A Five Point Spurgeonist?

Posted on by

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of 5 point Spurgeonism, but it makes sense. I think it most adequately captures the “kind” of Calvinism forwarded by John MacArthur & co. (and now Paul Washer in the video).

14 thoughts on “A Five Point Spurgeonist?”

  2. Good god man, calm down your going to give yourself a heart attack.

  5. Bobby,
    I like what he said. I find myself close to where he says he finds himself.
    I admire the passion, because what he says is true. I think he’s talking to the preachers who think they can manipulate from the pulpit.
    Never met the man, I may be wrong. I am sure I wouldn’t agree with everything he says, but he is one of my favorite preachers. I don’t understand why you put the two together. (him and MacArthur)
    Craig

  6. Hi Craig,

    I was only really highlighting the point of 5 point Spurgeonism. I drew the comparison between him and Mac. because it’s not secret that the MacArthurites are self-styled Spurgeonites themselves (just check out Phil Johnson’s stuff on Spurgeon etc.).

    But beyond that, from what I’ve heard of Washer (and I’ve listened to him quite a few times), his soteriology isn’t any different than Mac. and his delivery is almost always “dramatic” vs. “passionate” IMO. I don’t mind passion, at all!; in fact I think the church could use plenty more of that. Ultimately its not Washer’s style or person for me, it’s his theology that I have significant problems with (because I think the salvation he preaches leads to the “old paths” of Puritan precisianism and experimental predestinarianism — and I’m just not about that πŸ™‚ ).

    I think we may have to agree to disagree on Washer, sorry, Craig.

  7. “I think we may have to agree to disagree on Washer, sorry, Craig.”

    Ok. I’m sure you and I can agree to disagree agreeably.
    After all, you can’t be right all of the time.
    πŸ™‚
    Now off to my dictionary to look up all of those big words you used . . .
    (I am after all the Simple Guy)

    Have a great day.
    Craig

  8. You’re starting to sound like my wife, Craig πŸ˜‰ . Btw, I love you wife πŸ™‚ (just in case she reads this πŸ˜‰ ).

    Just read “self-introspective salvation” with those “big words” in re. to the Puritans I used above.

  9. I know what they mean, and I’ve seen the effect of “Puritan precisianism and experimental predestinarianism” up close.
    I was just laughing a little.
    πŸ™‚
    Craig

  11. Bobby,
    I just realized that the link to my site on the previous comments had an error where I “fat fingered” a “2” in there somewhere. Sorry to look like a troll!!
    Here is my real site for anyone who wants to check up on this wierdo commenting on Bobby’s site. http://helmetslayer.wordpress.com/ (there was a “2” between the “helmetslayer” and the dot. Sorry.
    πŸ™‚
    Craig

  12. No problem, Craig! I don’t think you’re a weirdo, but then I’m a weirdo; so I’m not sure what kind of cred that gives me in such deliberations πŸ˜‰ .

  13. I never sensed that Washer was an “experimental pre-destinarian”. Doesn’t that mean belief in Beza’s double-predestinationism? If so, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard Washer preach that. If no, and it just means espousal of impeccable moral standards, then I think it’s something the unbalanced American kirks really need to hear about anyway. B)

    Can’t go wrong with Gisbert Voetius and Jonathan Edwards! Their precisionism can be positively constructive rather than negatively deconstructive; there needs be a balance to everything. In Exodus, the Israelites tried to covet more Heavenly Manna than needed, and thus it turned to worms and filth.

  14. Gabriel,

    Experimental predestinarinism is flawed on so many levels. Precisionism is a blight on Christianity’s history. So you know how I feel about that then. I won’t argue it with you.

    peace.

Comments are closed.