POLEMIC SERIES: AN OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST EXPLANATION OF "CALVINOPOLY” (SANTAMARIA)

We recently saw this humorous picture on a Facebook page dedicated to "Calvinism".  The image was created by Eddie Eddings, a talented Reformed cartoonist.  We thought it would make a useful rubric to distinguish Old School Baptists from the Reformed "churches".

For those who have played Monopoly sometime in their life, this board will look familiar.  We will take these "properties" one by one to demonstrate some of the differences between a true Gospel church and these religious leaders.

JOHN CALVIN - THE CENTER OF THIS GAME

At the center of the board, and rightly so in Reformed minds is John Calvin, the founder of their religion.  We say this because they name themselves after him.  They call themselves Calvinists, which is a code name for a view of election that Old School Baptists would generally agree with.  The Reformed churches, by their own statements, found this truth in the writings of Calvin (having formerly been Roman Catholics), but Old School Baptists found it in the scriptures, not needing Calvin to explain them to us.  Indeed, if one measures the doctrine of Calvin, even in regards to the so-called "doctrines of Grace", to the scriptures, they would be found wanting.

REPENT & BELIEVE

This makes perfect sense.  Since most Reformed churches are in love with the writings of Andrew Fuller.  It makes sense they would depict the statement made by Fuller and others of his stripe that the only thing that prevents a sinner from being saved is his own self-will.  The invitation of the Gospel is open to him if only he will "accept" it!  Some of them would disagree with this statement as an oversimplification of their views.  Some of them would argue that the reason that a sinner accepts the Gospel is because he is drawn irresistibly to it by God's grace.  But this is only in theory.  In their behavior, when preaching, they offer the Gospel to all.  Thus, they fulfill their favorite phrase we have often heard stated, to believe like a Calvinist, but preach like an Arminian!

DOCTRINES OF GRACE

These are the famous "Five Points Of Calvinism".  Of course, Calvin never heard of them, as he was dead long after they were promulgated by the Synod of Dordt.  Many of those espousing these views do not know this fact.  In fact, it can be convincingly argued that Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement, as has been greatly discussed in this article.  This is a rather tedious and scholarly debate on whether Calvin believed in a "limited atonement".  As with ANY scholarly debate, the conclusions are tenuous and open to change.  Sadly, Reformed circles have to resort to trying to get into a dead man's mind.   Who cares what Calvin thought?  Is. the New Testament not enough?  What happened to their vaunted claim of "Sola Scriptura"???


AUGUSTINE AVENUE

Since Augustine believed in the doctrine of predestination, it is believed that he had similar faith and order to the Reformed churches.  Indeed, he might be.  He was Roman Catholic like all of the reformers were at some point.  He believed in the baptism of infants like all of the Reformed Churches do today.  He believed in the union of church and state like all the Reformers used to believe before the American Revolution.  He believed in the infallibility of the Pope in Rome like all the Reformers used to believe when they were Roman Catholics.  Also, he was an. infant baptized, which although means little to Reformed and even. the. "Reformed" Baptists, mean a lot to Old School Baptists.


WYCLIFFE AVENUE

John Wycliffe (1320-1384) was an early translator of the Bible into English and a lolard.  He translated the Bible into English in 1395, so the common people could read it.  Wycliffe believed in the predestination of the elect.  He did not believe in infant baptism, he did not believe in a consecrated priesthood, but he remained a Roman Catholic priest until his death.  He believed in consubstantiation (that the blood and flesh of Christ actually merged with the Wine and the bread during the Lord's Supper).  Although we would not agree with all that he taught, Old School Baptists note the similarity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers, in that after his death from a stroke of the pen, Pope Martin the V in 1428 (50 years after his death) had his bones dug up and burned as a heretic, in the same thinking as the "Reformers" who later would do the same to those they disagreed with, like the anabaptists.

CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER & TABLE TALK AVENUE

Table Talk is a book published of some sayings of Martin Luther, on different subjects put together by some friends, Johannes Mathesius, J. Aurifaber, V. Dietrich, and Ernst Kroker, who listened to Luther during dinner at his home.  Luther, so venerated by Reformed groups, was not very tolerant of those who disagreed with him.   Luther was not a great defender of religious liberty, or, liberty of conscience.  He supported the idea that the government should enforce "true" doctrine and faith as he defined it.  It was with the anabaptists that he was particularly tough stating in a commentary on Psalm 82:

...he is forbidden to teach and blaspheme. For, by so doing, he would take from God and the Christians their doctrine and word, and he would do them this injury under their own protection and by means of the things that all have in common...Moses, in his Law, commands that such blasphemers and, indeed, all false teachers, are to be stoned. So, in this case, there ought not to be much disputing, but such open blasphemers should be condemned without a hearing and without defense, as Paul commands in Titus 3:10, “A heretic is to be avoided and let go, after he has been admonished once or twice”; and he forbids Timothy to wrangle and dispute, since this has no effect, except to pervert those who hear. For these common articles of the whole Church have had hearings enough; they have been proved and decreed by the Scriptures and by the confession of the whole Church, confirmed by many miracles, sealed by the blood of many holy martyrs, and are testified to and defended in the books of all the doctors. They need no more discussion and clever interpreting.

We doubt, Luther would have supported this same treatment of himself and his followers by the Roman Catholic Church.  He also had tremendous "toleration" of Jews.  In Table Talk CCCLV he states:

If a Jew, not converted at heart, were to ask baptism at my hands, I would take him on to the bridge, tie a stone round his neck, and hurl him into the river; for these wretches are wont to make a jest of our religion.

Old School Baptists have always supported full freedom of Religion, believing that God himself, as opposed to man and his fallible government, shall separate the wheat from the tares at the final judgment (Matthew 13:24-30):

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

ZWINGLI AVENUE

 Another Reformed hero is Huldrych Zwingli.  He, a "reformer" in Switzerland, also coming from the Roman Catholic Church, who, like Luther, was not a lover of those who questioned infant baptism.  Indeed, for him and no doubt Luther, they believed it was the duty of the state to enforce infant baptism.  In Zwingli's day, the state declared that anyone "rebaptizing", after repeated warnings imprisonment, and fines would suffer death.  One Felix Manz, after refusing to obey this law was pursued by the authorities.  One of his pursuers was in the process of drowning in a river.  Manz in an act of compassion, rescued him from death.  Because of this act of mercy, he was captured.  This is a record of his death:

On 7 March 1526, the Zürich council had passed an edict that made adult re-baptism punishable by drowning. On 5 January 1527, Manz became the first casualty of the edict, and the first Swiss Anabaptist to be martyred at the hands of magisterial Protestants. While Manz stated that he wished "to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His

Felix Manz

footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to purchase the rest in their present conviction", Zwingli and the council accused him of obstinately refusing "to recede from his error and caprice". At 3:00 p.m., as he was led from the Wellenburg to a boat, he praised God and preached to the people. A Reformed minister went along, seeking to silence him, and hoping to give him an opportunity to recant. Manz's brother and mother encouraged him to stand firm and suffer for Jesus' sake. He was taken by boat onto the River Limmat. His hands were bound and pulled behind his knees and a pole was placed between them. He was executed by drowning in Lake Zürich on the Limmat. His alleged last words were, "Into thy hands, O God, I commend my spirit." His property was confiscated by government of Zürich, and he was buried in the St. Jakobs cemetery.

Is this the glory of the Reformation that so many celebrate?  If so, then what glory should the Reformed Churches feel at this glorious act of stamping out "heretics"!  But, they must excuse us if we do not celebrate with them.  We ask those who esteem such men, to ask themselves this simple question, if a child of God is persecuted and even killed, is this not the same as persecuting and killing the Lord he follows?  Old School Baptists are instead taught by their Lord to pray for our enemies and those who despitefully use us.

KNOX AVENUE

John Knox (1513-1572) is another celebrated member of the Reformed ranks.  Here is another ardent "defender" of religious liberty, as he would have defined it - religious liberty for themselves and no others.  In a book titled, John Knox And The Reformation by Andrew Lang, in the chapter on John Knox and the Anabaptists: His Appeal to England 1558-1559, Lang recounts Knox's encounter with an anabaptist:

The Anabaptist whom Knox is discussing had been personally known to him, and had lucid intervals. "Your chief Apollos," he had said, addressing the Calvinists, "be persecutors, on whom the blood of Servetus crieth a vengeance. . . . They have set forth books affirming it to be lawful to persecute and put to death such as dissent from them in controversies of religion. . . . Notwithstanding they, before they came to authority, were of another judgment, and did both say and write that no man ought to be persecuted for his conscience' sake. . . ." {102a} Knox replied that Servetus was a blasphemer, and that Moses had been a more wholesale persecutor than the Edwardian burners of Joan of Kent, and the Genevan Church which roasted Servetus {102b} (October 1553). He incidentally proves that he was better than his doctrine. In England an Anabaptist, after asking for secrecy, showed him a manuscript of his own full of blasphemies. "In me I confess there was great negligence, that neither did retain his book nor present him to the magistrate" to burn. Knox could not have done that, for the author "earnestly required of me closeness and fidelity," which, probably, Knox promised. Indeed, one fancies that his opinions and character would have been in conflict if a chance of handing an idolater over to death had been offered to him. {102c}

This reformer was a man who relished burning "heretics" like us.  What a great example of his love for his brethren!  There is no record in history of any Baptist persecuting anyone for his beliefs.  But in the Reformed tradition, it is a tradition!  Where does Paul instruct the heathen to be burned?  Where does Peter ask for all who reject the gospel to be killed or handed over to the Romans?  As it turns out, most of these heretical anabaptists would have been our brethren.  The principle is the same thus far with all of these men, they wanted the government to enforce their religion on others on the pain of death!  We find that in this area, they have more in common with radical Islam than with any Christianity of the New Testament.

CROMWELL AVENUE
Oliver Cromwell was another famous hero of the Reformed faith in England in the 1600s.  He rose up to overthrow King Charles I and became Lord Protector of England.  He was indeed a predestinarian.  But, he suffered from the same viewpoint as his predecessors.  Anabaptists were considered heretics and although not persecuted during Cromwell's time they were merely "tolerated".  Cromwell did not believe in full religious liberty as was granted in the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution.  He suffered under the Arminian notion, that the government was responsible for stamping out heresy as it defined it.  As long as anabaptists or anyone else was "tolerated", they could be easily persecuted again should the winds of politics change!

Some Baptists did not trust Cromwell.  For example, one John Rogers at the end of a sermon was heard to pray:

...when absolute power shall be devolved into the hand of Christ; when we shall have no lord protector but our Lord Jesus Look in mercy upon thy saints att Windsor, that are imprisoned for the truth and the testimony of Jesus . . . Remember thy handmaid, who is brought to town, and threatned by the worldly powers, who crucify Christ Jesus in the spirit every day. Heare the blasphemies of the court, and regard their ridiculous pomp and vanity. And now Christ Jesus is proclaimed kinge, pour forth thy vials upon the worldly powers, the powers of Antichrist.

Cromwell believed that in declaring himself Lord Protector of England, he would be preserving the country until the time that Jesus would return as King and take the power from his hands.  To us, the Kingdom of our dear Lord is not of this world.  Obviously, Cromwell and his horde of followers believed differently.

WATSON AVENUE

Thomas Watson was an English Non-Conformist Puritan.  He was another lover of sprinkling babies.  He suffered persecution himself in England in 1651, having been imprisoned briefly due to a plot to replace Oliver Cromwell.

He also like most Puritans and Reformed Churches believed in the Arminian notion of a "Covenant of Works", which can be clearly seen in his book Body of Divinity:

He gave him a sparkling jewel, knowledge; and put upon him the garment of original righteousness; only, said he, touch not the tree of knowledge, for that is aspiring after omniscience. Adam had power to keep this law: he had the copy of God’s law written in his heart. This covenant of works had a promise annexed to it, and a threatening. 1. The promise was, ‘Do this and live.’ In case man had stood, it is probable he would not have died, but would have been translated to a better paradise. 2. The threatening, ‘Thou  shalt die the death;’ Heb. ‘In dying thou shalt die;’ that is, thou shalt die both a natural death and an eternal, unless some expedient be found out for thy restoration.

So Adam had righteousness?  Where in the text of Genesis does it state that?  We would love to see it.  It says that God looked at his creation including man and called it good.  Is good the same as righteous?  Were rocks and trees created with a righteousness then?  Imagine, if you do this you will live?  And then he speculates - speculates that "it is probable he would not have died, but would have been translated into a better paradise."  What nonsense!  What a departure from the text!  Man was created innocent.  He had no knowledge of good and evil how then could he know righteousness?

Before the world was made God had chosen some to election and others to damnation.  His fall from sin was predetermined by God.  Had he the ability to obey God?  Obviously not, because he disobeyed with his eyes fully open to the sin as Paul says Adam was not deceived.

Like most Reformers Watson believed that he could "win souls to Christ".  We would like to know where this much-beloved term of theirs is used in scripture.  Men do not win souls to Christ, Christ wins them to Himself!  And like all good Reformers, when they look inside their heart of hearts, they have the desire to IMPOSE their religion on others through the use of the government:

When a master in a family, by counsel and good example, labours to bring his servants to Christ; when a minister spends himself, and is spent, that he may win souls to Christ, and make the crown flourish upon Christ’s head; when the magistrate does not wear the sword in vain, but labours to cut down sin, and to suppress vice; this is to live to God, and this is glorifying God.

Thus Watson who speaks of election and predestination, wears two hats like most Reformers.  One is the predestination hat but then they quickly they speak of "winning souls" and "bringing" people to Christ.  Why not just abandon all aspects of predestination and join the Arminians?  One of the favorite phrases one hears reveals their inner heart: "Believe like a Calvinist but preach like an Arminian".

COTTON AVENUE

John Cotton was another confused Puritan, in the "finest" traditions of the Reformed faith.  Therefore, we would expect Cotton Avenue to be filled with a lot of potholes and sharp turns.  To show this, we have the comparison Wikipedia places between Cotton and his nearby Reformed ministers, defenders of election!

Cotton's theology espoused that a person is helpless to affect his own salvation, and instead is totally dependent on God's free grace. In contrast, most of the other New England ministers were "preparationists", espousing the view that morality and good works were needed to prepare one for God's salvation.

Such were these sound ministers of the Reformed traditions!  In case you've never heard of preparationism, we will explore it further:

Preparationism is the view in Christian theology that unregenerate people can take steps in preparation for conversion, and should be exhorted to do so. Preparationism advocates a series of things that people need to do before they come to believe in Jesus Christ, such as reading the Bible, attending worship, listening to sermons, and praying for the gift of the Holy Spirit.[1] By making use of these means of grace, a "person seeking conversion might dispose himself toward receiving God's grace.

To us, this seems like just plain Arminianism.  Some of the Reformed "divines" who held to such sentiments were:
1. Thomas Hooker (1586-1647)
2. Thomas Shepherd (1605-1649)
3. Solomon Stoddard (1643-1729)
4. William Shedd (1820-1894)
5. William Perkins (1558-1602)
6. William Ames (1576-1633)
7. Richard Sibbes (1577-1635)

We shall not go into any further detail on this topic except to say that Old School Baptists have never thought such ideas are biblical in any way.

One of the infamous deeds of the "Reverend Cotton" was the expulsion of a much better man than himself in a mid-New-England-winter in the middle of the night named Roger Williams for disagreeing with infant baptism and the mode of sprinkling as opposed to the biblical method of immersion.  Banished from the colony of Boston, Williams found refuge with the Narragansett Native Americans who took him and behaved in a more Christian manner than the Reformed Divines.  We were surprised that Williams, being from the Reformed tradition was not included in the game of Cavinopoly.  But no surprise that he is not welcome, he dared to question the infant baptism.

We also note that Cotton stayed and defended the Church of England as a true church, being a conforming Puritan.  Thus our esteemed hero of the Reformed faith believed that the King or Queen of England is the head of the church and can decide questions of doctrine.  It is no surprise then, that he also enlisted the government in the enforcement of "Christian truth"!

WHITEFIELD AVENUE

George Whitefield is considered by many one of the great evangelists of the 18th century.  He was of course a conforming Puritan which means he considered an earthy ruler like the Queen or King of England to be head of the church of Christ.  How this can be considered a biblical principle is beyond our poor comprehension abilities!
He was good friends with the Wesley brothers, James and Charles whom he met at Oxford University as students in an organization formed by the Wesleys, named "The Holy Club", the name, given to the weekly gathering by their enemies.  The purpose of this club was to form a "method" to be good Christians.  The mockers of the club made up a little song to mock the members.  From this came the name Methodists:

By rule they eat, by rule they drink,

By rule do all things but think.

Accuse the priests of loose behavior. 

To get more in the laymen's favor. 

Method alone must guide 'em all 

When themselves "Methodists" they call.

Whitefield who died an Anglican and therefore agreeing that the King of England was the head of the  Church of Christ was a founder of Methodism.  He believed in a method like John & Charles Wesley did.  He may have held to the "doctrines of Grace", but he essentially had already allowed Arminianism in the door.  From his inception in the Holy Club, he adhered to these 22 daily questions, we will place what we believe are scriptural answers after them:

1. Am I consciously or unconsciously creating the impression that I am better than I really am? In other words, am I a hypocrite? YES
2. Am I honest in all my acts and words, or do I exaggerate? YES
3. Do I confidentially pass on to another what was told to me in confidence? YES
4. Can I be trusted? NO 
5. Am I a slave to dress, friends, work, or habits? YES
6. Am I self-conscious, self-pitying, or self-justifying? YES
7. Did the Bible live in me today? NO
8. Do I give it time to speak to me everyday? NO
9. Am I enjoying prayer? NO
10. When did I last speak to someone else about my faith? NOT RECENTLY
11. Do I pray about the money I spend? VERY RARELY
12. Do I get to bed on time and get up on time? NO
13. Do I disobey God in anything? YES
14. Do I insist upon doing something about which my conscience is uneasy? NO
15. Am I defeated in any part of my life? YES
16. Am I jealous, impure, critical, irritable, touchy, or distrustful? YES
17. How do I spend my spare time? WASTEFULLY
18. Am I proud? YES
19. Do I thank God that I am not as other people, especially as the Pharisees who despised the publican? YES
20. Is there anyone whom I fear, dislike, disown, criticize, hold a resentment toward or disregard? If so, what am I doing about it? YES, NOT ENOUGH
21. Do I grumble or complain constantly? YES
22. Is Christ real to me? NOT AS REAL AS HE COULD BE

None of these questions are in themselves bad to ask.  Yet a true believer will always find failure in his life when he looks at his own works.  The interest in these questions daily betrays the need of the Old Man in us, to try to please God by our "good works".  Any works that we do cannot please God since they are tainted by sin even when prompted by the purest motives: 

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!  So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.  (Romans 7:21-25)

Like all other reformers before him, Whitefield believed in a Covenant of Works.  He mentions it in several of his sermons.  We have discussed this issue previously.

Whitefield also held to a "Family Religion".  For this idea he had to go back to the Old Testament in the assertion of Joshua that as for me and my house we shall serve the Lord, ignoring that the kind of service spoken about here was an external service of rituals and actions prescribed in the Mosaic Law, which in no way indicated a pure heart, or Job who offered burnt sacrifices for his sons (Job 1:5) as if today any of these things were in operation.  In Sermon 13 titled, The Great Duty of Family Religion, Whitefield states:

That it is the duty of every governor of a family to take care, that not not only he himself, but also that those committed to his charge serve the Lord.

Since no unregenerate can serve the Lord truly, we would be curious to know how any head of a family carries that impossible duty out!  Surely Whitefield is not talking about some outward futile show of worship done by ritual with an unbelieving heart?  This God rejects as worthless!  Yes, he can teach them scriptures from a young age; he can set a godly example;  he can speak to them of the great things God has done in his life; but we believe he can't make them serve the Lord.  We find that Noah who is called in II Peter 2:5 "a herald of righteousness" and who "by faith...being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household" (Hebrews 11:7).  So we should be surprised to read about Noah, who physically saved his family, and by Whitefield's account, should have performed the duty he speaks of toward his family, we read:

Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine hand knew what his youngest son had done to him... (Genesis 9:20-24)

What kind of godly behavior did all the teaching of Noah toward Ham accomplish?  Again in the case of Lot, who is called a righteous man (II Peter 2:7) and who according to Whitefield was "...a prophet to instruct...a priest to pray for and with...a king to govern, direct and provide..." his family, and also whose house was like "...a little parish, every governor (as was before observed) a priest, every family a flock: and if any of them perish through the governor's neglect, their blood will God require at his hands", how could Lot be still called righteous by the Lord if his daughters in desperation to conceive (Genesis 19:30ff) had sex with their father after they got him drunk?  So much for this idea of a family religion.  True religion happens when a person has a new birth and the seed of Christ is placed within him the hope of glory!  But as with all baby sprinklers, the attempt is made to have another's actions account for a new birth of the family!

Whitefield stated in a sermon The Indwelling of the Spirit, The Privilege of All Believers:

But though not many mighty, not many noble are called; and though it be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, yet even to you that are rich, do I know freely offer salvation by Jesus Christ, if you will renounce yourselves, and come to Jesus Christ as poor sinners..."

To this statement, we can best respond by quoting the words of an Old School Baptist preacher, Gilbert Beebe from an article published in the Signs of the Times, titled, A Sweet Savor Of Christ (November 15, 1839):

The gospel of Christ, differing widely from A. Fuller’s gospel, J. Wesley’s gospel, and from every false system, has no life to offer to the dead. The gospel of Christ, In its effects, is the very opposite in those that perish to what it is to them that are saved. To those that perish light is darkness, bitter is sweet, and sweet is bitter; to them the gospel is foolishness, yea, and all the things of the Spirit are foolishness, neither can they know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

SPURGEON RAILROAD

Even though this card is called the Spurgeon Sermon, on the board it takes the place of the railroad cards.  We think that is quite appropriate as will be shown, so, we shall call this card the Spurgeon railroad.

All the Calvinists like Spurgeon.  Why not?  Sadly, he was a Baptist and did not see the wisdom in baby sprinkling, but he was such a good public speaker that all could be forgiven.  But we asked to be excused, as we do not like to be taken for a ride.  Nevertheless, we shall try to ascertain where the Spurgeon train stops and its final destination.  Most are not aware that there are several Spurgeons, the early, middle, and late Spurgeon.  But the Spurgeon itinerary we are particularly interested in is one stop he makes - the atonement stop.  Speaking of I Timothy 2:4 in a sermon titled, Salvation by Knowing the Truth, he states:

You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” say they,—”that is, some men”: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” say they; “that is, some of all sorts of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all sorts of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men.

In accord with his essentially inconsistent views on the atonement he states about those who are damned:

Terrible as the truth is, yet is it certain from holy writ that there are men who, in consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Savior, will go away into everlasting punishment, where shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Strangely, Spurgeon seems to forget to mention the reason they will not believe according to scripture in John 12:40 despite seeing so many signs from Jesus: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."  This reveals the ultimate cause of their unbelief.

This is in agreement with the mighty Synod of Dort which all Calvinists hold as the bedrock of a limited atonement and TULIP which says:

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. (Article 3)

We find a very clear statement of Spurgeon's agreement with the Synod of Dordt in his Autobiography Volume 1, page 174:

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds.  I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy.  In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore.  There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all the world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Master’s law.  Once admit infinity into the matter and limit is out of the question.  Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice.  The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work. 

R.B. Kuiper source

“The blessings of common grace, although resulting only indirectly from the atonement, were most surely designed by God to result from the atonement. The design of God in the atoning work of Christ pertains primarily and directly to the redemption of the elect, but indirectly and secondarily it included all the blessings of common grace.”

Kuiper identifies several universal benefits of atonement, more than just common grace. For example, he says, and I agree: “That the universal, free offer of salvation is grounded in the atonement’s infinite sufficiency.” Let me read you some of Kuiper’s remarks on this. Remember he’s writing as an unapologetic Five Point Calvinist. He says, 

“At no time is the Gospel confined to any nation or for that matter, to any particular class of men. It’s intended for Jews, Greeks, Barbarians, and Scythians—Colossians 3:11. It comes to both the regenerate and the unregenerate, the elect and the non-elect. To say that such invitations as Isaiah 55:1 [you know ‘Ho every one that thirsteth’…and He quotes the whole verse and Matthew 11:28: “Come unto me all you that labor and are heavy laden…] to say that those are intended only for those who having been born-again by the grace of the Holy Spirit have come to realize their lost condition is to limit the meaning of Scripture without warrant.” He says: “Let it be said emphatically that the Reformed Theology does not teach, as some allege, that the Gospel invitation is only for the elect and the regenerate.”

NOTE: The Polemic Series are articles that are intended to show Old School Baptist Distinctives - the things that separate Old School Baptists from others calling themselves Christians.