Spurgeon on True Conversion

In his book, “The Forgotten Spurgeon,”  Iain Murray lists 7 marks of true conversion as C.H. Spurgeon thought of them. A rather profound way to consider the miracle of new birth.

1. When the Word of God converts a man, it takes away from him his despair but it does not take away from him his repentance.

2. True conversion gives a man pardon, but does not make him presumptuous.

3. True conversion gives a man perfect rest, but it does not stop his progress.

4.True conversion gives a man security, but it does not allow him to leave off being watchful.

5. True conversion gives a man strength and holiness, but it never lets him boast.

6. True conversion gives a man harmony to all the duties of Christian life…it balances all duties, emotions, hopes and enjoyments.

7. True conversion brings a man to live for God. He does everything for the glory of God,- whether he eats, or drink, or whatsoever he does. True conversion makes a man live before God…He desires to live as in God’s sight at all times, and he is glad to be there…And such a man now comes to live with god. He has blessed communion with him; he talks with him as a man talks with his friend. (p. 119-120)


Interpreting the Pauline Epistles

One of the most crucial points to remember in interpreting Paul’s Letters is that they were written to address specific situations. They are not systematic treatises intended to present a complete Christian theology. They are pastoral works in which Paul applies his theology to specific problems in the churches. Ephesians may be an exception to this rule, and some think that Romans is of a different character as well. Even these letters are not comprehensive treatises. For example, Romans is quite brief on the church, says nothing about the Eucharist, lacks the kind of developed christological statements that we find in Phil. 2:6–11 and Col. 1:15–20, and does not contain the detailed eschatology found in 1-2 Thessalonians.

Several examples reveal the circumstantial nature of the letters. Clearly Paul wrote Galatians because the Galatian churches were abandoning the Pauline gospel (Gal. 1:6–9; 5:2–6). He wrote Colossians to stave off a new heresy that had the potential of making inroads in the church (Col. 2:4–23). Various problems plagued the Corinthian church, and thus Paul wrote our two canonical letters to them. Philippians seems to have been written for several reasons. The church has sent Paul a gift, and he wants to express his thanks (1:3–8; 4:10–14). In addition, disunity was probably surfacing in the church (1:27–2:11; 4:2–3), and Paul wants to warn the church regarding the danger of false teachers (3:2–4:1). All of the Pastoral Letters (1-2 Timothy, Titus) were written to strengthen churches in healthy teaching because false teaching was threatening the churches.

The danger of reading Paul’s Letters as systematic treatises is that one might draw unwarranted conclusions from reading only one letter. For example, John Drane thought that Paul was a libertine in Galatians and a legalist in 1 Corinthians, since in the former Paul trumpets liberty from law and in the latter Paul lays down many specific rulings. Drane would certainly claim that he does not read the letters as systematic treatises; nevertheless, he has failed to see that Paul stresses liberty in Galatians because he is writing to a church that has been infected with legalism, and Paul highlights obedience in 1 Corinthians because he is writing to a church that has given full license to immoral behavior.42 Neither in Galatians nor in 1 Corinthians does Paul explain his full view of Christian obedience. Instead, he gives change-of-course directions to churches that are navigating in the wrong direction.

The interpreter, then, must always keep in mind the specific situation that Paul is addressing in his letters. Of course, one can find out what this situation is only by reading the letter itself. All we know about the adversaries in Galatians appears in the letter to the Galatians. We are at some disadvantage here because the Galatian churches understood perfectly the problem that Paul is addressing; they were experiencing it! Paul did not write the letter to those of us who live in the twenty-first century. From the evidence that we find in Paul’s Letters, we can only infer the precise nature of the problem in the churches to which he wrote. Morna Hooker has pointed out that hearing only Paul’s response to the problems is much like hearing only one end of a telephone conversation. Despite this disadvantage, the interpreter is wise who reconstructs from the letter itself the situation that was plaguing the church. Then the Pauline response can be grasped more clearly.

Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 30–32.