May 4, 2008

Is There a Spirit of Compromise?

Dear Guests:

I am going to share a portion of a theme I am developing. This will be a sample that will remain here just below the new series by Pastor Rokser, which begins tomorrow morning. I simply want to share my concern over this disconcerting trend I am seeing.

Many pastors and Christian leaders I interact with in various camps have been noting a disturbing trend in recent years. The trend is toward a political type of compromise. What we are witnessing is New Evangelicalism’s mindset of compromise with the teachers of false doctrine for the sake of unity.

I am not referring to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) or Mormonism. There are, of course, evangelicals who are willing to embrace the RCC and Mormonism, treat them, as though they are Christians. That has been on the radar for decades. The issue I am more concerned with at this time is the same trend toward compromise with teachers of known and vital errors that are being propagated from within the body of Christ by genuine believers. This trend is not limited to, but is becoming increasingly rampant in Free Grace circles.
One pastor said, I am not nearly as concerned with the infidels and skeptics on the outside of the church as I am with the termites on the inside.” I share that concern as I view the increasing numbers of believers who are agreeing to look the other way and cooperate with the teachers of a false gospel.

Last year I posted a sermon in print by Charles H. Spurgeon. I encourage every guest to take a moment and read this challenge from the Prince of Preachers.

Lord willing Spurgeon’s Stand for Doctrinal Purity will help awaken senses.



  1. Hi Lou,

    Whilst I am delighted that you should quote CHS, yet I am somewhat surprised also in that CHS stood for some of those things which your somewhat specialised blog strongly denouces!

    I refer to his strong Calvinism, which I have summarised and catalogued here:

    And also the fact that he would probably be denounced as a Lordship Salvationist.

    I quote from his sermon on Acts 5:31

    Remember, too, that a Prince signifies one who has dominion, and if Christ is to be yours to-day you must let him have dominion over you. “He must reign.” He claims to be Master and Lord to those who ask salvation at his hands; and is not the claim a just one? Whom should we serve but the Lord who became a servant for our sakes? It must be so, or salvation is impossible; those who serve sin are not saved, nor can they be except by being brought to serve the Christ of God.
    “This know, nor of the terms complain, Where Jesus comes he comes to reign; To reign, and with no partial stray; Lusts must be slain that disobey.You must accept Jesus to be a leader and a commander to you, or you cannot win the battle of life. You must yield him loving obedience, or he will not be married to your souls. His dominion is sweetly tempered by
    love, so that, as the prophet writes, “Thou shalt call me no more Baali,” that is, “My Lord,” with a hardness of rulership, but Ishi, “My Lord,” because thou art my man, my husband; even so Jesus is our head and Lord,but his rule is that of supreme affection. There must be obedience to Jesus
    if there be faith in him, for true faith worketh by love. Will you render it?

    Unless I am reading it all wrong?


  2. Hi Colin:

    Who hasn't be blessed by Spurgeon? Morning & Evening is a favorite of mine. I love and appreciate how God used him. IMO, the most vocal opponent of Calvinism, if he were totally honest, would have to admit some of Spurgeon’s works have blessed and influenced him.

    I enjoy citing Spurgeon where I can. I understand he was a 5-point Calvinist and probably akin to the modern day Lordship message. If he were active today I would have to deal with him as I do MacArthur.

    I choose to disagree with all five points of Calvinism as I understand them, and I denounce the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel.

    Nevertheless, I can still appreciate some of what these men wrote. I make no secret that on some subjects MacArthur is excellent. The problem is that his LS message is a radical departure from the Bible and that is a matter of separation from him and the necessity to “mark, avoid, admonish and withdraw” as the Scriptures (Rom. 16:17; 2 Theses. 3:6, 14-15) mandate.

    BTW, some men and I find that you can often find Spurgeon on both sides of a number of theological fences. Maybe that is a testament to what might have been balanced view of Scripture. Just a thought.

    Kind regards,


  3. Hi Lou,

    Would it be fair to say, then, that you see neither Calvinism or the Lordship matter as another gospel but rather as a mere (comparatively speaking) compromise of the true gospel?


  4. Gordon:

    I am out of time today.

    I trust that I have been clear over the years on Lordship Salvation (LS). LS is a false, non-saving, works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

    Calvinism is not “the Gospel” message, but a view of God’s redemptive plan that I disagree with.


  5. Hi lou,

    Sorry for keeping at you on this one and especially if you are under pressure - although don't feel that you ought to reply quickly - but surely you must see Spurgeon's comments as quoted above (esp. the first paragraph) as "a false, non-saving, works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21)

    This is why I find it so strange to see you quote him, especially seeing that your blog is so specific on this matter.


  6. Colin:

    I read your quotation of Spurgeon. Normally I delete any pro-LS quotes if I feel they are being posted to sway readers to accept LS.

    The debate over Calvinism has gone on for centuries. It is never going to be settled among men this side of Heaven.

    I choose to invest my time on the twin errors of LS and the Crossless gospel.


  7. Colin, Spurgeon was undeniably inconsistent on these issues. Both LS and free grace people can find quotes from Spurgeon on the same issues that support their viewpoints. Now that he is dead, it is difficult to determine where he would stand on some of these important issues since he contradicted himself. I would say sometimes he preached the true gospel and sometimes he preached a false gospel. -- Greg

  8. Hi Greg:

    You wrote, “Both LS and free grace people can find quotes from Spurgeon on the same issues that support their viewpoints.”

    Earlier in this thread I wrote, “ can often find Spurgeon on both sides of a number of theological fences.”

    In the early manuscript of my book I had some quotes from Spurgeon that refuted LS. Later I found quotes from him that supports LS. I, therefore, deleted all of his quotes from my book that dealt specifically with LS. I did, however, retain some quotes by him on hyper-Calvinism, regeneration and separation.


    PS: Be sure to check back for the first article from Pastor Rokser. It will post just after midnight.

  9. Hello Colin:

    The following was posted at Rose’s blog to your attention, but she deleted it. I'll comment on her deletion of this note to you following this reposting to your attention here.

    First I enjoyed the interaction with you around C. H. Spurgeon earlier today.

    What I'd like to do here (at Rose’s blog) is interject a clarification of something Antonio implies in his note to you. I’m note referring to his unusual view of the Gospel. The area I want to bring clarity to is exactly what faction of the Free Grace (FG) community he is writing on behalf of.

    Antonio speaks of and presents his view of the Gospel as though it is representative of the whole of the (FG) community. This is a misnomer, which is steadily being corrected across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity as time goes by.

    The “Crossless” gospel, which is the Hodges, Wilkin, GES position is unique ONLY to that shrinking cell of (GES) people that would come under the larger FG label. So, when Antonio is speaking of Free Grace theology, he is speaking of Zane Hodges’ ReDefined Free Grace theology, commonly known as the Crossless gospel.

    In recent weeks I have spent time interacting with various non-FG men and groups to help them understand that the GES faction of the Free Grace community is an isolated cell of people who have gone off to the far extremes that most in the FG camp reject and have separated from GES over.

    This is especially important for all concerned to understand once a group of us reengage the debate over the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.

    Kind regards,


  10. Colin/All:

    One of the reasons I posted this specific article is because of what I have seen not just at Rose's blog, but in recent months, especially at Rose's blog (Rose’s Reasonings). Beyond any question Rose has become more than sympathetic to the Crossless interpretation of the Gospel and its advocates.

    Quite some time ago Rose would occasionally post a comment that took exception to some of Antonio’s ReDefined FG theology. They were good Bible based concerns she raised with the Crossless gospel that Antonio was propagating. Over time, however, she has become much more sympathetic to and supportive of the Hodges/GES view of the Gospel.

    I don’t share this to be unkind or abrasive. This slide is demonstrable and unfortunate to have observed. This is simply an example of what happens when a Christian allow for friendship and affiliations to take precedence over fidelity to the Word of God when comes to the teachers of contrary doctrine who are within the body of Christ. It is an example of the New Evangelical mind set when it comes to choosing obedience to the biblical mandates or choosing unity at the expense of doctrine.

    Simply put, and IMO, Rose has been worn down and even if she still disagrees with some of the Crossless gospel she is no longer able and/or willing to say so in unvarnished terms. That is a genuine tragedy of the Crossless gospel.


  11. Greg,

    I suspect (but stand willing to be corrected) that any quote from CHS, especialy on the Lordship matter, is probably based on what he didn't say in a given quote, rather than a straight denial. I know that it is hard looking for helpful quotes when coming from a controversy context, but I would like to see what he said that justifies your comment.

    Re: Calvinism, CHS remianed a solid 5 pointer all his life, even if he did at times differ on individual interpretations of individual texts. the only one that I can think of as I type is his comments on 1 Timothy 2;4 where he took all men to be all withiout exception but even here, he sutiably modifies the desire of God to be less than a decree.

    Sometimes people confuse Calvinism with Hyper Calvinism (which CHS fought) and think that he was fighting Calvinism. Dave Hunt was totally reckless when it came to this. I am always interested in quotes and preferably with checkable references.


  12. For a good review of Spurgeon's rejection of hyper-Calvinism I have read and quote-

    Spurgeon Vs. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching

    I link to it in my Recommended Books section.


  13. I STRONGLY recommend this book "Spurgeon Vs.Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching"