Spurgeon Taught Unlimited and Limited Atonement

Those who are defenders of a Limited Atonement would include Berkhof, Crawford, Cunningham, Eldersveld, Haldane, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, John Murray, Owen, Packer, Pink, Smeaton, Spurgeon, Stonehouse and Warfield (see Douty, page 163). To this list can be added John Gerstner, Gary Long, David N. Steele, Custis C. Thomas, W.E. Best, John MacArthur and many others. Though we strongly disagree with such men on this issue, we do not vilify them as Charles Spurgeon seemed to do with respect to those holding to unlimited atonement:

"There may be men with minds so distorted that they can conceive it possible that Christ should die for a man who afterwards is lost: I say, there may be such. I am sorry to say that there are still to be found such persons whose brains have been so addled in their childhood, that they cannot see that what they hold is both preposterous falsehood and a blasphemous libel....I feel quite shocked in only mentioning such an awful error, and were it not so current as it is, I should certainly pass it by with the contempt that it deserves" (cited by Norman Duty, The Death of Christ, p. 163).

He teaches Unlimited Atonement also sometimes,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...light=Spurgeon

Here, he is speaking against Limited Atonement,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showth...light=Spurgeon

Search for "Spurgeon" for many more threads of quotes show he was a flip flopper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John @ Monergism.com

I would propose that your view of God's love can be likened to be that of a parent who sees his child run out in the street and sees a car coming ... The parent calls out to the child to get out of the way of the car but does not actually do what is necessary to make sure that the child is saved from oncoming traffic. As you yourself know, a parent who has true love for his child would express themselves with action rather than merely hoping that the child would obey and get out of the way. A true loving parent would not only call out to their child but actually run out into the street at the risk of his own life to scoop up the child and MAKE CERTAIN that the job gets done. This is how we all understand real love as human beings. However, you have likened this kind of love to Hitler. On reflection then, if I were a child in the street about to be run over due to my poor choice, I would think of the parent who was not concerned with my will and saved me because he knew better than I as more loving than the parent who's only help was to call out and rely on my own flawed and sinful will. You see the person you call your God has a love that is conditional ... in other words He only loves us if we meet the condition on our own, whereas the God represented in the Bible has a love that is unconditional for His people. He makes certain the job of saving us gets done for left to ourselves we would all perish.Does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done? The God of the Bible is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The man-made god is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?

---

Human beings can't always get the job done and convince a person to do the right thing; nor can God, because that would be infringement upon the will. Hence, we have to lock some people up in jail for life or take other measures for less severe cases, just as God does. To make certain the job gets done is irresistibly Hitler-style enforcement. This is not how we all understand real love as human beings. The problem with you theory, as well, is irresistibly forcing salvation on someone by denying God provides sufficient grace for all destroys man made in God's image with free-will and is no longer a sovereign being God can have a relationship with, but would merely be a manikin or puppet. God of the Bible is certainly greater than that. Perhaps that is one thing that distinguishes God from man is that God can created beings with free-will, but man can only create robots. Hence, Calvinism makes God in their own image.

God's love is for His people is not unconditional in the sense there are not consequences for Christians too. You don't want to be teaching antinomianism. But God's love is unconditional for those who have truly repented and believed in Christ to be regenerated which is a salvation that can never be lost. However, unconditional election doesn't mean this, but in Calvinism it means nobody had a choice to refuse God's salvation. That's just robots or evil encampment.

The Scriptures distinguish faith from works, so when you obtain faith by believing in Christ you will be kept, because your choice fulfilled God's requisite condition for salvation and nothing can convince you otherwise either. The thing you can meet with God is to believe in Him, otherwise His death on the cross was in vain and would be for just show, since salvation is irresistibly imposed or denied anyway. The hireling of Calvinism is "perseverance" works because a Calvinist can't know if he is saved or not, not really, since it was never his choice he says. It was just assumed, not realizing the evil spirit has his counterfeit works and Satanic grace. What you accuse of God is that when He distinguishes faith from works, you call Him a liar. The wolf will deceive you with a lie that the gospel is not for all, only the elect; or, as a moderate Calvinist, he will say the gospel is for all, but does not provide sufficient grace for all... because he is impotent to do so or too selfish or lazy or whatever.

Does God offer us salvation when He says "come unto me" (Matt. 11.28) because we have free-will: "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22.17)? Are faith and works contrasted as opposites? "By grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works" (Eph. 2.8-9); "But to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Rom. 4.5). Christ repeatedly gave such invitations as "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11.28), and "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7.37).

Quote:

---

Charles Spurgeon said, "I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it." (Sermon number 173 - Metropolitan Pulpit 4:121)

He also said, "We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved…We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way, it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream."(Sermon number 181 entitled Particular Redemption New Park Street Pulpit 4:228)

Another Spurgeon quote: "There are others of us who hold what is called the doctrine of particular redemption. We conceive that the blood of Christ was of an infinite value, but that the intention of the death of Christ never was the salvation of all men; for if Christ had designed the salvation of all men, we hold that all men would have been saved. We believe that the intention of Christ’s death is just equal to its effects, and therefore I start this morning by announcing what I regard to be a self-evident truth, that whatever was the intention of Jesus Christ in coming into the world, that intention most certainly shall be fulfilled." (Sermon number 204 New Park Gate Pulpit 4:549)

---

I think you are confusing particular redemption with irresistible election. That God saves people is without question, but never does He do it irresistibly or deny others the opportunity.

God does everything He can within His own righteousness and holiness to save whosoever is willing. But He does not coerce and infringe on man's will as would be the case in Calvinism; and how evil this is, for he apparently can save all but chooses not to, sending people to Hell simply because they were born into sin from their forefathers. What love is this?

Yes, we know Spurgeon taught Limited Atonement, because he is a Calvinist, but he also taught from time to time Unlimited Atonement which contradicted his Limited Atonement. By the way God's atonement is not limited. He is bigger than that. Check out quotes from Spurgeon teaching Unlimited Atonement...

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3024

What I think matters most is the Calvinist can find no verses in Scripture for regeneration before repentance and faith. Therefore, it must be a false salvation, an assumed salvation like Muslims assume Jesus didn't die on the cross without anything to support their claim.

How can God's Word explain it more clearly?

"What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16.30-31). "We have also obtained access by faith into this grace" (Rom. 5.2), "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2.8). Faith comes before salvation (regeneration), and anyone can access or obtain this faith as a gift from God.

It would be quote strange for God to plead for your salvation then not provide you the means of salvation. "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences" (2 Cor. 5.11).

Man likes to get under God and know more about God than God does by claiming His sovereign election works by irresistibly imposing. The Calvinist believes this because he doesn't understand how God can reconcile His infinite foreknowledge with free-will, and doesn't have a conscience to realize God would be evil by sending people to Hell without recourse, or irresistibly drawing salvation. If Calvinism is true, how do we really know the Calvinist is not irresistibly denied opportunity for salvation. He could just as easily be among the non-elect. That's why Calvinists work for their salvation: a "perseverance" rather than "preservation" of the saints.

Just because the Calvinist can't reconcile obvious points of Scripture (infinite foreknowledge and free-will), doesn't make it any less true. I see the reconciliation described in Molinism. But a contradiction of two contradictory wills is a problem. And so is the fact there are no verses in Scripture for total depravity. Propensity to sin should not be construed as total inability.

Ex. 8.9 "Make your choice...."