“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” —Matthew 20:28
The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief….
I. First, then, we shall see that the redemption of Christ was no little thing, if we do but measure it, first, by our OWN SINS. My brethren, for a moment look at the hole of the pit whence ye were digged, and the quarry whence ye were hewn. Ye, who have been washed, and cleansed and sanctified, pause for a moment, and look back at the former state of your ignorance; the sins in which you indulged, the crimes into which you were hurried, the continual rebellion against God in which it was your habit to live. One sin can ruin a soul for ever; it is not in the power of the human mind to grasp the infinity of evil that slumbereth in the bowels of one solitary sin….
Oh! who shall measure the heights of the Saviour’s all-sufficiency? First, tell how high is sin, and, then, remember that as Noah’s flood prevailed over the tops of earth’s mountains, so the flood of Christ’s redemption prevails over the tops of the mountains of our sins. In heaven’s courts there are to-day men that once were murderers, and thieves, and drunkards, and whoremongers, and blasphemers, and persecutors; but they have been washed— they have been sanctified. Ask them whence the brightness of their robes hath come, and where their purity hath been achieved, and they, with united breath, tell you that they have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. O ye troubled consciences! O ye weary and heavy-laden ones! O ye that are groaning on account of sin! The great redemption now proclaimed to you is all-sufficient for your wants and though your numerous sins exceed the stars that deck the sky, here is an atonement made for them all— a river which can overflow the whole of them, and carry them away from you for ever.
—Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)
New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 4
Delivered Sunday Morning, February 28, 1858
At the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens
Sermon No. 181, “Particular Redemption”
But is it really sufficient for all, under Spurgeon’s terms? Sure, it is sufficient for all who come, but it is not sufficient for all, properly speaking. The satisfaction was not sufficient for Judas, because Christ bore no penal relationship to Judas’ sins, therefore no penal solution can be offered to Judas.
Make sense?
Thanks,
David
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/
First, among those like Spurgeon, or Bunyan before him, and many afterward, including myself, the term all-Sufficient, as applied to Christ, isn’t a universal term when it speaks of His sufficiency; that is, it is not to save all, as far as I can tell. I’ve read much of Spurgeon and all of Bunyan repeatedly and have yet to hear them present it in those terms. The context by which young Spurgeon uses it here is nowhere near suggesting what you imply with Judas. He speaks of the sinner’s sin in comparison with Noah’s flood, and that Christ’s redemption truth is all-sufficient though he be the vilest offender (if it be that the inward call of the Spirit is stirring that one unto faith and repentance).
Yet, if you consider the sufficiency of the Lord’s Redemption in its infinitude, it is all-sufficient in that which it accomplishes for both the redeemed and the condemned; viz, that the wrath suffered by Christ to redeem the elect carries with it the all-sufficient verdict to declare every man, woman, and child worthy of eternal damnation in that day. This is because His sufficiency in the Redemption carries with it also Christ’s sinless, spotless, and impeccable righteousness as Man, all His condescending grace and fullness of mercy as a loving God, and every bit of God’s infinite wisdom as the just Justifier of the redeemed, as well as the just Judge of the condemned.
Hey Jon,
You say: First, among those like Spurgeon, or Bunyan before him,
David: Just to interrupt you there, Bunyan actually believed Christ died for all men. You can see the documentation here: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=31
You say: and many afterward, including myself, the term all-Sufficient, as applied to Christ, isn’t a universal term when it speaks of His sufficiency; that is, it is not to save all, as far as I can tell. I’ve read much of Spurgeon and all of Bunyan repeatedly and have yet to hear them present it in those terms.
David: Well back to Bunyan, he says this: Second, I gather it from those several censures that even every one goeth under, that doth not receive Christ, when offered in the general tenders of the gospel; ‘He that believeth not, – shall be damned’ (Mark 16:16); ‘He that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his son’ (1 John 5:10); and, Woe unto thee Capernaum, ‘Woe unto thee Chorazin! woe unto thee Bethsaida!’ (Matt 11:21) with many other sayings, all which words, with many other of the same nature, carry in them a very great argument to this very purpose; for if those that perish in the days of the gospel, shall have, at least, their damnation heightened, because they have neglected and refused to receive the gospel, it must needs be that the gospel was with all faithfulness to be tendered unto them; the which it could not be, unless the death of Christ did extend itself unto them (John 3:16; Heb 2:3); for the offer of the gospel cannot, with God’s allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that be taken away, there is indeed no gospel, nor grace to be extended. Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Works of John Bunyan, (Banner of Truth, 1991), 2:348.
You continue: The context by which young Spurgeon uses it here is nowhere near suggesting what you imply with Judas. He speaks of the sinner’s sin in comparison with Noah’s flood, and that Christ’s redemption truth is all-sufficient though he be the vilest offender (if it be that the inward call of the Spirit is stirring that one unto faith and repentance).
David: Sure I understand that Judas is not specifically mentioned. The critical exhortative line is this one:
“O ye troubled consciences! O ye weary and heavy-laden ones! O ye that are groaning on account of sin! The great redemption now proclaimed to you is all-sufficient for your wants and though your numerous sins exceed the stars that deck the sky, here is an atonement made for them all—a river which can overflow the whole of them, and carry them away from you for ever.” [Bold mine.]
David: How can Spurgeon say or know that? I know this may sound picky, but given his assumptions, he cant really say that as is, there has to be some small print, some qualification like “on the supposition that Christ sustained a penal satisfaction for your sin.” Or: “only on the supposition that you come…” But antecedent to either idea, it would not be something one could say to a sinner on his terms.
One might say Spurgeon only speaks to the so-called “sensible sinner,” ie the regenerate, but that would be asking a lot.
You say: Yet, if you consider the sufficiency of the Lord’s Redemption in its infinitude, it is all-sufficient in that which it accomplishes for both the redeemed and the condemned;
David: A couple of things, to that, it could only be infinite in value, not in its applicability or suitability to all sinners, which was the classic and original import of the sufficiency doctrine. It is only of such an infinite value that it will save all who come, etc. Owen made the distinction between internal and external sufficiency, affirming the former, but denying the latter relative to all men. The other thing is what does an atonement which is extrinsically not sufficient for those who are finally condemned accomplish for them?
You say: viz, that the wrath suffered by Christ to redeem the elect carries with it the all-sufficient verdict to declare every man, woman, and child worthy of eternal damnation in that day.
David: How so?
You say: This is because His sufficiency in the Redemption carries with it also Christ’s sinless, spotless, and impeccable righteousness as Man, all His condescending grace and fullness of mercy as a loving God, and every bit of God’s infinite wisdom as the just Justifier of the redeemed, as well as the just Judge of the condemned.
David: Sure, but the satisfaction has no sufficiency for the non-elect. It has no penal relationship to them. Any connection it has with them is purely ancillary and accidental.
Thanks for your time,
David
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/
David, I have to prepare for tonight’s service. Lord willing I’ll be able to give answer later tonight; and it’s not that I don’t agree with you. I do; but there are some things I’ll touch on whereas I believe the young Spurgeon isn’t implying what I think you mean, if I’ve read it correctly. Will get back with you, brother.
thanks, jon
David,
I’m sorry to get back with you so late, but I’ve had to handle some ministry obligations. I know you understand. With everything else also on my plate for the next week, I really won’t be able to engage in a debate in this forum (especially as my ailments do not allow me to type with the speed that I once enjoyed).
Nevertheless, I will get back to your initial statement and with your rebuttal with just this one thing from young Mr. Spurgeon’s sermon; in your last comment post you wrote:
I comment with this: Spurgeon was not giving a doctrinal statement apart from a belief in a particular redemption; in fact, I’m not sure if you noticed, but the title of the message he preached was “Particular Redemption.” I could pull several paragraphs from the sermon that certainly present beliefs against a universal salvation. But using the quote that bothers you, please note to whom Spurgeon addresses: “O ye troubled consciences! O ye weary and heavy-laden ones! O ye that are groaning on account of sin!” He is addressing those that are under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through a particular call by His irresistible grace. Does he call them out by name? Certainly not, as he knows not who the elect are. As the saying goes, which I believe and so do as I preach, “I preach not to goats, but to lost sheep.” In fact, I always preach to sheep, be they lost, unto salvation; or be they already redeemed, unto edification.
As to the Redemption having an eternal sufficiency, being all-sufficient in a general way– not unto salvation for the reprobate, but in the all-sufficient work of Christ in the Redemption for the glory of God– I believe that the reprobate and the redeemed alike fall under that sufficiency; for the reprobate unto damnation to the glory of God’s holy justice, and for the redeemed unto glorification to the exaltation of God’s glorious grace. As a proof text I cite, 1 Peter 1:20, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” In this sense, Christ’s Redemption being eternally planned for the purpose of God’s glory, before the foundation of the world, is an eternal truth that subordinates every creature and created thing in God’s universe. You may not agree with that, as I do know and have acquaintances and friendships with those that don’t agree with me on this issue. Perhaps I’m too simple to know any better.
Thanks again for you patience with my response. Please feel free to respond again, but as I said, my health and current ministry obligations will prohibit a lengthy debate.
Hey Jon,
Just to be clear, I am not trying to start a debate: A conversation may be.
[cut cut]
I comment with this: Spurgeon was not giving a doctrinal statement apart from a belief in a particular redemption; in fact, I’m not sure if you noticed, but the title of the message he preached was “Particular Redemption.” I could pull several paragraphs from the sermon that certainly present beliefs against a universal salvation. But using the quote that bothers you, please note to whom Spurgeon addresses: “O ye troubled consciences! O ye weary and heavy-laden ones! O ye that are groaning on account of sin!” He is addressing those that are under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through a particular call by His irresistible grace. Does he call them out by name? Certainly not, as he knows not who the elect are. As the saying goes, which I believe and so do as I preach, “I preach not to goats, but to lost sheep.” In fact, I always preach to sheep, be they lost, unto salvation; or be they already redeemed, unto edification. [bold mine.]
David: I am not a Spurgeon expert for sure. However it is true from his writings that he maintained a universally sufficient satisfaction for all sin. For example, my old friend Phil Johnson posts a Spurgeon sermon on this point here: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/11/sufficient-for-all-efficacious-for.html
I also found this sermon too: http://www.spurgeongems.org/tulip-3.pdf
David: There is also an assumption in your reply that Spurgeon was talking only to sensible sinners alone. Ive not found that a doctrine that Spurgeon would commit himself to: as if the addresses are only applicable to the present sensible sinner. And then of course, the problem remains, how does he know they are under the influence of the effectual call?
Your comment about universalism, I am not sure why you make that point: as I am not advocating anything like that.
You say: As to the Redemption having an eternal sufficiency, being all-sufficient in a general way– not unto salvation for the reprobate, but in the all-sufficient work of Christ in the Redemption for the glory of God– I believe that the reprobate and the redeemed alike fall under that sufficiency; for the reprobate unto damnation to the glory of God’s holy justice, and for the redeemed unto glorification to the exaltation of God’s glorious grace.
David: I should say, I don’t understand that paragraph. If you mean that the same sufficiency for the elect is for their glorification and the same sufficiency for the non-elect is for their damnation, that is an abuse of Spurgeon.
cut cut
The point I am trying to make is that a “sufficiency” not rendered or obtained for a man cannot be offered to that man as a remedy or cure. When did believe that the satisfaction was sufficient for all sin, but, given the doctrine of limited satisfaction, that is impossible.
The problem is with the statement. Like, both John and Peter are sick with the same illness. However, the doctor devises a cure which will only work with John’s DNA, he could not pretend that his cure was sufficient for Peter as well. If he said, “it could have been sufficient” for Peter, that’s hollow and empty.
I think that is probably the simplest way to explain it.
Anyway, I will leave it that, that was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for your time.
David
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/