefore he hated every false way. His love of the Father and his word compelled him to drive out sin.
When we love someone, we do not like others to misrepresent them. We hate those who tell lies about them or distort their words. When we love the truth, we cannot help but hate what is false. Loving truth necessitates hatred of lies, just as the love of plants necessitates the hatred of weeds.
When God plants the truth in our hearts by means of the Holy Spirit speaking through his word, we learn to hate what is false. We delight in those who honestly represent God’s pure word. We are naturally sickened by those who misuse and abuse the scriptures. Those keeping the path to the truth hate the snares that cause others to get trapped and stumble. In fact, one who loves the truth is particularly vexed by errors that seem very close to being true. These errors are very subtle and can easily ensnare the believer.
The saint who is learning holiness is also learning godly hatred. One cannot separate the two anymore than one can separate faith (turning to Truth in Christ) and repentance (away from falsehood and deception). Love rejoices in the truth (I Cor. 13:6), and this presupposes that it also hates lying and all sin.
Consider the following verses for meditation:
NKJ Psalm 119:104 Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
NKJ Psalm 119:128 Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way.
NKJ Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor lying, But I love Your law.
Spurgeon has some great comments on these verses in his The Golden Alphabet. He says,
v. 104 “Therefore I hate every false way.” Because he had understanding, and because of the divine precepts, he detested sin and falsehood. Every sin is a falsehood: we commit sin because we believe a lie, and in the end the flattering evil turns a liar to us, and we find ourselves betrayed. True hearts are not indifferent about falsehood, they grow warm in indignation: as they love the truth, so they hate the lie. Saints have a universal horror of all that is untrue; they tolerate no falsehood or folly, they set their faces against all error of doctrine or wickedness of life. He who is a lover of one sin is in league with the whole army of sins; we must have neither truce nor parley with even one of these Amalekites, for the Lord hath war with them from generation to generation, and so must we. It is well to be a good hater. And what is that? A hater of no living being, but a hater of “every false way.” The way of self-will, of self-righteousness, of self-seeking, of worldliness, of pride, of unbelief, of hypocrisy, of lustfulness – these are all false ways, and therefore not only to be shunned, but to be abhorred.
This final verse of the strophe marks a great advance in character, and shows that the man of God is growing stronger, bolder, and happier than aforetime. He has been taught of the Lord, so that he discerns between the precious and the vile, and while he loves the truth fervently he hates falsehood intensely. May all of us reach this state of discrimination and determination, so that we may greatly glorify God!
v. 128 “And I hate every false way.” Love to truth begat hatred of falsehood. He that prizes a robe abhors the moth which would devour it. This godly man was not indifferent to anything in the moral and spiritual world; but that which he did not love he hated. He was no chip in the porridge without flavour; he was a good lover or a good hater, but he was never a waverer. He knew what he felt, and he expressed it plainly. He was no Gallio, caring for none of these things. His detestation was as unreserved as his affection; he had not a good word for any practice which would not bear the light of truth. The fact that such large multitudes follow the broad road had no influence upon this holy man, except to make him more determined to avoid every form of error and sin. May the Holy Spirit so rule in our hearts that our affections may be in the same decided condition towards the precepts of the word! May we take our place on the side of God and righteousness, and never bear the sword in vain! We would not be pugnacious, but we dare not be sinfully indifferent. All sin we must hate; for any one of the whole tribe will be our ruin if it be indulged. To arms! To arms! ye soldiers of the cross.
v. 163 “I hate and abhor lying.” A double expression for an inexpressible loathing. Falsehood in doctrine, in life, or in speech, falsehood in any form or shape, had become utterly detestable to the Psalmist. This was a remarkable statement for an Oriental to make; for, generally, lying is the delight of the Easterns, and the only wrong they see in it is when their skill is at fault, so that the lie is found out. David himself had made much progress when he had come to this; for he, too, had practised guile in his day. He does not, however, alone refer to falsehood in conversation; he evidently intends perversity in faith and teaching. He wrote down all opposition to the God of truth as lying, and then he turned his whole soul against it with the intensest form of indignation. Godly men should detest false doctrine even as they abhor any other lie.
A friend of mine read this Spurgeon to some of us online recently:
In seasons of severe trial, the Christian has nothing on earth that he can trust to, and is therefore compelled to cast himself on his God alone. When his vessel is on its beam-ends, and no human deliverance can avail, he must simply and entirely trust himself to the providence and care of God. Happy storm that wrecks a man on such a rock as this! O blessed hurricane that drives the soul to God and God alone! There is no getting at our God sometimes because of the multitude of our friends; but when a man is so poor, so friendless, so helpless that he has nowhere else to turn, he flies into his Father's arms, and is blessedly clasped therein! When he is burdened with troubles so pressing and so peculiar, that he cannot tell them to any but his God, he may be thankful for them; for he will learn more of his Lord then than at any other time. Oh, tempest-tossed believer, it is a happy trouble that drives thee to thy Father! Now that thou hast only thy God to trust to, see that thou puttest thy full confidence in him. Dishonor not thy Lord and Master by unworthy doubts and fears; but be strong in faith, giving glory to God. Show the world that thy God is worth ten thousand worlds to thee. Show rich men how rich thou art in thy poverty when the Lord God is thy helper. Show the strong man how strong thou art in thy weakness when underneath thee are the everlasting arms. Now is the time for feats of faith and valiant exploits. Be strong and very courageous, and the Lord thy God shall certainly, as surely as he built the heavens and the earth, glorify himself in thy weakness, and magnify his might in the midst of thy distress. The grandeur of the arch of heaven would be spoiled if the sky were supported by a single visible column, and your faith would lose its glory if it rested on anything discernible by the carnal eye. May the Holy Spirit give you to rest in Jesus this closing day of the month.
October 5, 2022: Lately I have been working on a backup site for Calvin and Calvinism (click) on Blogger since the main site has been disconnected on occasion, so be sure to visit there and bookmark the site for later usage. It is just getting started, but the posts will eventually be linked and supplied.
I am an evangelical Christian with a B. A. in Biblical Studies from Criswell College. My basic doctrinal positions are Baptistic, moderately Calvinistic and historic premillennial. One of my preoccupations is researching and blogging primary sources that relate to my exploration into the revealed will of God as viewed in Calvinistic history.
