| Home Page | Grace Baptist Church View related sermons Click here |
TEXT:
SUBJECT: Reading the Bible with John Gill and Charles Spurgeon
Today's lecture bears the curious title, "Reading the Bible with John Gill and Charles Spurgeon". Gill was born in 1697; Spurgeon in 1834. The former died 60 years before the birth of the latter. The two men had much in common:
They were both Englishmen, born in small villages, of devout and dissenting parents. Gill's father was a respected deacon in the Baptist Church; Spurgeon's was a godly Congregationalist pastor.
Gill and Spurgeon were both converted as teenagers, after struggling long under the conviction of sins.
Neither went to college, though both were widely read and deeply learned. Augustus Toplady said of Gill: "If any one man can be supposed to have trod the whole circle of human learning, it was Dr. Gill". Of Spurgeon, someone remarked: "He knew more things about more things than anyone I ever met".
At a young age, each man became pastor of the most prestigious Baptist Church in London. Gill came to New Park Street Chapel at 22; Spurgeon succeeded him at 19.
Their literary outputs were astonishing. I don't have the complete works of either, but what I have of each takes up several feel of bookshelf.
Their theology was quite similar: both were Orthodox, Reformed, and Baptist.
Gill, of course, never knew Spurgeon. But Spurgeon knew his predecessor very well. His portrait hung in Spurgeon's vestry; he taught behind Gill's pulpit; he gave Gill's commentary "a very distinguished place" in his library.
Thus, John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon had much in common. But on one point they sharply differed, i.e., "How to read the Bible". Don't get me wrong: Both men believed in the full inspiration and final authority of Scripture. Both equated the Word of Scripture with the very Word of God. Both "Trembled at the Word". Each would have gladly laid down his life in defense of Holy Scripture. Here's how they differed:
John Gill read the Bible deductively. He began with its general teaching and deduced from it the meaning of individual verses. About Gill's method, Spurgeon wrote: "Very seldom does he allow himself to be run away with imagination, except now and then...when he falls upon a text which is not congenial to his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the Word of God into a more systematic shape".
Charles Spurgeon read the Bible inductively. He began with individual verses, and reasoned from them to the general teaching of the Bible. This sometimes produced inconsistency. But Spurgeon was unembarrassed: "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 be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should be everlastingly 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."
Deduction was Gill's theory; induction was Spurgeon's. Let's turn now to a text of Scripture and see where each theory led. The verse is I Timothy 2:4. Speaking of "God our Savior", Paul writes:
"Who would have all men to be saved,
And to come to the knowledge of the truth".
Every thoughtful Calvinist agrees this is a problem text. It seems to undermine God's sovereignty in salvation. If God "would have all men to be saved", but all men are not saved, it would seem God's will has been stymied. This clearly contradicts many verses of Scripture. Let's see how Gill and Spurgeon addressed the dilemma. First Gill:
1.He begins by defining his terms. By "saved" Gill writes: "The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy is...a real, certain, and actual salvation, which He has determined they shall have; and is sure...".
By "would have", he writes: "It is His ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never resisted...but is always accomplished".
By "all men", Gill finds: "By all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not His will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who before were ordained by Him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction..." Positively Gill adds: "God will have all sorts of men saved, particularly the Gentiles, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved as well as the Jews..."
John Gill is not easy to summarize. This, however, seems to be his interpretation of II Timothy 2:3:
When Paul writes, "God our Savior would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth", he means: God irresistibly wills the salvation of some people--both Jews and Gentiles.
This interpretation fits Gill's theology nicely. In his own words: "From the whole, since these words cannot be understood of every individual man, they cannot be thought of to militate against God's righteous decree of reprobation, nor to maintain and support a universal redemption".
In 1880, Spurgeon preached on this text of Scripture. Because many in his church had read Gill (and others like him), he began by offering a few words of constructive criticism.
1.He begins by accepting the Holy Spirit's vocabulary: "You must 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 the truth."
Spurgeon not only took the Word of God seriously, but His words as well.
2.He demonstrates the result of forcing Scripture to fit one's theology: "I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains this 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 the 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 would have all men to be saved', his observations are more than a little out of place".
I've never heard anyone say, "My theology is perfect". Yet they read the Bible as though it were. If a text contradicts their theology, it is the text--and not their theology--that bends to fit the other.
Spurgeon makes this point while commenting on John Calvin's exposition of Scripture: "Of all the commentators, I believe John Calvin to be the most candid. In his expositions he is not always what moderns would call `Calvinistic'; that is to say, where Scripture maintains the doctrine of predestination and grace in flinches in no degree, but inasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free action and responsibility, he does not shun to expound their meaning in all fairness and integrity. He was no trimmer and pruner of texts. He gave their meaning as far as it knew it. He is scrupulously careful to let it speak for itself, and to guard against every tendency of his own mind to put upon it a questionable meaning for the sake of establishing some which he feels to be important, or some theory which he is anxious to uphold".
3.Spurgeon explains "God's will"--as used in I Timothy 2:3--within its context. Just as, in the previous verses, we're to pray for and wish others well, Spurgeon says of God's will: "Does not this text mean, it is the wish of God that men should be saved. As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for assuredly, He is not less benevolent than we are".
4.How do we square God's "wish" for all men to be saved with His "will" for only some to be saved? Spurgeon submits to the mystery of the Divine will! "There are some things in the Word of God which are undoubtedly true which must be swallowed at once by an effort of faith, and must not be chewed by perpetual questioning. You will soon have I know not what of doubt and difficulty and bitterness upon your soul if you must needs know the unknowable, and have reasons and explanations for the sublime and the mysterious. Let the difficult doctrines go down whole into your very soul, by a grand exercise of confidence in God.
"I thank God for a thousand things I cannot understand. When I cannot get to know the reason why, I say to myself, `Why should I know the reason why?' Who am I and what am I that I should demand explanations of my God? I am a most unreasonable being when I am most reasonable, and when my judgment is most accurate, I dare not trust it. I had rather trust my God. I am a poor silly child at my very best: but my Father must know better than I.
[When] we go on speculating, climbing the ladders of reasoning, guessing, speculating, to reach the lofty windows of eternal truth...we do not know where we are, our heads reel, and we are in all kinds of uncertainty and spiritual peril. If we mind things too high for us we shall run great risks. I do not intend meddling with such lofty matters. There stands the text, and I believe that it is my Father's wish that `All men should be saved'. But I know also that He does not will it. I do not know how that squares with this...But go on to the more practical part of the text..."
The answer to problem texts is to be sought, not in speculation, but only in the careful exegesis of Holy Scripture. If the answer cannot be found there--the true answer, not just a "plausible one"--be content with having no answer. The most learned of men once wrote: "Now we know in part and prophesy in part". If Paul is willing to admit his ignorance, we should be too. Some things were "too high" for David; some are too high for us. "Secret things belong to the LORD our God".
John Gill and Charles Spurgeon were equally great as saints, scholars, and preachers. Their methods for reading the Scripture, however, were very unequal. To be blunt: Spurgeon got his theology out of the Bible; Gill got his Bible out of his theology. I don't believe Gill was animated by proud or sinister motives. He was misled by his belief that the Bible can be reduced to a complete systematic theology. It cannot be; we must not try to do it. Why not? Its very simple: Had God wanted His word to be a systematic theology, He would have given it to us that way. But He didn't. We must submit to His decision, and "Be content with what [we] have".
Robert Morey warns us of the danger of imposing our systems on Scripture:
1.There is no warrant in Scripture itself for the assumption that there is a perfect system to be found and set forth by men. There is no indication in the Word of God that it was given to provide us with such a system, or that seeking a system is in harmony with its inspired purpose.
2.When we begin to search the Scriptures to find the system, we end up ignoring many texts.
3.Once we have constructed a system, it becomes ultimately more authoritative than the Scripture itself.
4.Scripture is no longer regarded as the substance of revelation, but only as the package in which the system arrives.
5.It is assumed that a system is needed in order to provide "the key" to unlock many parts of Scripture. A "key methodology" effectively denies the clearness of Scripture.
6.All key systems are reductionalist methodologies.
7.The "key" theologians fail to recognize that Scripture is...focused on Christ.
8.Our natural fixation on one system has the tragic practical effect of cutting us off from learning from other traditions.
In light of these dangers, let us rally to the Reformation cry: "Sola Scriptura". And let's mean it.
| Home Page |
Sermons provided by www.GraceBaptist.ws |