Spurgeon - The Agreement of Salvation by Grace with walking in works

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
54
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I wish to present to you another sermon by that great prince of Baptist Pastors, C.H. Spurgeon. This is a sermon from a recent Bible study passage in the Reformed Room Bible study thread, found here. Ephesians is often a letter to which we look for the wisdom of God's wonder and grace in Election and Predestination, those great truths long hidden, but it is less often that we look for the gleanings of works. Yet, we must always take care that each has its place. Just as the stream owes its existence to the spring, our good works owe its existence to our salvation. Works are never the cause of our justification; they play no part here. Works are the outworking of our justification. The stream never says to the spring "you exist on account of me." The spring bubbles forth from the rock for no other reason than God was pleased to make it so. The stream flows from the spring.

Yet, many in the church today seem to think that our justification is by works and faith. It is as if to say that the stream gives birth to the spring. It is over this great confusion in the Church of God today that I wish to discuss.

I am a Reformer.
My salvation flows from a Rock; it has no other source than the fount of all grace.
I am a baren wasteland that is made into a garden.
My stream flows from a spring.
Salvation is by God's mercy alone, apart from any works of righteousness;
God imputes righteousness apart from any works.
It is upon him who does not work but believes on the One who justifies the ungodly that his faith will be accounted to him for righteousness.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.



THE AGREEMENT OF SALVATION BY GRACE WITH WALKING IN GOOD WORKS.


NO. 2210

A SERMON INTENDED FOR READING ON LORD’S-DAY,

JUNE 28TH, 1891,

DELIVERED BY C. H. SPURGEON,


AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.


“Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” — Ephesians 2:9, 10.​


i.gif
shall call your attention to the near neighborhood of these two phrases, “Not of works,” and “Created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” The text reads with a singular sound; for it seems strange to the ear that good works should be negatived as the cause of salvation, and then should be spoken of as the great end of it. You may put it down among what the Puritans called “Orthodox Paradoxes,” if you please; though it is hardly so difficult a matter as to deserve the name.​


Not long ago, I tried to handle the point of difference supposed to exist between the doctrine of faith — “Believe, and thou shalt be saved,” and the doctrine of the new birth and its necessity — “Ye must be born again.” My method was on this wise: I did not explain the difficulties which appear to the logician and the doctor of metaphysics; but I tried to show that, practically, there were none. If we deal only with difficulties which block up the way to salvation, there are none. As for those matters which involve no real hindrance, I leave them where they are. A rock which is in nobody’s way may stand where it is. He that believes in Jesus is born again. These two things are equally true: there must be a work of the Spirit within, yet he that believeth in the Lord Jesus hath everlasting life.​

Now, there is a contention always going on about the doctrine of good works: and instead of taking one side or the other, we shall try to see whether there really is anything to quarrel over if we keep to the Scriptures. We insist upon it, with all our might, that salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast.” But, on the other hand, we freely admit, and earnestly teach, that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” Where there are no good works, there is no indwelling of the Spirit of God. The faith which does not produce good works is not saving faith: it is not the faith of God’s elect: it is not faith at all in the Scriptural sense. I have just taken these two points, to bring them forward for the help and comfort of beginners. I seek not to instruct you who are well-taught already; but my aim at this time is to instruct beginners on this important subject. Salvation is not of works; but, at the same time, we, who are the subjects of divine grace, are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” This is plain to the enlightened believer; but babes in grace have weak eyes, and cannot at once perceive.​

Before, in the gracious providence of God, Luther was raised up to preach the doctrine of justification by faith, the common notion among religious persons was, that men must be saved by works; and the result was that, knowing nothing of the root from which virtue springs, very few persons had any good works at all. Religion so declined that it became a mere matter of empty ceremony, or of useless seclusion; and, in addition, superstition overlaid the original truth of the gospel, so that one could hardly find it out at all. The reign of self-justification and priestcraft led to no good result upon the masses of religious people. Indulgences and forgivenesses of sins were hawked through the streets, and publicly sold. So much was charged for the pardon of one sin, and so much for another, and the exchequer of “his holiness” at Rome — who might better have been called “his unholiness” — was filled by payments for abating penalties in a purgatory of Rome’s inventing Luther learned from the sacred Volume, by the Spirit of the Lord, that we are saved by grace alone through faith; and, having found it out, he was so possessed by that one truth that he preached it with a voice of thunder. His witness on one point was so concentrated that it would be too much to expect equal clearness upon all other truths. I sometimes compare him to a bull who shuts his eyes, and goes straight on at the one object which he means to overthrow.​

With a mighty crash, he broke down the gates of Papal superstition. He saw nothing — he did not want to see anything — except this, “By grace are ye saved through faith.” He made very clear and good work upon that point, faulty as he was upon certain others. The echoes of his manly voice rang down the centuries. I note that nearly all the sermons of Protestant divines, for long after Luther, were upon justification by faith; and, whatever the text might be, they somehow or other brought in that article of a standing or falling church. They seldom finished a sermon without declaring that salvation is not by works, but that it is by faith in Jesus Christ. I do not censure them for a moment; far rather do I commend them — better too much than too little upon the central doctrine of the gospel. The times needed that point to be made clear to all comers; and the Reforming preachers made it clear. Justification by faith was the nail that had to be driven home, and clinched; and all their hammers went at that nail. They were nothing like so specific and clear upon many other doctrines as they were upon this; but then it was a foundation-stone, and they were occupied in laying it, and they did lay it, and laid it thoroughly, and laid it for ever. Still, they would have more fully completed the circle of revealed truth if sanctification had been as fully apprehended and as clearly explained as justification. It had been as well if the legs of the gospel of the Reformation had been equal, for one was a little longer and a little stronger than the other, and therefore there was a limp — a halting like that of victorious Israel, as he came from Jabbok — but still a limp, which it would be well to cure. We have passed beyond the stage of dwelling too much on the cardinal doctrine, and I greatly fear that in these times we do not have enough preaching of justification by faith. I could wish the Lutheran times back again, and that the old thunders of Wittemberg could be heard once more; and yet I shall be glad if everything that is practical in the gospel shall also have its full sphere allotted to it. Imputed righteousness, by all means; but let us hear of imparted righteousness also; for both are precious boons of grace. The duties — let me rather say, the high and holy privileges — which come to us as children and servants of God — these should be maintained and fully preached, side by side with the blessed truth embodied in those lines —​

“There is life in a look at the Crucified One:

There is life at this moment for thee.”


I shall dwell, first of all, upon the first point of the text, which is this, “Not of works,” or the way of salvation. “Not of works” is negative description, but within the negative there lies very clearly the positive. The way of salvation is by something other than our own works. Secondly, I shall speak about the walk of salvation. We who are saved walk in holiness; for we are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” It is a decree of the sovereign Lord that his chosen should be led to walk in holiness.​


 

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
54
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Though Spurgeon sometimes uses some strong language directed at certain denominations of the Christian faith, (as most historical documents) this thread is not posted with the intent to inflame anyone, but merely discuss an idea that is pervasive in the church of Christ today that man has some merit before the judgment seat of God.

Simul Iustus et Peccator
To one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0
Didn't Spurgeon also teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel?

Anyhoo.... to the OP
The article starts out to say that works go hand in hand with faith. That appears to be the topic of the article. Instead the article goes off on a rant about Rome and totally neglects the topic set forth in the title and closes with "There isn't enough preaching of justification by faith".

It sounds like the rantings of an anti-catholic who really does not understand that which he is ranting against.

The entirety of the theological problem is that no matter how much Spurgeon hates the Catholic church - he is unable to escape the fact that his own theology has been dramatically affected by the additions of Rome. All protestant churches come out of Rome and all of them carry the results of Rome's additions. Like it or not.

He carries an improper understanding of mankind and his original purpose on this earth and his relationship with his creator.. The irony is that Spurgeon's theology and understanding of the fall is so closely tied to and affected by the one thing he hates most. Rome.
 
Upvote 0

Straight Shooter

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
134
1
57
Sloan Ny
Visit site
✟273.00
Faith
Catholic
eoe said:
Didn't Spurgeon also teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel?

Anyhoo.... to the OP
The article starts out to say that works go hand in hand with faith. That appears to be the topic of the article. Instead the article goes off on a rant about Rome and totally neglects the topic set forth in the title and closes with "There isn't enough preaching of justification by faith".

It sounds like the rantings of an anti-catholic who really does not understand that which he is ranting against.

The entirety of the theological problem is that no matter how much Spurgeon hates the Catholic church - he is unable to escape the fact that his own theology has been dramatically affected by the additions of Rome. All protestant churches come out of Rome and all of them carry the results of Rome's additions. Like it or not.

He carries an improper understanding of mankind and his original purpose on this earth and his relationship with his creator.. The irony is that Spurgeon's theology and understanding of the fall is so closely tied to and affected by the one thing he hates most. Rome.
:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Wikipedia-
Other Christian denominations

In Latter-day Saint theology, Michael lived a mortal life as the patriarch Adam. Michael and Adam are regarded as the same person, but Michael alone is regarded as the immortal resurrected being (angel). As Adam (along with Seth and Jesus) are all believed to be in the same likeness as the Father, Adam's angel name Michael ("he who is like El") would be genuinely descriptive of Michael's appearance with a body genetically identical to that of the Father.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are the same being. They believe that Jesus/Michael was the first being that God created, and assisted with the creation of the universe, the angels, and mankind. In this prehuman existence he was known as the Word of God. He later took human form as Jesus and led a life without sin. After his death on an alleged torture stake, Jesus was resurrected in his previous spiritual form.
Several Baptists have taught that Michael and Jesus are the same person, but in contrast to the Jehovah's Witnesses, they viewed him as being the uncreated, divine Son of God rather than an angel. Examples include the evangelist Charles Spurgeon and the commentator John Gill. The Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry was of a similar opinion, as was the writer of the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
54
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wrigley said:
OH, I'm sure you have a source for that little bit, don't you?

Or, are you throwing that out there to muddy the waters?
It is much more fun to actually speak against the man and ignore the OP. :yawn:

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

Straight Shooter

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
134
1
57
Sloan Ny
Visit site
✟273.00
Faith
Catholic
Several Baptists have taught that Michael and Jesus are the same person, but in contrast to the Jehovah's Witnesses, they viewed him as being the uncreated, divine Son of God rather than an angel. Examples include the evangelist Charles Spurgeon and the commentator John Gill. The Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry was of a similar opinion, as was the writer of the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible.
:eek:
 
Upvote 0

Straight Shooter

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
134
1
57
Sloan Ny
Visit site
✟273.00
Faith
Catholic
What was actually said in the OP? I read it and I am of the same opinion as eoe, instead of putting forth any real doctrine .... it simply is rhetoric, spewing forth his opinions.... it denounces others instead of actually posing a doctrine, unless it is a doctrine of the Reformers now, to denounce people....

But then I thought you all of you said that we did that all of the time? :scratch: :confused:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
eoe said:
Didn't Spurgeon also teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel?

Really? Wouldn't that make him a false teacher if that's true? Should we even be paying any heed to his teachings if that is true?



Oh .. wait .. . . I see you provided evidence eoe
Other Christian denominations

In Latter-day Saint theology, Michael lived a mortal life as the patriarch Adam. Michael and Adam are regarded as the same person, but Michael alone is regarded as the immortal resurrected being (angel). As Adam (along with Seth and Jesus) are all believed to be in the same likeness as the Father, Adam's angel name Michael ("he who is like El") would be genuinely descriptive of Michael's appearance with a body genetically identical to that of the Father.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are the same being. They believe that Jesus/Michael was the first being that God created, and assisted with the creation of the universe, the angels, and mankind. In this prehuman existence he was known as the Word of God. He later took human form as Jesus and led a life without sin. After his death on an alleged torture stake, Jesus was resurrected in his previous spiritual form.
Several Baptists have taught that Michael and Jesus are the same person, but in contrast to the Jehovah's Witnesses, they viewed him as being the uncreated, divine Son of God rather than an angel. Examples include the evangelistCharles Spurgeonand the commentator John Gill. The Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry was of a similar opinion, as was the writer of the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)


Interessting . .. so . . my questions are no longer "if" it is true, but indeed in fact, SINCE it is true.


Doesn't this make him a false teacher according to biblical standards?

Isn't turning a created being into the uncreated God blasphemy?

Should we even be paying any heed to his teachings?


If he couldn't get who God is right, how can we have any reasonable expectation that he got what Salvation, Grace, Faith and Works were all about right either?

:scratch:


I see no basis for any such confidence in a man who didn't understand the difference between a created being and the uncreated God.



Peace
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
54
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
eoe said:
Wikipedia-
Several Baptists have taught that Michael and Jesus are the same person, but in contrast to the Jehovah's Witnesses, they viewed him as being the uncreated, divine Son of God rather than an angel. Examples include the evangelist Charles Spurgeon and the commentator John Gill. The Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry was of a similar opinion, as was the writer of the footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible.
Considering that I have actually read the source of Gill, Henry, and my own cherished 1599 Geneva Bible which does speak about a single passage in all of Scripture concerning Michael & the Lord, I speak from a position of knowledge.



Your cite from Wikipedia, which in this case is nothing less than a fabrication of whole cloth lies. You don't even have the knowledge that you pretend to speak from. Behold:
Dan 12:1 GB
(1) And at that time shall Michael stand vp, ye great prince, which standeth for ye children of thy people, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as neuer was since there began to be a nation vnto that same time: and at that time thy people shall be deliuered, euery one that shall be foud written in ye boke.

Geneva footnote:
The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.


Note that Christ and Michael are not identified as the same person. It is not even true that there was only a single author to the Geneva footnotes. But, regardless of any individually truth or error in any individual person, which has nothing to do with what we Reformers believe, you are not speaking from a position of knowledge. You are merely repeating the error/ accusation of others. If Spurgeon identified Michael & the Lord as the same person, you have not produced a single cite.

You are engaged in nothing more and nothing less than what is called a character assassination, an Ad Hominem. It goes something like this....

Did you know that Spurgeon believed blah blah blah.
I see, surely he does not speak the truth. Wouldn't that make him a false teacher? Wouldn't that mean we should ignore whatever he says? blah, blah, blah.

And, none of it has anything to do with the OP. It seems to only reflect what must be a personal bias against Baptists & Spurgeon.

Oh, well. :yawn:

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

Straight Shooter

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
134
1
57
Sloan Ny
Visit site
✟273.00
Faith
Catholic
http://www.christianforums.com/t2979461-charles-spurgeon-jesus-is-michael-the-archangel.html

Then you might find the reading here interesting to say the least .....

and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.

It directly states in this quote that he calls him Michael and that the belief is that the meaning is taken as Christ. Michael=Christ .... Not two different people but one in the same person .... The further clarification is there of "who is proclaimed of preaching the Gospel" which Christ came to do not Michael .... therefore I do not know where you can mistake the intent in meaning there but it is clear ....
 
Upvote 0

Straight Shooter

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
134
1
57
Sloan Ny
Visit site
✟273.00
Faith
Catholic
And, none of it has anything to do with the OP. It seems to only reflect what must be a personal bias against Baptists & Spurgeon.

The writer you present has a personal bias himself don't ya think and it is against whom? So therefore if we fight back against his teachings and find their credibility lacking because of what he taught to begin with and thus the reasoning for his bias then we have a case....

His case is also poorly presented as it again is based not upon true doctrinal value but personal opinion, of what he sees in comparison to others and how they are faulty compared to what he is teaching... Proper teachers have no reason to point out the fault in others as it will readily become apparent to them, by what they teach. This is how Christ taught. Spurgeon who was such a huge teacher on speaking about the Gospels in teh first place and their value then would know it is not in finding the fault in others that we learn but in finding the Righteous ways to the path of Glory that enrich us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If you read the post above your CCW you would see that I apologized for derailing the thread.

As to the OP:

I find that it does not really have much in the way of content at all. It is simply anti Rome banter.

You are focusing on my single initial statement and have totally disregarded all my other satements that are on topic. If you want to talk about spurgeon's false teachings there is a thread for that. If you want to talk about the OP then please address my other comments - specifically my statement:
The entirety of the theological problem is that no matter how much Spurgeon hates the Catholic church - he is unable to escape the fact that his own theology has been dramatically affected by the additions of Rome. All protestant churches come out of Rome and all of them carry the results of Rome's additions. Like it or not.

He carries an improper understanding of mankind and his original purpose on this earth and his relationship with his creator.. The irony is that Spurgeon's theology and understanding of the fall is so closely tied to and affected by the one thing he hates most. Rome.

Spurgeon's theology is the result of Roman innovation. Pure and simple. As much as he hates Rome - he is Rome's slave in that he can not escape the fact that all protestant theology finds it's roots in Rome. Even after being transplanted, the tree still suffers from the fact that it's roots firmly are in roman soil. Just because you have trimmed all but one of the branches off of the tree does not change the condition of the root.

Again this article has as much to do with Works and Grace as it does with indoor plumbing. It is simply another weakly veiled attempt to spread anti-Catholic venom.
 
Upvote 0

Wrigley

Senior Veteran
Mar 24, 2003
4,937
178
56
Michigan
Visit site
✟21,012.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Straight Shooter said:
The writer you present has a personal bias himself don't ya think and it is against whom? So therefore if we fight back against his teachings and find their credibility lacking because of what he taught to begin with and thus the reasoning for his bias then we have a case....

His case is also poorly presented as it again is based not upon true doctrinal value but personal opinion, of what he sees in comparison to others and how they are faulty compared to what he is teaching... Proper teachers have no reason to point out the fault in others as it will readily become apparent to them, by what they teach. This is how Christ taught. Spurgeon who was such a huge teacher on speaking about the Gospels in teh first place and their value then would know it is not in finding the fault in others that we learn but in finding the Righteous ways to the path of Glory that enrich us.

I suppose we Protestants could have a field day with some quotes of your popes then.

But, that would be off topic.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
54
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Straight Shooter said:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2979461-charles-spurgeon-jesus-is-michael-the-archangel.html

Then you might find the reading here interesting to say the least .....

It directly states in this quote that he calls him Michael and that the belief is that the meaning is taken as Christ. Michael=Christ .... Not two different people but one in the same person .... The further clarification is there of "who is proclaimed of preaching the Gospel" which Christ came to do not Michael .... therefore I do not know where you can mistake the intent in meaning there but it is clear ....
I have read the ENTIRE 1599 Geneva Bible with quotes more than once.

I have read Gill & Henry concerning the passages of Michael the Archangel when I discovered this oddity years ago.

I have the ENTIRE Spurgeon Library and have read extensively in it, though not the entire library which was over 60 years in the writing.

I speak from a well informed position of knowledge. I know the detailed position of Spurgeon, Gill, Henry, and the Geneva Bible notes in the matter. I can guarantee you that you are 100% wrong that this single statement can be characterized that Christ = Michael.

If you wish to go there, then we must believe nothing less than the EO and the Catholic church teach that Christ = Adam, Elijiah = John the Baptist, etc. All of these are explicit and can be found in the Bible, yet for some reason no Orthodox intelligent person assumes that Christ is Adam or Elijiah is John. Yet, we wish for no reason other than a seeming hatred of the Reformation, to paint that which is not so. I am familiar with your cite from Spurgeon. Your (spoken non-specifically) attempts further on to paint Spurgeon as some kind of heretic are amusing at best.

In short, you speak from a position of almost complete ignorance in the matter.

You (and those of your faith) can take my word for it or you can continue to repeat what is at best a misunderstanding or at worst an attempt to assassinate the character of the one of the greatest pastors and expositors of the Word in the history of the church.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
54
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
eoe said:
Spurgeon's theology is the result of Roman innovation. Pure and simple. As much as he hates Rome - he is Rome's slave in that he can not escape the fact that all protestant theology finds it's roots in Rome. Even after being transplanted, the tree still suffers from the fact that it's roots firmly are in roman soil. Just because you have trimmed all but one of the branches off of the tree does not change the condition of the root.
Same Ad Hominem, which does not address the OP, only the character of Spurgeon.

Oh, well,....

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums