No greater confusionOne of the most misrepresented figures in Christian history is Charles Spurgeon. Everyone wants to claim him for their camp, and often at the expense of truth. The latest, and perhaps one of the most mind-boggling claims that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist comes from the pen of self-described homeschool pioneer Michael Pearl of No Great Joy ministries (Note the bearded guy on the left is Michael Pearl, the bearded guy on the right is Charles Spurgeon). My wife owns their flagship book, , and we get their newsletter on a regular basis. I noticed some time ago that in their "bible study" books is one with this dandy title: The Other Side of Calvinism. Guess what that other side is. That's right: Mike Pearl states, "This is the best book exposing the heresies of Calvinism. If you are a Bible believer concerned about TRUTH, this is a "must-read." . That of course set me off, rabid Calvinist heretic that I am. Calvinism must really be bad, after all he spelled truth in all capital letters! So imagine my, and apparently a few other peoples surprise when Michael Pearl put an article in his magazine that quoted Spurgeon, quite positively in fact. Apparently someone else did, and sent in this question to the Pearls:
I’m writing to ask, “Where is the consistency?” Your newsletter regularly promotes the book, The Other Side of Calvinism. It’s proclaimed to be “...the best book exposing the heresies of Calvinism....” Yet, in your Nov-Dec 2007 newsletter, you have an article featuring Charles Spurgeon, one of the biggest Calvinists of all time. So, where is the consistency? If Calvinism is a heresy, then Spurgeon is a heretic. Yes, or no?
Seems like a simple question. If Calvinism is heresy and Spurgeon is a Calvinist, then ergo Charles Spurgeon is a heretic. But no, Mr. Pearl is about to launch an explanation of why Charles Spurgeon, arch-Calvinist, is indeed not a Calvinist but rather "He teaches the same gospel that is taught by so-called Arminians, like Wesley and Finney." . I am not sure how Spurgeon would react to being lumped in with Wesley and a heretic like Finney, but I am guessing not positively. (If you doubt that Finney was a rank heretic, read this). That claim, made by many Christians especially Baptists (like Ergun Caner) is amusing but patently false. Spurgeon note only held to Calvinist doctrines, but he proudly described himself as one.
Rather than an honest "Yes, Charles Spurgeon is a Calvinist heretic", we get some bobbing and weaving, and avoiding truth with sweeping generalizations. I certainly am not going to defend Charles Spurgeon's Calvinism here. His writings speak for themselves, and I suspect that if Mr. Pearl has read Spurgeon at all, it has been pretty selectively. After all, Spurgeon is the guy who wrote a lengthy discourse titled A defense of Calvinism. It is certain, while there are different flavors of Calvinism for sure, that Spurgeon would be welcome in any Reformed church in America's pulpit (nor would Paul be turned away, despite Mr. Pearl's assertion to the contrary).
This whole affair should come as no surprise. Mr. Pearl holds to some tell-tale erroneous beliefs, as evidenced by their apparent King James Onlyism...
SCRIPTURE: We believe the sixty-six books of the King James Version, nothing added or deleted, constitute the whole of Scripture "given by inspiration of God" to English speaking people (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
Let that settle in a second. Most Christian confession hold to the literal nature of the 66 books of the Bible as inerrant, but when they throw a particular translation in, that should set off warning bells. In his somewhat paranoid rant against those who are out to get him, he describes Jacob Arminius as "too Calvinstic" for his tastes.
Arminius was just a backslidden Calvinist who tried to modify Calvinism. He is too Calvinistic for me. So my detractors will have to find someone far more to the right if they want to identify me with some historical position.
Huh? You might never hear that again, Arminius was too Calvinistic for me.
Some of what the Pearl's put out on parenting, Biblical roles in marriage and homeschooling is useful, but as I have often told my wife, when someone has such an egregious lack discernment about vital doctrines of the Church, I view everything they say with some suspicion.
What really concerns me is that the No Greater Joy materials and newsletter make it to a huge number of homeschool homes, and that those Christian parents who homeschool (and likely never hear an accurate depiction of the doctrines of grace in their church), will assume that Michael Pearl is accurate because he is "one of us". I stand side by side with Mr. Pearl where it comes to matters of homeschooling and some aspects of Christian parenting, but when it comes to soteriology, Michael Pearl sides with far too many men in the church who have held to aberrant views of salvation.
11 comments:
If Arminius is "too Calvinistic" for Pearle, perhaps he would find Pelagius more to his liking. He is the logical next stop on the "train out of Calvinist town" that Pearle seems so intent on riding.
If Arminius is "too Calvinistic" for Pearle perhaps he would prefer to be associated with Pelagius. He is the next logical stop on the "train out of Calvinist Town" that Pearle seems intent on riding.
He rejects Pelagius as well, but I think the label "semi-Pelagian" might fit. He is like a lot of fundamentalist Baptists who declare themselves too noble to be given titles, but also seem unwilling to do more than give a superficial thought to the doctrines of grace. It is that weird combination of decisional regeneration and eternal security that drives me nuts.
Sorry about the double-post. FYI, I just ran across the following quote from Spurgeon, and it reminded me of your post.
"...he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught by God."
- Volume One, New Park Street Pulpit, 1855, Sermon 52,"Free Will - A Slave", p 395.
Yes...the anti-Calvinistic, pro-Arminian language is just dripping from Spurgeon. :)
What was most startling to me was equating the Gospel preached by Spurgeon with the heresy spoken by Finney. That indicates either a shallow understanding of what both men believed or a willful disregard of the truth to make a point.
Your concern that homeschoolers will "assume that Michael Pearl is accurate because he is 'one of us'" reminded me of advice given long ago about books/articles; don't restrict your reading to one person especially a person who is still alive who may perhaps have glaring blind spots in their theology.
"The venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals." Samuel Davies (1723-1761)
Robin, I am not sure what your point is. Can you clarify?
This article is amazing. Last Saturday I emailed Mike, I basically challenged him on what he wrote in that article. You can read the letter I wrote him here: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgwh2dkr_7g4b3mgdt
I have yet to hear an answer.
You brothers are exactly right. He is very Pelagian in his beliefs. It's fascinating, if you want to be amazed, simply parallel what he teaches to what Finney taught. I was astounded.
God bless you guys as you keep on persevering because of our AWESOME PRESERVER.
Press on,
Jonathan
John 15:16
Jonathan,
Quite right. I am still trying to figure out if Pearl is ignorant of what Spurgeon taught and preached, or is he is being dishonest. I imagine he is getting lots of "fan mail" about it, and chalks it all up to a Calvinist conspiracy against him.
Apparently, he claims to have read much of Spurgeon. At least, he makes a statement that could not be truthfully made without reading a thousand of pages of Spurgeon: "If you have read much of Spurgeon, you know that you will read a thousand pages and not come across anything that is exclusively Calvinistic.".
I feel more comfortable if he were to come out clean, openly saying that he holds the Pelagian view regarding the doctrines of grace. And, because of that, he should say that in his view, Spurgeon truly is a heretic.
Jonathan
Romans 16:17
Oddly he claims to have examined Pelagius and disagrees with him, while at the same time espousiung his views. All very strange.
Post a Comment