"When I look at the rest of the paper and the kind of clowns that they are promoting, it's no wonder they don't have a clue. It is a theologically bankrupt publication."

[Ron Bean] Alex,

What is your opinion of the theology of Charles Spurgeon?

Generally Calvinistic, evangelistic and leaning toward Puritanism. Spurgeon, however, was not sycophantic in his theology. It is clear that he had his own thoughts and valued the enlightenment of God’s Spirit in him just as much as those before him so he did not shy away from constructing proprietary views. As well, Spurgeon did clearly read and value theological contributions from orthodox men not of his distinctive persuasion. He is not primarily scholastic as a theologian and I doubt he had any intentions of being so. I find at times his lack education resulting in a lack of refinement in his propositions and arguments but nothing, certainly, that one should simply dismiss or treat with contempt. His apologetic approach is with typical British pleonasm.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Ron Bean] Alex,

What is your opinion of the theology of Charles Spurgeon?

Generally Calvinistic, evangelistic and leaning toward Puritanism. Spurgeon, however, was not sycophantic in his theology. It is clear that he had his own thoughts and valued the enlightenment of God’s Spirit in him just as much as those before him so he did not shy away from constructing proprietary views. As well, Spurgeon did clearly read and value theological contributions from orthodox men not of his distinctive persuasion. He is not primarily scholastic as a theologian and I doubt he had any intentions of being so. I find at times his lack education resulting in a lack of refinement in his propositions and arguments but nothing, certainly, that one should simply dismiss or treat with contempt. His apologetic approach is with typical British pleonasm.

Would you fellowship with him?
Would you let him preach in your church?
Would you attend and/or join a church of which he was a pastor?

I am tempted to be humorous and say, “No to all becasue I don’t like hanging around corpses, but I won’t”. ;)

[Ron Bean] Would you fellowship with him?

What is your definition of fellowship? There are so many I do not want to assume we share the same view.

[Ron Bean] Would you let him preach in your church?

I am not a Pastor. My first question, though, is why should I? I don’t necessarily accept the premise that simply because a man is an esteemed Minister that pulpits should be considered open to him.

[Ron Bean] Would you attend and/or join a church of which he was a pastor?

Possibly, it depends on what is available.

[WilliamD] I can tell you just like to be argumentative and that you have plenty of time on your hands to do so…Since you’re not willing to read John 8 yourself and see…go ahead and refute me, but I won’t have time to answer any more.
I’m signing off.

You know William, I think I am going to leave you and your assumptions and callow dare, which no doubt lowers your estimation in the eyes of your blog readers, alone, and simply let you make your drive-by. If someone else wishes to take up your arguments, I certainly can engage them, though the remainder of my weekend is starting to tighten up seeing I have a project due in the next 2 days that does require a few more hours and college football beckons.

RPittman,

One occurrence deserves initial benefit of the doubt. Mutiple similar incidents, repeated confrontation, and on-going refusal to acknowledge and correct (exactly what you have demanded from Mr. Bean by the way)the error do not! At this point there is no other definition I can think of besides dishonesty.

R,

Not defending Mr. bean; simply stating facts.

An initial error could be chalked up to a misunderstanding. However, this article is not the first (or second, or third) report I have seen on this specific article. Nor is it the first time similar issues have arisen surrounding SOTL reporting on Spurgeon and his preaching. Numerous notifications have been issued directly to the paper as well as publicly, as this one was.

There is no misunderstanding in this case - it is a factual misrepresentation. If it was done accidentally, it can easily be acknowledged and corrected - we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, the paper refuses to acknowledge their error or do anything to correct it. Instead, they perpetuate their inaccurate characterization of Spurgeon.

Rejection of correction is biblically definable as stiff necked and hard hearted - it unmistakably identifies character and intentions going forward, even if it only implies without proving the same character and intentions looking back. This action removes the possibility that it can still be viewed charitably as possibly something inadvertent. As I said before, there is no other name for it at this point but deliberate dishonesty, no matter how intentional or unintentional it might have been originally.

[RPittman] And you are right that Calvinists have been a significant force in church history but you must also recall that Modernism-Liberalism germinated in this theological persuasion.

Kant, Schleiermacher, Wolff, Harnack and Ritschl were all Lutherans or raised Lutheran. The Scottish enlightenment thinkers were reared in universities that had already rejected the central distinctives of Calvinist thought, and liberalism in the US appeared half a century after the Pelagianizing influence of the Second Great Awakening, when “old school” Calvinism was at its nadir point in American history. So, even if there were Calvinist individuals involved in modernism, it is inaccurate to assert that modern liberal theology germinated exclusively or even primarily within Calvinist circles.

[RPittman] It’s not that Calvinist is the sole expression of Biblical truth, although it contains elements of Biblical truth, as some Calvinists think. Calvinism, like any theological system, does not encompass the totality of Biblical truth and it has points where it is totally inadequate in explaining/expressing Biblical concepts.

I question the cogency of declaring that “any theological system does not encompass the totality of Biblical truth.” Unless you know the totality of biblical truth, you cannot prove that argument. Yet, if you did know that totality, your own articulation of that knowledge (your system) would disprove your statement. Perhaps you are using “system” in a peculiar way. I would draw a distinction between exhaustive knowledge and accurate knowledge. Accurate knowledge is true as far as it goes. I can say that Bill Clinton was President in the 20th century. That statement could be much more precise, but it is entirely true. Exhaustive knowledge would be to know everything possible about a subject, in all of its relations. Such knowledge would be infinite, and therefore possible only for God. So, in my opinion, all systems are limited in their exhaustiveness, but not necessarily in their accuracy. To assert that all systems are defective as to accuracy is to deny the possibility of knowing biblical truth.

[RPittman]

[Ron Bean] The problem is not so much one of disagreeing with Calvinism as it is with dishonesty and revisionist history. And while SOTL is no longer in the same boat with Shaap they’re in the same small pond.

Mr. Bean, how do you know it’s dishonesty? This is a serious charge and you shouldn’t make it unless you have proof. Dishonesty by definition carries the intention to deceive. What you are calling dishonesty could be ignorance, misunderstanding, or even a difference in viewpoint. Don’t make a serious moral charge against a brother unless you can back it with proof. Refute his arguments, if you can, but don’t question his integrity unless you can substantiate it. This falls under an ad hominem attack, I believe. If you cannot prove dishonesty, then publicly make a retraction with apology.

Jim Peet’s post # 3 gives an example dishonest editing. The practice of purging Spurgeon’s sermons of Calvinism was repeated numerous times. I used to subscribe to the SOTL and once compiled numerous examples of this type of editing. I didn’t save my past issues of SOTL so I don’t have the proof that you no doubt will require.