Volume 10, Number 7, July 2007


“I too will have my say; I too will tell what I know.

For I am full of words, and the spirit within me compels me;

Inside I am like bottled-up wine, like new wineskins ready to burst.

I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply.

I will show partiality to no one.  Nor will I flatter any man.”

Job 32:17-21


“That which ordinary men are fit for I am qualified in, and the best of me is diligence.”

Earl of Kent

Shakespeare’s King Lear

Act I, scene iv, ll. 32-34


[“As I See It” is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek.  Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the Word of God.  The editor’s perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.


AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at: DKUTILEK@juno.com.  You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address.  Back issues sent on request.  All back issues may be accessed at http://www.KJVOnly.org]



“Fervent in Spirit, Serving the Lord”

Quotes from Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s

The Greatest Fight in the World


“On his knees, the believer is invincible.”

The Greatest Fight in the World, p. 5.


“Churches without prayer meetings are grievously common. . . . Believe me, if a church does not pray, it is dead.  Instead of putting united prayer last, put it first.  Everything will hinge upon the power of prayer in the church.”

Ibid., p. 43


We ought to have our churches all busy for God.  What is the use of a church that simply assembles to hear sermons, even as a family gathers to eat its meals?  What, I say, is the profit, if it does not work?  Are not many professors sadly indolent in the Lord’s work, though diligent enough in their own?  Because of Christian idleness we hear of the necessity of amusements [entertainments], and all sorts of nonsense.  If they were at work for the Lord Jesus we should not hear of this. . . .


Much needs to be done by a Christian church within its own bounds, and for the neighborhood, and for the poor and the fallen, and for the heathen world, and so forth; and if it is well attended to, minds and hearts and hands and tongues will be occupied, and diversions will not be asked for.  Let idleness come in, and that spirit which rules lazy people, and there will arise a desire to be amused.  What amusements they are, too!  If religion is not a farce with some congregations, at any rate they turn out better to see a farce than to unite in prayer.  I cannot understand it.


The man who is all aglow with love to Jesus finds little need for amusement.  He has no time for trifling.  He is in dead earnest to save souls, and establish the truth, and enlarge the kingdom of his Lord.  There has always been some pressing claim for the cause of God upon me; and, that settled, there has been another, and another, and another, and the scramble has been to find opportunity to do the work that must be done, and hence I have not had the time for gadding abroad after frivolities.


Oh, to get a working church!  The German [Baptist] churches, when our dear friend Mr. [Johann Gerhard] Oncken [1800-1884] was alive always carried out the rule of asking every member, ‘What are you going to do for Christ?’ and they put the answer down in a book.  The one thing that was required of every member was that he should continue doing something for the Saviour.  If he ceased to do anything it was a matter for church discipline, for he was an idle professor, and could not be allowed to remain in the church like a drone in a hive of working bees.  He must do or go.


Oh for a vineyard without a barren fig tree to cumber the ground!  At present the most of our sacred warfare is carried on by a small body of intensely living, earnest people, and the rest are either in hospital, or are mere camp followers.  We are thankful for the consecrated few; but we pine to see the altar fire consuming all that is professedly laid upon the altar.”

Ibid., pp. 43, 44-45; italics in original


We want a church of a missionary character, which will go forth to gather out a people unto God from all parts of the world.  A church is a soul-saving company, or it is nothing.”

Ibid., p. 46; bold-face added.


“We must not be content with holding our own; we must invade the territories of the prince of darkness.”

Ibid., p. 48



“Certain men might have been something if they had not thought themselves so.”

Ibid., p. 48


“A lazy minister is a creature despised by men, and abhorred of God. . . . Our people may justly expect of us, at the very least, that we should be among the most self-denying, the most laborious, and the most earnest in the church, and somewhat more.

Ibid., p. 49; italics in original


“Never call the Holy Spirit ‘it’; nor speak of him as if he were a doctrine, or an influence, or an orthodox myth.  Reverence him, love him, and trust him with familiar yet reverent confidence.  He is God; let him be God to you.”

Ibid., p. 57

[What a rebuke this is to those in the ”King-James-Only” camp who strive to defend the indefensible practice in the KJV of referring to the Holy Spirit as “it” four times (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11).  See " ‘The Spirit Itself,’ or, The Greatest Defect in the King James Version,” As I See It, vol. 2, no. 9, September, 1999]


“We ought to prepare the sermon as if all depended upon us, and then we are to trust the Spirit of God knowing that all depends on Him.”

Ibid., p. 62


[Note: it was the regular practice of Charles Spurgeon to address the attendees at the annual “Pastors’ College Conference” held at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.  These messages, aimed directly at preachers, serve in essence as companions to Spurgeon’s famous volume, Lectures to My Students, which is assuredly essential reading for every preacher of the Gospel.  A full dozen of these addresses, spanning 1872 to 1890, were compiled and published as An All-Round Ministry, a book beyond praise.  The last of Spurgeon’s conference addresses, delivered in 1891 (less than a year before his death), was published separately as The Greatest Fight in the World: Spurgeon’s Final Manifesto, from which the above quotations were taken.  All three of the these titles-- Lectures to My Students, An All-Round Ministry, and The Greatest Fight in the World have been re-issued in facsimile reprint form by Pilgrim Publications, PO Box 66, Pasadena, Texas 77501.  Their web address is: www.pilgrimpublications.com, and their e-mail address is: Pilgrimpub@aol.com.  If you do not own all three of these, or know a young preacher who needs a blessing, by all means honorable secure copies of these most valuable books---Editor]





Spurgeon on the Bible and Darwinism


Note: a reader from Indiana recently wrote inquiring as to whether Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) had ever directly addressed the subject of Darwinian evolution.   Since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published in England in 1859, only 5 years after Spurgeon began his London pastorate, and was the occasion of great and continuing controversy directly affecting the credibility of the Bible, it would be most surprising indeed if Spurgeon had not addressed the subject, and in fact he did so numerous times, always in strong opposition.  Our search turned up a number of quotes and references that should be of interest to the reader.  We reproduce a selection of these, without extended comment--Editor


On October 1, 1861, Spurgeon gave a popular lecture at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on the subject of the recently discovered African “gorilla” and its alleged evolutionary kinship to mankind; a full-sized stuffed gorilla shared the platform with Spurgeon.  Mrs. Spurgeon, in compiling the four-volume C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, devoted 8 pages in volume III (pp. 51-58) to this lecture and the controversy it stirred.  The following is an extract from the lecture:


He is an enormous ape, which claims to approach the nearest to man of any other creature.  How nearly he approaches, I leave you to judge.  True, his claim to be our first cousin is disputed (on behalf of the koolo-kamba [i.e., west African chimpanzee]), by several very learned men.  If we should, therefore, admit you (addressing the gorilla) to be man's first cousin, we fear that the koolo-kamba might institute a suit at law to claim equal rights, and so many cousins would be far from convenient.  Besides, I have heard that, if we should admit this  gentleman to be our cousin, there is Mr. Darwin, who at once is prepared to prove that that our great-grandfather's grandfather's father--keep on for about a millennium or two,--was a guinea-pig, and that we were ourselves originally descended from oysters, or seaweeds, or starfishes.


Now, I demur to that on my own account.  Any bearded gentleman here, who chooses to do so, may claim relationship with the oyster; and others may imagine that they are only developed gorillas; but I, for my own part, believe there is a great gulf fixed between us, so that they who would pass from us to you (again turning to the gorilla) cannot; neither can they come to us who would pass from thence.  At the same time, I do not wish to hold an argument with the philosopher who thinks himself related to a gorilla; I do not care to claim the honour for myself, but anyone else is perfectly welcome to it."


Seriously, let us see to what depths men will descend in order to cast a slur upon the Book of God.  It is too hard a thing to believe that God made man in his own image; but, indeed, it is philosophical to hold that  man is made in the image of a brute, and is the offspring of ‘laws of development


O infidelity! thou art a hard master, and thy taxes on our faith are far more burdensome than those which Revelation has ever made.  When we have more incredulity than superstition can employ, we may leap into infidel speculation, and find a fitting sphere for the largest powers of belief.  But who can deny that there is a likeness between this animal and our own race? . . . There is, we must confess, a wonderful resemblance,--so near that it is humiliating to us, and therefore, I hope, beneficial.  But while there is such a humiliating likeness, what a difference there is!  If there should ever be discovered an animal even more like man than this gorilla is; in fact, if there should be found the exact facsimile of man, but destitute of the living soul, the immortal spirit, we must still say that the distance between them is immeasurable.


C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography

London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1899

Vol. III, p. 354


In the final volume of the autobiography, Mrs. Spurgeon inserted her late husband’s reply to a letter inquiring about evolution, followed by his response to a question from a student regarding the same:


Westwood, February 5, 1887  


Dear Sir:


 Thanks for your most excellent and courteous letter.  I have read a good deal on the subject, and have never yet seen a fact, or the tail of a fact, which indicated the rise of one species of animal from another. The theory has been laid down, and facts fished up to support it.  I believe it to be a monstrous error in philosophy, which will be a theme for ridicule before another twenty years.


In theology, its influence would be deadly; and this is all I care about. On the scientific matter, you do well to use your own judgment.


 The Lord bless you, and lead you into His truth more and more!


Yours heartily,

C. H. Spurgeon


At one of the memorable gatherings under "The Question Oak" [a tree in the yard of Spurgeon's home where he and his students gathered on Fridays], a student asked Mr. Spurgeon, "Are we justified in receiving Mr. Darwin's or any other theory of evolution?"


The President's [Spurgeon's] answer was:


"My reply to that enquiry can best take the form of another question--Does Revelation teach us evolution?  It never has struck me, and it does not strike now, that the theory of evolution can, by any process of argument, be reconciled with the inspired record of the Creation.  You remember how it is distinctly stated, again and again, that the Lord made each creature 'after its kind.'  So we read, 'And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.'  And again, 'And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.'


Besides, brethren, I would remind you that, after all these years in which so many people have been hunting up and down the world for 'the missing link' between animals and men, among all the monkeys that the wise men have examined, they have never discovered one who has rubbed his tail off, and ascended in the scale of creation so far as to take his place as the equal of our brothers and sisters of the great family of mankind.  Mr. Darwin has never been able to find the germs of an Archbishop of Canterbury in the body of a tom cat or a billy goat, and I venture to prophesy that he will never accomplish such a feat as that.


There are abundant evidences that one creature inclines towards another in certain respects, for all are bound together in a wondrous way which indicates that they are all the product of God's creative will; but what the advocates of evolution appear to forget is, that there is nowhere to be discovered an actual chain of growth from one creature to another,--there are breaks here and there, and so many missing links that the chain cannot be made complete.  There are, naturally enough, many resemblances between them, because they have all been wrought by the one great master-mind of God, yet each one has its own peculiarities.  The Books of Scripture are many, yet the Book, the Bible, is one; the waves of the sea are many, yet the sea is one; and the creatures that the Lord has made are many, yet the Creation is one.


Look at the union between the animal and the bird in the bat or in the flying squirrel; think of the resemblance between a bird and a fish in the flying fish; yet, nobody, surely, would venture to tell you that a fish ever grew into a bird, or that a bat ever became a butterfly or an eagle.  No; they do not get out of their own spheres.  All the evolutionists in the world cannot 'improve' a mouse so that it will develop into a cat, or evolve a golden eagle out of a barn-door fowl.  Even where one species very closely resembles another, there is a speciality about each which distinguishes it from all others."


I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine.  In this evil age, there is apparently nothing that a man cannot believe; he can believe, ex animo [Latin for “from the heart”], the whole 'Prayer-book' of the Church of England!  It is pretty much the same with other matters; and after all, the greatest discoveries made by man must be quite babyish to the infinite mind of God.  He has told us all that we need to know in order that we may become like Himself, but He never meant us to know all that He knows.”

C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography

London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1899

Vol. IV, pp. 133-4


The worst sort of clever men are those who know better than the Bible and are so learned that they believe the world had no Maker, and that men are only monkeys with their tails rubbed off.  Dear, dear me, this is the sort of talk we used to expect from Tom of Bedlam, but now we get it from clever men.  If things go on in this fashion a poor ploughman will not be able to tell which is the lunatic and which is the philosopher.

Charles H. Spurgeon

John Ploughman’s Pictures

Pilgrim Publications, 1974, p. 84


Do I hear someone say, ‘But still you must submit to the conclusions of science’?  No one is more ready than we are to accept the evident facts of science.  But what do you mean by science?  Is a thing called ‘science’ infallible?  Is it not science ‘falsely-so-called’?  The history of that human ignorance which calls itself ’philosophy’ is absolutely identical with the history of fools, except where it diverges into madness.


If another Erasmus were arise and write the history of folly, he would have to give several chapters to philosophy and science, and those chapters would be more telling than any others.  I should not myself dare to say that philosophers and scientists are generally fools; but I would give them liberty to speak to one another, and at the close I would say, ‘Gentlemen, you are less complimentary to each other than I should have been.’ 


I would let the wise of each generation speak of the generation that went before it, or nowadays each half of a generation might deal with the previous half generation; for there is little of theory in science today which will survive twenty years, and only a little more which will see the first day of the twen[t]ieth century. 


We travel now at so rapid a rate that we rush by sets of scientific hypotheses as quickly as we pass telegraph posts when riding in an express train.  All that we are certain of to-day is this, that what the learned were sure of a few years ago is now thrown into the limbo of discarded errors. 


I believe in science, but not what is called ‘science.’  No proven fact in nature is opposed to revelation.  The pretty speculations of the pretentious we cannot reconcile with the Bible, and would not if we could.  I feel like the man who said, ‘I can understand in some degree how these great men found out the weight of the stars, and their distances from one another, and even how, by the spectroscope, they have discovered the materials of which they are composed; but,’ said he, ‘I cannot guess how they found out their names.’   Just so. 


The fanciful part of science, so dear to many, is what we do not accept.  That is the important part of science to many--that part which is a mere guess, for which the guessers fight tooth and nail.  The mythology of science is as false as the mythology of the heathen; but this is the thing which is made a god of.  I say again, as far as it facts are concerned, science is never in conflict with the truths of Holy Scripture, but the hurried deductions drawn from those facts, and the inventions classed as facts, are opposed to Scripture, and necessarily so, because falsehood agrees not with truth.


Two sorts of people have wrought great mischief, and yet they are neither of them worth being considered as judges in the matter: they are both of them disqualified.  It is essential that an umpire should know both sides of a question, and neither of these is thus instructed.  The first is the irreligious scientist.  What does he know about religion?  What can he know?  He is out of court when the question is--Does science agree with religion?  Obviously he who would answer this query must know both of the two things in the question.


The second is a better man, but capable of still more mischief.  I mean the unscientific Christian, who will trouble his head about reconciling the Bible with science.  He had better leave it alone, and not begin his tinkering trade.  The mistake made by such men has been that in trying to solve a difficulty, they have either twisted the Bible, or contorted science.  The solution has soon been seen to be erroneous, and then we hear the cry that Scripture has been defeated.  Not at all; not at all.  It is only a vain gloss upon it which has been removed.


Here is a good brother who writes a tremendous book to prove that the six days of creation represent six great geological periods; and he shows how the geological strata, and the organisms thereof, follow very much in the order of the Genesis story of creation.  It may be so, or it may not be so; but if anybody should before long show that the strata do not lie in any such order, what would be my reply?  I should say that the Bible never taught that they did.  The Bible said, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’  That leaves any length of time for your fire-ages and your ice-periods, and all that, before the establishment of the present age of man [note: we expressly deny this is a legitimate possible interpretation--editor].  Then we reach the six days in which the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh day.  There is nothing said about long ages of time, but, on the contrary, ‘the evening and the morning were the first day,’ ‘the evening and the morning were the second day’; and so on.


I do not lay down any theory, but simply say that if our friend’s great book is all fudge, the Bible is not responsible for it.  It is true that this theory has an appearance of support from the parallelism which he makes out between the organic life of the ages and that of the seven days, but this may be accounted for from the fact that God usually follows certain order whether he works in long periods or in short ones.  I do not know, and I do not care, much about the question; but I want to say that, if you smash up an explanation you must not imagine that you have damaged the Scriptural truth which seemed to require the explanation.  You have only burned the wooden palisades with which well-meaning men thought to protect an impregnable fort which needed no such defense.


For the most part, we had better leave a difficulty where it is, rather than make another difficulty by our theory.  Why make a second hole in the kettle, to mend the first, especially when the first hole is not there at all, and needs no mending?   Believe everything in science which is proved; it will not come to much.  You need not fear that your faith will be overburdened.  And then believe everything which is clearly in the Word of God., whether it is proved by outside evidence or not.  No proof is need when God speaks.  If he hath said it, this is evidence enough.

Charles H. Spurgeon

The Greatest Fight in the World:

Spurgeon’s Final Manifesto,

Pilgrim Publications, 1990, pp. 29-33


This [divinely-] illuminated man sees God, whom ordinary human eyes can never see.  He looks back into the ages past and gone, and he sees God making all the worlds that ever existed; while those, who are reckoned wise men, but who are without that light, spin ingenious but worthless theories about how those worlds grew.  These men have such wonderful theories that it really seems surprising that they do not themselves make a few worlds since they profess to have found out so many ways of making them.  But the opened eye sees ‘that the worlds were framed by the word of God’ and it sees God’s hand in all the histories of all the centuries.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,

 vol. 48 (1902), p. 65


Look at the gentlemen who now tell us that the gospel is a failure.  They are the successors of those who have risen up, one after the other; whose principal object has been to refute all that went before them.  They call themselves philosophers; and, as I have often said, the history of philosophy is a history of fools, a history of human folly.  Man has gone from one form of philosophy to another, and every time that he has altered his philosophy, he has only made a slight variation in the same things.  Philosophy is like a kaleidoscope.  The philosopher turns it round, and exclaims that he has a new view of things.  So he has: but all that he sees is a few bits of glass, which alter their form at every turn of the toy.  If any of you shall live fifty years, you will see that the philosophy of today will be a football of contempt for the philosophy of that period.  They will speak, amidst roars of laughter, of evolution; and the day will come, when there will not be child but will look upon it as the most foolish notion that ever crossed the human mind.  I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I know what has befallen many of the grand discoveries of the great philosophers of the past, and I expect that the same thing will happen again.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,

 vol. 38 (1892), p. 221


Another fine theory of modern times is disproved by our text [Mark 7:20-23].  According to this evolution doctrine, as applied to theology, the new birth is a development of that which is naturally within the heart.  I hope we may be spared such births and evolutions.  According to this theory we have had some fine specimens of regenerate people of late; for we have heard of evolutions or developments which have brought out from within evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, and wickednesses of more than average proportions.  God save us from all development of sin which dwells in man!


Philosophically, the dogma of evolution is a dream, a theory without a vestige of proof.  Within fifty years, children in the school will read of extraordinary popular delusions, and this will be mentioned as one of the most absurd of them.  Many a merry jest will be uttered bearing upon the follies of science in the nineteenth century.  In its bearing upon religion, this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree.  There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail; but it rends and tears the simple ones.  In all its bearings upon scriptural truth the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it.  If God’s word is true, evolution is a lie.  I will not mince the matter; this is not a time for soft speaking.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,

 vol. 32 (1886), p. 403


The philosophy now in vogue labours to shut God out of his own creation.  They inform us that by some means this world and all that is therein were evolved.  Even this will not long content the men of progress: they care nothing for evolution in itself, but only so far as it may serve their purpose of escaping from the thought of God.  If by some method or other vain men could scheme a world without a God, they would be delighted, and the philosopher who comes nearest to the invention of a subtle lie which will justify their forgetfulness of God is the prince of the hour, the favourite of his age.  Yes, God must be obliterated somehow, for ‘the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.’

Charles H. Spurgeon

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,

 vol. 32 (1886), p. 495

Italics added


We have little sympathy with long and elaborate attempts to reconcile the discoveries of geology with the Mosaic narrative of creation . . . The attempt to discover six periods of some millions of years in geological records, answering to the six days of the Mosaic creation, supposes an intention in Scripture to teach geology . . . We protest too against an allegorical interpretation of what is narrated as literally true as calculated to mystify our views and weaken our faith at the commencement of our Bibles in all that is to follow.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Review of The Twin Records of Creation, or Geology and Genesis

Published in Spurgeon’s monthly magazine,

The Sword and the Trowel, 1876, p. 43

(quoted from Eric Hayden, The Unforgettable Spurgeon, p. 207)


Geology or no geology, the Mosaic narrative is to be taken, we conceive, in its own common-sense meaning.  If there had been no geological science there would have been no attempt to explain away the six natural days of the present creation; nor is geology benefited, while Scripture is grossly mutilated by it.  No sooner are we out of this mist and away from the symbolical shadow that is cast over the simple narrative of the Bible, than we enter upon the clear perspective which it is our author’s chief aim to place before us.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Review of The Ages Before Moses

The Sword and the Trowel, 1880, p. 484

(quoted from Eric Hayden, The Unforgettable Spurgeon, p. 207)


We have not included here everything by Spurgeon on evolution that we have come across.  A thorough survey and analysis of Spurgeon’s views of Darwinism would make a suitable topic for a Master’s thesis, we would think. 


One notable compilation of Spurgeon’s statements, comments and reviews regarding Darwinism is “C. H. Spurgeon’s Defense Against Darwin’s ‘Evolution Theory’ of Mankind” by Michael Ross of Pilgrim Publications, and is found posted at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/darwin.htm.  Other sources from which we drew some of our references were: The Unforgettable Spurgeon by the late Eric Hayden (Emerald House / Ambassador Publications, 1997), pp. 207-8; and Kerry James Allen, editor, Exploring the Mind and Heart of the Prince of Preachers: Five-thousand illustrations under one-thousand headings from the works of C. H. Spurgeon (Fox River Press, 2005), pp. 149-150; additional references can be located in these--editor





Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.  Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books 1999.  144 pp., paperback.


This brief and readily understandable volume is a response to the National Academy of Sciences’ (U.S.) educator’s guidebook Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, which is scarcely more than a book on “methods” of propagandizing for naturalistic evolution.”  Sarfati, a native Australian with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and an increasingly prolific pen, exposes the misinformation, distortion, selective ignoring of evidence, and summary dismissal of all criticisms of Darwinism contained in the NAS’ publication.  Frequently quoting committed evolutionists themselves as “expert witnesses”, Sarfati exposes the massive holes and gaps in the “case” for Darwinism, and presents a solid case for intelligent design and young earth creationism.  We readily recommend the book to anyone high school and up with an interest in the facts about and failings of the evolutionary hypothesis.


We shall be reading more by Sarfati in the future.

---Doug Kutilek