The Great Downgrade

On January 13, 1888, Charles Haddon Spurgeon the great Reformed Baptist evangelist, was confronted by a council of Arminian and Calvinist Evangelicals -- members of the Baptist Union council of churches -- in London, England, for the purpose of deliberating with him concerning the unity of Christian denominations and how "good works may be maintained,"(1) regarding doctrinal decisions, affecting the future of Evangelical churches in England.

At the time, Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle was being continuously filled to overflowing on Sunday mornings, despite his unswerving faithfulness to the unfashionable Calvinist doctrines of election and grace, and his unfettered, straightforward delivery. By contrast, his peers' churches were struggling with issues of decreasing attendance and subsequent issues of increasing building maintenance costs. With little reserve in their coffers and dwindling hope regarding future reserves, many of his peers struck upon the notion of adding a little excitement to the Sunday morning routine in order to induce attendance and, hence, secure financial bottom lines -- having been so inspired by a recent increase in attendance in those churches proffering more exciting Sunday morning services. What had caused such an increase?

In 1873, D.L. Moody (of later, The Moody Bible Institute) had hit the shores of the U.K. along with Ira D. Sankey,whose reputations for "winning souls" were previously known within only limited evangelical circles. Moody and Sankey arrived professing a flagrant desire to"win" thousands of souls for Christ, armed with an avant-garde style of preaching (Moody) and singing (Sankey) -- replete with altar calls -- creating an immediate and palpable response in formerly flagging congregatons, arousing them into passionate waves of 'decisions for Christ.' Crowds flocked to see them. This apparent stirring of the multitudes was attributed to a renewed awakening by the Spirit, and although leery of the phenomenon, some evangelicals began to believe a true revival had begun. (2)

What was happening at Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle, then, could hardly be explained. Spurgeon with his Sunday morning services free from the titillations of music and altar calls, still consistently packed services while proclaiming the faithfulness of God's word and His sovereignty -- minus histrionics, minus endless hymn-singing, minus fear tactics. Meanwhile, perplexed fellow evangelists, having failed to maintain consistent attendance at their own churches, franticly sought to strengthen their numbers by re-strategizing Sunday mornings. Desperate to reclaim congregations, much ado welled up from the evangelical community, beginning in Scotland, regarding the apparent revivalist movement, and in the March 1884 issue of The Sword and the Trowel, entitled 'the Coming Revival,' Archibald Brown spoke of " 'the revival spirit' and 'the rolling tide of religious enthusiasm in Edinburg.' "(3)

Despite Charles Spurgeon's love of the simple straightforwardness of The Gospel and despite his own unfettered manner of preaching, he and Moody became friends. Spurgeon enjoyed that despite his flamboyant delivery, there was little else remarkable in Moody's appearance. However, Spurgeon felt curiously compelled by Moody's determination for souls and unique manner of preaching, ironically having had little prior regard for American revivalist machinations and techniques -- Spurgeon had long hoped for theological unification within the churches, scripturally; not necessarily methodically.

But soon the churches of Scotland, and then later, the Evangelical Churches of England, began to believe that this "revival" phenomenon may be an answer to their prayers for revitalizing fading facades and energizing apparently aging theologies. And in January 1888, the future of those churches was put to a vote. After all, what could really be wrong with adding just a little spice to the solemnity? The disparity between methods could be measured palpably throughout U.K. services; a little singing (Sankey) and a little altar calling (Moody) -- exhortations of congregations to make their decision for Jesus promptly and publicly -- and, voila -- once flagging attendances soared to record numbers.

While Spurgeon could not argue with apparent success, he persevered in his own faithful exegesis, maintaining that 'altar calls' -- man deciding for God; hence, man's giving man a role in his own salvation -- was both unscriptural and potentially destructive. Spurgeon claimed that so doing eroded the very essence of The Gospel, and could result in disastrous false conversions; he maintained that The Gospel of Christ, alone, was the power of God unto salvation; and not a matter of accommodation by men. Contentions grew hostile. Thus, Charles Spurgeon withdrew from the Baptist Union, October 28, 1887 (4)

Spurgeon's doctrines were publicly called "narrow" by his cohorts, and he was accused of being out of step with the times.(5) The future of Evangelical Churches hung in the balance. The Baptist Union declared war against Calvinism which taught the sovereignty of God. Evangelical churches were divided among themselves as to the solution. But on January 13, 1888, it was brought to a vote -- whether to allow the participation of the congregation in their salvation ("decide for Christ"altar calls), thus diluting God's complete sovereignty, and the inclusion of more entertainment on Sunday mornings, i.e., extended music -- or not.

Iain Murray writes, "To this point Spurgeon gave his visitors a straight answer, namely, that the object could only be achieved by the adoption of a definite evangelical basis of faith (such as that of the Evangelical Alliance)..."(6)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon and six of his pastor friends voted "NO" to that seemingly harmless proposition of only slightly altering the word of God. Two thousand General (Arminian) and Practical (Calvinist) Baptists voted against Spurgeon and his six friends, in favor of change -- in favor of softening hard doctrines, in favor of letting man participate with God in his own salvation. Spurgeon's pleas that decisions be based solely on scripture, went largely ignored, and he and his six friends were outvoted 2000 to 7, in favor of doctrinal dilution.(7)

Saddest of all, Spurgeon's longtime hope of uniting Evangelicals on the basis of truths held in common, (8) was thereby supplanted -- each church relieved of former scriptural constraints. Each went its own way.

It is this author's opinion that God does not serve mans' needs. He never said He would. The free-will doctrines of man do not serve God, they merely soften God's solid doctrines of His grace and election (9). When God foretold of His "remnant," it was to be thus for a reason; not everyone would accept or understand His doctrines of unmerited grace and election. But they are scriptural. Not everyone would accept scripture to be the inerrant, infallible word of God. Many would cling to ancestral tradition. Many more would be persuaded by so-called modern thinking. Inevitably, many theological institutions contingent upon maintined financial bottom lines, would suffer the erosion of scriptural truth in favor of a more comfortable, man-generated truth regarding our ability to "decide for God." After all, such a reality sounds more appealing -- we decide for Christ when we are ready to make the choice for Him.

Is it any coincidence that some types of Christianity which proffers man's choosing of God, as opposed to His choosing of us, have throughout history proved to be a more viable theologies than the unpopular hard-line of The Gospel, i.e., God chooses? But man choosing God is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God must first change the "chooser" in order that man choose for Him. That means that God alone initiates our ability to decide for Him.

Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." (10)

In fact, evidence of our inability to make the choice for God can be traced all the way back to the Garden of Eden where one man and woman chosen by God, chose instead for self. We cannot overcome the desire to gratify self. Hence, original sin -- choosing our own way; man not wanting to choose God's way.

Even Christ's own disciples (and family) were afflicted with this inability until after His resurrection and ascension, when Christ sent His Helper (the Holy Spirit, parakletos) to inform their hearts, reminding them of His truths (11), changing their "choosers" and making them helpless to the power of the Gospel. But the doctrine of God being in control -- not us -- is not a popular one because WE ALL WANT TO BELIEVE WE CONTROL THINGS.

That is, until God truly moves upon our hearts, and we begin to realize His truth.

Just let me ask you this -- let's suppose for a moment that it is true, that it is indeed God who truly controls things, and that it is HE who must change the hearts of men in order that they believe. Who then is best served by a doctrine which puts man in control? God, or man?

It is, therefore, my belief that when a theology gives mere, fallible men power -- that theology has not come from God.

What is Arminianism?

What is Calvinism?

Augustine, the world's first reformer?

(1) "The Forgotten Spurgeon," by Iain Murray, page 146, para.1.
(2) ibid, page 170, para 2.
(3) ibid, page 171, para 1; and The Sword and Trowel, 1874, 113.
(4) "The Forgotten Spurgeon," page 144, para 1.
(5) ibid, page 178, para 2.
(6) ibid, page 146.
(7) Henry Oakley, The Witness, July-September 1934
(8) "The Forgotten Spurgeon,"page 185, para 2.
(9) "The Bible," Deut. 7:6, Ephes. 2:8, Romans 3:21-26, Romans 4:5, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:6-33, Romans 10:3, james 1:16-18
(10) ibid, John 6:44
(11) ibid, John 7:5, Matthew 13:53-58, Matthew 14:15-20, Matthew 16:21-23, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 20:17-28, Matthew 26:31-35, Matthew 26:56, Matthew 26:69-75, Matthew 28:17, Mark 16:10-13, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:1-11, Luke 24:30-53, John 6:60, John 6:63-65, John 16:12--15, John 20:29.