Spurgeon on Limited Atonement

We've recently mentioned Dr. David Allen's series of reviews on chapters from From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, the most recent defense of Limited Atonement published by Crossway. Below are some quotes about Limited Atonement from one of the greatest and most popular Baptist preachers of all time, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. The first quotes are taken from a sermon in 1858 at Royal Surrey Gardens on Isaiah 53:10 entitled "The Death of Christ." Two lengthy paragraphs from his sermon make it crystal clear where the British Baptist legend stood on the particularly Calvinistic doctrine, the last paragraph of which is Spurgeon's reliance upon John Owen to substantiate his views:

Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards.

Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it. 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. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself — no not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works.

And after all, though men call this a limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be. But do you know the limit of it? Christ hath bought a “multitude that no man can number.” The limit of it is just this: He hath died for sinners; whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him; whoever seeks Christ, shall know Christ died for him; for our sense of need of Christ, and our seeking after Christ, are infallible proofs that Christ died for us. And, mark, here is something substantial. ...

I will here quote the testimony of that pre-eminently profound divine, Dr. John Owen: —

“Redemption is the freeing of a man from misery by the intervention of a ransom. Now, when a ransom is paid for the liberty of a prisoner, does not justice demand that he should have and enjoy the liberty so purchased for him by a valuable consideration? If I should pay a thousand pounds for a man’s deliverance from bondage to him that detains him, who hath power to set him free, and is contented with the price I give, were it not injurious to me and the poor prisoner that his deliverance be not accomplished? Can it possibly be conceived that there should be a redemption of men, and those men not redeemed? that a price should be paid, and the purchase not consummated? Yet all this must be made true, and innumerable other absurdities, if universal redemption be asserted. A price is paid for all, yet few delivered; the redemption of all consummated, yet few of them redeemed; the judge satisfied, the jailer conquered, and yet the prisoners inthralled! Doubtless, ‘universal,’ and ‘redemption,’ where the greatest part of men perish, are as irreconcilable as ‘Roman‘ and ‘Catholic.’ If there be a universal redemption of all, then all men are redeemed. If they are redeemed, then are they delivered from all misery, virtually or actually, whereunto they were inthralled and that by the intervention of a ransom. Why, then, are not all saved? In a word, the redemption wrought by Christ being the full deliverance of the persons redeemed from all misery, wherein they were inwrapped, by the price of his blood, it cannot possibly be conceived to be universal unless all be saved: so that the opinion of the Universalists is unsuitable to redemption.”

The second quote is from a sermon Spurgeon preached the same year entitled "Particular Redemption."  Spurgeon reportedly said:

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. I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it — “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. “The whole world is gone after him.” Did all the world go after Christ? “Then went all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan ? “Ye are of God, little children,” and “the whole world lieth in the wicked one.” Does “the whole world” there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were “of God?” The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts — some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

Did Spurgeon accept the L in Limited Atonement in its highest expression, or was he more of a "moderate" Calvinist as some of my close Southern Baptist non-Calvinist brothers seem to suggest? I have to say that for my part, Spurgeon appears to accept the Owenic doctrine of Limited Atonement without qualification.

I do defer, however, to my more learned brethren.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[David R. Brumbelow]

Peter,
I’d like to disagree with you.
But it does seem that Charles H. Spurgeon really did believe in Limited Atonement.

Apparently he never preached from 1 John 2:2, judging from an index on his preaching. His expositions on 1 John 2 ignored v. 2.

He seemed to have the standard Calvinist interpretation that “all” refers to redeemed out of every tribe, not all humanity. He also seemed, for the most part, to skip over the passages that plainly say Jesus died for every person.

The best I can do is this:
In a Thursday evening service Charles H. Spurgeon prayed,
“Lord, hasten to bring in all Thine elect - and then elect some more.”
-C. H. Spurgeon

David R. Brumbelow

[Max]

“Lord, hasten to bring in all Thine elect - and then elect some more.”

It's amazing how many Southern Baptists were "elected" in the red hot fire of revivals which used to take place in our churches. We could use some of those movements of the Spirit now ... perhaps that would bring a halt to our theological drift. Problem is I don't see many folks exercising 2 Chronicles 7:14 these days; apathy has settled into pulpit and pew. In addition, the itinerant vocational evangelist is a rare and endangered species in SBC life. And then there's the lack of bold, passionate Spirit-led preaching of the Cross by the pastors of our churches - something you could expect to find in most SBC churches in the near-past. Strange days indeed.

[Andrew Barker]

Peter, this is typical rhetoric from Spurgeon, but in fact I do not believe it bears close scrutiny at all. In his sermon he sets up a straw man and then proceeds to a typical loose exegesis of the meaning of the word 'all'. Where have I heard all this before?

His straw man is the bridge of general atonement, which he says stops halfway and gets nowhere. He of course has no scripture to back this up since the bridge is a figment of his imagination. But he plants the concept in the mind of the unwary. This is followed up by a quote from 1 Tim 2:6 "who gave himself a ransom for all." He then proceeds to pour scorn on the idea that 'all' could possibly mean all by choosing a totally unconnected verse which says "the whole world has gone after him" referring to Jesus. Now since Spurgeon is able to claim that 'the whole world' plainly did not go after Jesus, we are to believe that all does not mean what it says?! He claims that there are after all about 7 or 8 (no need to get too precise) senses of the word all and of course conveniently he states that all very rarely means all person individually! But no attempt is made to see if the word all means every individual in the actual verse to which he refers.

I am very wary of using other people's failed analogies but if there is a bridge of general atonement, I am sure that it crosses the river most securely and the bridge has been well made. It may be rather narrow and people have to go one by one, but there is no restriction as to who may cross or when they do this. Nobody is to be carried and you can't hold on to anybody's coat tails. You cross under your own steam. Importantly nobody if forced to cross either. The bridge is not constructed out of man's logic or clever ideas. Rather it seems an unlikely path to take and is deemed by some to be utter foolishness.

I shall stop there because I think the point has been made regarding the straw man. I am not going to try and fit verses to each point although I suspect it could be done more soundly than trying to formulate the view from scripture that this virtual bridge is half made!

As to the correct exegesis of 1 Tim 2:6 you need only to start reading from the beginning of the chapter:
verse 1. entreaties to be made on behalf of all men
verse 2. all who are in authority
verse 6. as a ransom for all

according to strongs 'all' is adj-GMP in each case

You could add verse 8. I want the men in every place to pray. The word used is adj-DMS which I believe is a greek way of saying every single place or all places? So the same basic word is used in three other cases around verse 6 where people have no problems accepting that all means what it normally means.

I know Spurgeon gets quoted a lot of social media etc. but for the most part I do not find him a very helpful commentator and certainly in this sermon I find his acceptance of Owen's thoughts on limited atonement are most unsatisfactory.