In the realm of soteriology, Charles Spurgeon is recognized as a Calvinist, a theologian fully affirming God’s election, predestination, etc. But he also strongly believed in human responsibility, i.e., that both views were true and needed to be accepted. In one of his sermon’s, he noted: “That God predestines, and that man is responsible…are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. ……If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true” (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337). The action that Spurgeon is focused upon relates to salvation decisions.
This purpose of this presentation is not to rekindle the worn debate between Calvinists vs. Arminians, but rather to examine the nature and elements of a paradox and evaluate the validity of the Spurgeon’s paradox itself. There are 4 perspectives to be offered: (1) the academic and philosophical elements of a genuine paradox; (2) the biblical and theological flaws in Spurgeon’s paradox; (3) a grounded, biblical solution that will bridge both the “sovereignty” and “whosoever will” dimensions of salvation, thus eliminating the paradox branding; and (4) the consequences that have resulted from Spurgeon’s “paradox.”
This topic is highly relevant today. Spurgeon preached with passion to the unsaved, and controversies arose with so-called “hyper-Calvinists” of his day. Today, these controversies exist over God’s sovereignty vs. “whosoever will.” Many pastors follow Spurgeon’s views and likewise categorize these seemingly contradictory salvation concepts as a “paradox” or “antinomy.” Many seek to avoid church conflict and simply downplay or ignore any deeper discussions on God’s sovereignty.