Skip to main content

Breaking News: C.H. Spurgeon did not Compose Sacred Writ

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Research indicates, science shows (when someone uses one or both of those phrases, you know something is guaranteed to be a fact) that the English Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not write any portion of the Bible. In addition, books of his sermons cannot legitimately be considered as sacred writ.


Some people act like Charles H. Spurgeon wrote sacred text. We must compare his teachings, and that of others, with Scripture.

Someone may object, "I don't cotton to your insinuation that Spurgeon fans think that his writings are infallible!" Well, I did get your attention, didn't I? Now let this child 'spain hisself. I'm choosing Rev. Spurgeon as my first example because so many people admire him. Yes, the "Prince of Preachers" had some good things to say. Yes, professing Christians know that he didn't get a revelation brought by an angel on golden plates that is to be a third testament to the Bible. No, I do not dislike him. In fact, many people that I admire use his material. Right, Phil, Todd, Dr. Mac, Dr. James, and others?

I'm going to use something that falls into my area of study: long ages. Spurgeon rejected evolution [1 search for key word evolution], but embraced the concept that the earth is millions or billions of years old (because science says), and had some convoluted theology [2 search for key word III, the Roman numeral three]. I believe that in his day as well as now, pastors and theologians do not give a great deal of thought to how long ages and death before sin are damaging to the gospel message. This may have been the case with Charles. (Spurgeon, not Charles the Bearded Buddha of Evolution.) Apparently, his views on these subjects were not his focus, so quotes on them seem to be scarce.

People will appeal to authority as well as popularity; since many people admire Spurgeon, when his name is invoked, evangelical Christians tend to pay attention. Someone who is popular is used as "one of ours", for their views such as these sidewinders in the Old Earth camp who demonize biblical creationists [3], [4]. They use the name of Spurgeon in their efforts to bolster their compromising views. In addition, Spurgeon admirers may take his views of an old earth as authoritative, and not investigate the wealth of exegetical material for a young earth that exists today.

You look unconvinced. I have some other folks to mention, but with less detail.
  • Clive Staples (Jack) Lewis. Theistic evolutionists and old earthers think Lewis supports their views, but he actually opposed evolution [5]. Jack was a good apologist for the existence of God and refuted atheism, but he had some serious flaws in his theology.
  • Dr. William Lane Craig is devastating to atheism, but ridicules biblical creationists [6] and holds to the odd belief of Molinism [7].
  • Dr. Greg Bahnsen was also devastating to atheism and taught presuppositional apologetics. However, his views on Christian Reconstruction [7] are rejected by many other Christians. 
  • John Calvin had some involvements that are controversial, such as his dealing with Michael Servitus [8]. Someone tried to get me to reject Calvinism because of things Calvin said and did. No, I will accept or reject his teachings based on the Bible, not because of real or alleged character flaws. I heard an apologist who is a Calvinist take a call on his radio show and was challenged with a quote from John Calvin. He said that Calvin was wrong about that point. The caller was amazed that a Calvinist didn't accept everything Calvin said. I mentally applauded the apologist.
  • Martin Luther developed some unpleasant opinions about Jews later in life [9]. That is not a reason to espouse similar views about them, nor is it a valid reason to reject the entirety of his teachings.
Some folks seem to think that if Rev. Dr. Pastor Influential made a pronouncement, it must be right. That'll be the day! Spurgeon was wrong on both science and theology about the age of the earth. So is William Lane Craig. Both put man-made interpretations of science in the magisterial position above the Word of God. Similarly, we cannot accept biblical creation science because Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, David Coppedge or others say so. Whatever the subject, check your Bible and do some meaningful exegesis, old son.

Popular posts from this blog

Obey the Consensus Because Experts are Smarter than You

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We have seen numerous example of how people are unwilling, even unable, to think rationally and challenge assertions. Many are willing to follow what "scientists say", but this is often a cessation of thought. Worse is appealing to the majority — the so-called consensus . Original image: Unsplash / Jo-Anne McArthur , modified at Big Huge Labs Let's mount up and ride to the top of yonder hill and get the bigger picture. Dr. Michael Crichton had some excellent statements about how science and consensus are mutually exclusive . While there is a consensus on many things, those things are not necessarily ironclad facts. Also, the consensus is often wrong and even biased: Geocentrism (the earth stands still while the sun, moon and stars orbit it) was the prevalent view for a mighty long time Things burned because they had phlogiston  in them Ignaz Semmelweis determined that doctors should wash their hands, but was ridiculed Piltdown Man fooled the scie

Shining the Light on a Darwinist Deceiver

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is part 2 of Conspiracy Theories, Creation, and Reason , but takes a different approach. We saw how a number of factors contribute to the act of purveying conspiracy theories, and how there are several reasons why people believe them. Then there is the alleged creation science conspiracy. Credit: Unsplash / Steve Johnson We have three articles to consider, two of which are from the same ministry. Naturally there will be some overlap, but they each offer material that comprise a larger picture. There was a time when if someone had a question about, say, that 2002 email saying the teddy bear icon in Windows was really a virus. They could check Snopes and find out that it was a hoax , and they could search for urban legends. Unfortunately, they became heavily involved in promoting leftist political views with "fact checking", and their credibility became questionable. Snopes even attacked the parody site Babylon Bee (one of whose slogans is " fa

Silencing President Trump and Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to cover a few shocking points that should be of concern to people who value free speech. Donald Trump and I are best buddies — yeah, like he knows that I even exist. But we do have a few things in common regarding censorship. Made at PhotoFunia I was riding the Fakebook trail one night in March of 2013 when I was suddenly booted. Huh? They demanded proof of my age! After complying, I was told,  Upon investigation, we have determined that you are ineligible to use Facebook. You can view our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities at the following address: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php Unfortunately, for safety and security reasons, we cannot provide additional information as to why your account was disabled. This decision is final. Thanks for your understanding Security reasons? Oh, please! Upon searching, this has happened to other people as well. They did not receive explanations or reinstatement, either. I thought it was a fluke,