Spurgeon taught that God wants everyone to be saved

[FreeGrace2]

On another thread, "Heb 2:9 teaches unlimited atonement", I noted that CH Spurgeon taught unlimited atonement, but couldn't remember the source. I caught a lot of flak from Calvinists who strongly denied any such thing.

Well, I have found the sermon where he in fact did teach that God wants everyone to be saved, from 1 Tim 2:4.


Sermon
(No. 1516)
Delivered by
C. H. SPURGEON,
At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington

"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

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 Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

I agree with CH Spurgeon.

 

[universalsoldier]

Well paint me green and call me grass.

 

[Hammster]

Where is the atonement mentioned?

 

[guuila]

"Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

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." - C.H. Spurgeon

Still agree with him?

 

[Hammster]

I've noticed when synergists (and those who hold remarkably similar views) quote Spurgeon, it's always a snippet.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was fun.

 

[crimsonleaf]

And just as it starts, it ends...

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where is the atonement mentioned?

Well, one does have to connect the dots here. Spurgeon was very clear that 1 Tim 2:4 referred to all of humanity by "all men".

So, God DOES want everyone to be saved. Real clear.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Still agree with him?

I certainly agree with his understanding of 1 Tim 2:4. Do you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I've noticed when synergists (and those who hold remarkably similar views) quote Spurgeon, it's always a snippet.

Was that "snippet" not clear to you?

 

[Hammster]

Well, one does have to connect the dots here. Spurgeon was very clear that 1 Tim 2:4 referred to all of humanity by "all men".

So, God DOES want everyone to be saved. Real clear.

So the atonement isn't mentioned? Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

Was that "snippet" not clear to you?

Yes. Spurgeon believed that God desired all men to be saved. But it's also clear that Spurgeon never mentioned the atonement.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So the atonement isn't mentioned? Thanks.

You're welcome. Do you agree with Spurgeon re: 1 Tim 2:4? Or not? Please answer, just for the record.

 

[Hammster]

You're welcome. Do you agree with Spurgeon re: 1 Tim 2:4? Or not? Please answer, just for the record.

No, I don't agree with him. However, your OP is trying to make the case that this means Spurgeon believed in unlimited atonement. It doesn't.

If, however, he did teach unlimited atonement, you should have no problem finding him teaching as such. Hundred of sermons and a plethora of books.

 

[guuila]

No, I don't agree with him. However, your OP is trying to make the case that this means Spurgeon believed in unlimited atonement. It doesn't.

If, however, he did teach unlimited atonement, you should have no problem finding him teaching as such. Hundred of sermons and a plethora of books.

The sermon I quoted is proof he didn't teach unlimited atonement. He understood 1 Tim. 2:4 the same way John Piper does, but that doesn't mean they teach unlimited atonement.

 

[guuila]

So the atonement isn't mentioned? Thanks.

Nope.

 

[Hammster]

Nope.

But, hey, let's see how long the charade will continue that he does.

I'm sure the troll will join us this afternoon with an opinion.

 

[guuila]

But, hey, let's see how long the charade will continue that he does.

I'm sure the troll will join us this afternoon with an opinion.

Yeah this is the troll's favorite verse.

 

[Don Maurer]

The sermon I quoted is proof he didn't teach unlimited atonement. He understood 1 Tim. 2:4 the same way John Piper does, but that doesn't mean they teach unlimited atonement.

Very true. I know that article. It can be found at Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to Be Saved - Desiring God

What I notice is that Piper makes mention of what I think is the correct exegesis. He says in that article...
"It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that "God's willing all persons to be saved" does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the "all persons" in verse 1 may well mean groups like "kings and all in high positions" (v. 2)."

I think in the next paragraph, Piper gives his motives for rejecting that exegesis.
"Nevertheless the case for this limitation on God's universal saving will has never been convincing to Arminians and likely will not become convincing, especially since Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11 are even less tolerant of restriction. Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk. "

So, to explain the passages, Piper postulates two wills of God. Of course Piper also teaches the doctrine commonly called "limited atonement" as did Spurgeon.

It would be more interesting to discuss the passages and the merits of Piper and Spurgeons views of 2 Tim 2:4 than to address the painfully obvious truth that Spurgeon did believe in the limited atonement or particular redemption. The problem is the limited ability of the person who wrote the OP. If he things Spurgeon taught unlimited atonement, what mess do you think he will make of the scriptures?

 

[guuila]

Very true. I know that article. It can be found at Are There Two Wills inÂ[bless and do not curse]God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to Be Saved - Desiring God

What I notice is that Piper makes mention of what I think is the correct exegesis. He says in that article...
"It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that "God's willing all persons to be saved" does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the "all persons" in verse 1 may well mean groups like "kings and all in high positions" (v. 2)."

I think in the next paragraph, Piper gives his motives for rejecting that exegesis.
"Nevertheless the case for this limitation on God's universal saving will has never been convincing to Arminians and likely will not become convincing, especially since Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11 are even less tolerant of restriction. Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk. "

So, to explain the passages, Piper postulates two wills of God. Of course Piper also teaches the doctrine commonly called "limited atonement" as did Spurgeon.

It would be more interesting to discuss the passages and the merits of Piper and Spurgeons views of 2 Tim 2:4 than to address the painfully obvious truth that Spurgeon did believe in the limited atonement or particular redemption. The problem is the limited ability of the person who wrote the OP. If he things Spurgeon taught unlimited atonement, what mess do you think he will make of the scriptures?

I agree. I understand Piper's and Spurgeon's interpretation of that verse, though I don't agree with it. However, it's quite clear a person can have that opinion of the verse without believing Christ atoned for the non-elect. It seems the writer of the OP has committed a gross category error.