• 1858 — Spurgeon is 24 and makes his extremely strong anti-Arminian statement.
• 1862 — age 28, he says there is truth in both Calvinism and Arminianism.
• 1876 — age 42, he says the Calvinist is right on some points and the Arminian on others.
• 1881 — age 47, he says he is content being called an “Arminian Calvinist” or “Calvinistic Arminian,” provided he stays close to Scripture.

That and the below is adapted from Andrew Hnatiuk

This is what I mean when I talk about “early” and “late” Spurgeon.

When Spurgeon was a young pastor, taking over the now-famous New Park Street Chapel at just 19 years old, he could speak about Calvinism with remarkable certainty. At 22, he famously said:

“Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”

Two years later, at 24, he could say:

“A mutable god may be the god for the Arminian—he is not the god for me.”

But something changed as Spurgeon grew older.

As he matured in his faith, spent years shepherding a congregation, and rubbed shoulders with actual people in the pews, his language became considerably more nuanced. He didn’t simply abandon Calvinism, but he became increasingly unwilling to force every biblical text into a theological system.

At 28, he put it this way:

“There is some truth in Calvinism and some in Arminianism, and he who would hold the whole Truth of God must neither be cramped by the one system nor bound by the other, but take Truth wherever he can find it in the Bible.”

That is a significant change from the young Spurgeon who could confidently declare, “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”

And Spurgeon continued moving in this direction.

“Preaching Like an Arminian, but Sleeping as a Calvinist”

By 1876, at the age of 42, Spurgeon reflected on the long-running debate between Calvinists and Arminians and acknowledged that both sides had captured important truths—and that both sides had also fallen into error.

He wrote:

“There has long been a great doctrinal discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians upon many important points. I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both.”

Then he made the point even more plainly:

“If I was asked, ‘Why is a man damned?’ I should answer as an Arminian answers, ‘He destroys himself.’”

This is the Spurgeon I have in mind when I distinguish between early and late Spurgeon. The one who said in an 1863 sermon The Minister’s Stock-Taking contains language that sounds remarkably different from his 1858 rhetoric:

“Do I hear some one say, ‘Why, that is Arminianism!’ Precisely so.”

The older Spurgeon was still unmistakably Calvinistic in many respects, but he was increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that every biblical statement had to conform neatly to either the Calvinist or Arminian system.

“An Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian”

By 1881, Spurgeon was 47 years old, and his position had become even more explicit.

He had been called both “an Arminian Calvinist” and “a Calvinistic Arminian”—and, rather remarkably, he didn’t seem particularly bothered by either label.

Instead, his concern was whether his theology remained faithful to Scripture.

“What a host of revised versions we have! Everybody has one of his own. Certain texts which will not fit into our system must be planed and cut down. Have you ever seen the hard work that some Brethren have to shape a Scripture to their mind? One text is not Calvinistic, it looks rather Arminian—of course it cannot be so and, therefore, they twist and tug to get it right. As for our Arminian Brethren, it is wonderful to see how they hammer away at the 9th Chapter of Romans—steam-hammers and screw-jacks are nothing to their appliances for getting rid of Election from that chapter! We have all been guilty of racking Scripture, more or less, and it will be well to have done with the evil, forever! We had far better be inconsistent with ourselves than with the Inspired Word of God.”

And then Spurgeon gives us the key to understanding the whole progression:

“I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible. I desire to preach what I find in this Book whether I find it in anybody else’s book or not.”

That, to me, is the crucial distinction.

The question isn’t whether Spurgeon remained a Calvinist. Clearly, much of his theology remained deeply Calvinistic. The more interesting question is whether the later Spurgeon was willing to let Scripture challenge the boundaries of his theological system.

And by his own words, the answer appears to be yes.

He would rather be “inconsistent” with his theological system than inconsistent with the inspired Word of God.